Comments on: CRU Hack: The Latest

By: CST

CST — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:54:17 +0000

Jallen, from an IT perspective I would bet a computer was compromised by some form of malware that allowed a backdoor to be opened up. Once your on the same network as that email/file server. You’d be amazed how poor information security is at “institutions”.

By: bilbo

bilbo — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:02:37 +0000

It was a closed-loop system comprised of several dozen researchers in an incestuous, self-affirming academic relationship.

Please tell me “it” doesn’t refer to “climate research” in that quite, jallen (I love dangling promouns – they’re so…vague!!). ’cause if it does, you need to learn a LOT about who is doing climate research and how it’s being done. (Hint: it’s not just “several dozen researchers” who all know each other).

Try again.

By: jallen

jallen — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:36:26 +0000

Any data that did not corroborate the pre-conceived conclusion was presumed to be false. Instead, the model is assumed to be correct and the data is assumed to be in error.

However, data fabrication and algorithm manipulation are not the only important issues here:

The travesty is that they were peer-reviewing each other’s work! They had control of their own process. It was a closed-loop system comprised of several dozen researchers in an incestuous, self-affirming academic relationship.

Also…

Consider – The emails were not a result of a hacker’s activity. They were also not going to be produced under a FOIA request.

Rather, they are the residual emails comprising those which had already been *sanitized* from the CRU systems to illegally prepare an incomplete reponse for a future (likely successful) FOIA request.

Note that there is a very small percentage of personal chatter that typically make up close colleague’s communication. Therefore, it points to a previous culling.

Theory: These are deleted emails from a sanitized batch which were foolishly or purposely archived and/or discovered by an insider (perhaps the sanitizer himself). The insider then had pangs of conscience or an axe to grind and released them surreptitiously.

By: bilbo

bilbo — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:26:42 +0000

Thoughtcrime is enough when you’ve got a predetermined conclusion to reinforce.

For the rest of us: not so much.

By: observer

observer — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:07:50 +0000

Jinchi wins this argument. Well stated and thoughtful.

By: TTT

TTT — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:19:29 +0000

Suggested? No, he was asked and replied that he would

And there’s no proof he DID. So you’ve got nothing, except thoughtcrime.

By: bilbo

bilbo — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:58:04 +0000

I was able to reverse engineered the East Anglia CRU Scientific Methodology from the procedures documented in the purloined e-mails and code

But alas, you’re unable to engineer the most basic rules of English grammar.

Predictable? Yes.

By: mw

mw — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:41:11 +0000

So Phil Jones stepped aside as ~~Director~~ High Priest of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit pending an investigation. Well, if his GW warming projections don't hold up, at least he knows that his legacy will live on with his groundbreaking New & Improved CRU Scientific Method. I was able to reverse engineered the East Anglia CRU Scientific Methodology from the procedures documented in the purloined e-mails and code. It is clear to me that they have built on the work of maverick chemist Theodore Hapner, who revolutionized thinking about the scientific method in 2006. Godspeed Phil Jones.

By: some guy

some guy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:36:32 +0000

wow, learn statistical analysis before commenting =__=

4, 5, or 6 dots on your graph don’t mean much of front of 1000.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:21:25 +0000

Wow, Jon, you’re pretty angry.

If I am, Doug, why do you think that might be?