Re: Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

["David Lodge" <dave () cirt net>]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:15 -0000, RandallM <randallm () fidmail com> wrote:
> someone better look in to the the "tree rings". That seems to be the
> cause of the debacle.
> perhaps the reason for the "blow up and hack". Didn't seem to
> correlate with their plans.

And the whole principle is nicely explained by the reg:  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

In essence, the majority of the used datasets for tree rings come from  
just 12 trees in a small area of Siberia, and, as we know, the whole world  
has a similar climate to Siberia. Climate never changes in one region and  
the whole world is *exactly* like Siberia.

I take a "may be persuaded-sceptical" view of climate change: there's  
definitely a definitive agenda being followed with a bias towards  
pro-climate change in the media (especially the BBC - any anti-climate  
change views are put as "look at these idiots") and the science community  
as a whole. Scientists have been ridiculed just for voicing an opposing  
theory to climate change being caused by human released carbon  
derivatives[1][2].

What we're seeing is a one sided argument, with no dissenters *allowed* to  
put forward theories or opinions and as much fervour been cast against  
them as in the average Dawkins-followers rant against religion. In simple  
essence: the study of global climate is a vastly complicated field, for  
which we're getting better, but most of the time we don't know enough.  
We're looking at very small datasets, with very small timescales and  
guessing. In every other field of science, different theories would be put  
forward[3] and tested. In climatology, the "correct" theory has already  
been decided and any dissenting views are automatically wrong.

In terms of whether the hack/leak was right. Maybe:

Legally, it is wrong. If it was a hack, it is against the UK CMA  
(criminal), if it was an insider leak then there's several criminal or  
civil laws that it could've breached.

Ethically and morally is on shaky ground. The CRU has a history of  
deliberately avoiding releasing information and being obtrusive. It has  
refused many FOI requests for reasonable data and has tried to backtrack  
on it's own errors (e.g. when it accidentally left data on an anonymous  
ftp account), which automatically makes them look in the wrong. But, two  
wrongs don't make a right; in a perfect world, the FOI should have been  
handled by the Information Commissioner, but in the real world, he is  
pretty toothless and left to his management the information wouldn't have  
seen the light of day.

I draw the comparison here to the MPs expenses scandal: the legal ways had  
been tried and rejected. The IC was toothless. Leaked data finally showed  
that dodgy things were being done and forced *all* the data into the  
public domain which may even lead to prosecution for several MPs.

dave

[1] It's not just CO2, methane is just as bad.
[2] I despair when I hear "plans" being put forward by the governments -  
most of them are next to useless; even climate change is being caused by  
humans: if you have to make a difference, start at the top, with things  
like underground coal fires or cow belches, not at the bottom with sodding  
mobile phone chargers being left plugged in!
[3] E.g. solar activity, solar magnetic strength ad nauseam.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.