NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 236 of 323 < 1 2 ... 234 235 236 237 238 ... 322 323 >
Topic Options
#1115615 - 19/07/2012 21:10 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Arnost]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
wink grin
Thanks Arnost;
I'm quite sure that _PG_ who is apparently very au fait with the BOM's metadata base will now keep us well informed of numerous ongoing changes to the metadata of the 20,000 plus stations going back to the mid 1800's that the BOM has in it's data base.

[ ref; Adelaide West Terrace. page 9. ]

Top
#1115618 - 19/07/2012 21:34 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: ROM]
Bello Weather Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/07/2012
Posts: 358
Loc: Bellingen NSW 2454
Oh please take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. You really think that someone is sitting in an office making all these changes to fit some unseen agenda? There are some great people working for the BoM and if any of them read some of the crap on here they must hold their heads in wonder. Why on earth do you think someone would make all those changes...don't you see how stupid it looks when you get out of the closed world of this forum and look a little more objectively.
Sure you can post 1000 links on here from all sorts of other conspiracy sites but that doesn't make it real.
_________________________
www.bellingenweather.org

Top
#1115622 - 19/07/2012 22:12 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654

Good post CS. And to think that the Weatherzone gets all of their data from the BOM yet they tolerate all of these BOM bashing posts...
_________________________

Top
#1115624 - 19/07/2012 22:26 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
If you think that pointing out an obvious error is some conspiracy ... Well ... It ain't me who's got issues.

If I was Blair, I'd have a good look at how my algorithm managed to decrease a temperature by 2 degrees. The old and new sites are essentially the same so an adjustment of that magnitude is of concern.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115627 - 19/07/2012 22:55 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
CS, the BOM makes those changes to the metadata because that is required to understandably keep both their current data base up to date and to add from the written records to the electronic metadata base to upgrade the known qualities of those older stations and the limitations or otherwise of the records from those older stations, the older records.

In this case in the last few posts nobody is talking about conspiracies at the BOM at all.

You seem to have totally missed the [ sarc ] nuances of the last few threads and it actually had nothing to do with the BOM at all and everything to do with PG's outlandish, as usual, statements, this time on the BOM's metadata and our apparent ignorance of the BOM's station metadata.

Thirdly, I am one of an older generation but as a layman I have had a fair bit to do with scientists and even BOM and CSIRO people in my lifetime as I was a trustee for 28 years of the land on which is built one of the largest Ag research establishments in Australia.
I have also been on various research organisations and a few of my good friends are scientists including one good friend who sits on a number of the top world Ag committees and holds about 4 degrees including a couple of doctorates.

So I know that scientists are just ordinary human beings with all the qualities and faults of any human being, who like a business man or a farmer has decided to pursue a particular profession as their life's work.
They are no different to any other human being and they most definitely are not gods although some of them are inclined to think they are as scientists have been placed on a high pedestal by the public for a century now.

And then in 1991 came Tim Berner Lee's "World Wide Web" [ look it up in Wiki ] which gave the internet it's reason for being, arguably an advance in civilisation that one day will be ranked along with Johannes Gutenberg's invention of printing which finally allowed the masses to get access to a fantastic store of knowledge because books suddenly became relatively cheap and those who could afford the new books bought, read, wrote and published those books and the knowledge they contained across the civilisations.

The internet and the WWW is an advance which in it's own way is just as big a jump in the global knowledge base of the world's citizens as was Gutenbeg's invention 500 years ago of the moveable print and the invention of mass printing.
But for so many parts of our society, including science, the internet and the Web is a two edged sword, particularly for politics, economics and for science as for the very first time, the ordinary man / woman can get immediate access to a vast store of scientific knowledge.
They can see that what they have been told may very well have been heavily challenged or even disproved by scientists elsewhere. They can see the faults and stupidity of those ordinary people we call scientists when they measure their own [ life time ] knowledge against what some scientists are supposedly claiming.
They can see the stupid mistakes that are made and they have almost immediate access to somebody, somewhere or a another group who has the knowledge and experience to counter or uphold the claims of science and scientists.

As I said above, scientists have been placed on a high public pedestal for over a century now and particularly after WW2 when the public were told over and over again how science and scientists had so much to do with the successes of both the allies and the axis powers in that conflict.
And then in 1968 and into the early 1970's, scientists or so the public believed but it was engineers in reality, landed men on the Moon 6 times and brought them all home again.
Science and scientists got ever more support from the public through their taxes and in return and this is important point relating to my further comments, the contract was that science and scientists would create and provide ever better and improved living standards for the rest of the world's peoples.
In return they were supported by the public, lavishly in some cases, and were mostly free to follow the dictates of their own curiosity to whatever goal they may have aimed for.

Until only a decade and a half ago scientists and science filled that role admirably and then along came the Great Global Warming Scam.

And subtly and quite unexpectedly, scientists, a goodly section of them, suddenly became not the creators of a new and better world that their society that supported them believed they were destined to expect from science but those scientists became the accusers of that society in that they blamed the people, the ordinary tax paying citizens who had and still did support them and who merely wanted a better life, for the great oncoming but never arriving Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

A lot of those same citizens, now the skeptics and increasing in numbers, did not take kindly to being accused by scientists as being the wreckers of the planet.
And so the work of the scientists started to come under a great deal of scrutiny for the first time ever thanks to the extraordinary reach and penetration of internet and the WWW .
And many did not like and do not like what they saw or are seeing in science nor have many other scientists also liked what they are seeing in some science disciplines.

Science and scientists are being dragged down off that high public pedestal now through the stupidity of the corrupted activities and excesses of climate warming science and science is steadily being brought to heel by an increasingly well informed lay science public via the internet for the first time ever.
Science is changing but we are only just at the start of those changes, the effects of which will take a couple of generations to work through.

If your own sensibilities regarding the exalted status in which you might hold all scientists have been upset by my and others castigating of some science and scientists then I think you should get real about scientists who are just ordinary human beings with all the good and bad qualities and faults that humans have.
There are those among them who are just as corrupt, just as avaricious and just as power hungry as any other section of society.

If you don't understand and realise that then you will be very deeply disillusioned sometime in the years ahead as the internet continues to open science up to intense scrutiny in a way that nobody has ever foreseen or has ever been done before.

Top
#1115630 - 19/07/2012 23:20 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: __PG__]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: __PG__
Originally Posted By: marakai

I note you don't mention the actual issues at all just the perception that only space cadets question the record.

The only 'issues' are created by amateur Excel warriors and lunatic conspiracy theorists who know nothing about geospatial science.

They don't understand what they are attempting to criticise. All they can do is throw their hands in the air and claim 'it's all a conspiracy'.

Here is a perfect example


PG if in fact it is true that the only issues are to do with those who do not understand what they are criticising why then is it possible for BOM to publish their new temperature record with numerous maximum temperature's lower than the minimum for the same place on the same day?

Why is it that the BOM's adjustments lower the past temperature record and raise the recent as shown numerous times such as in Darwin, Alice, Cairns etc etc ?

And if in fact the BOM are so reliable why is there a need at all to produce a NEW temperature record such as ACORN ? Let's not forget that the HQ record is/was the one with which global warming was/is compared to and which shows a recent rise in temperature.

You have already been shown at least one example of an FOI request being made prior to BOM starting work on the new ACORN record and no doubt there are many more yet you persist with the theory that there is/was no problem with the adjustments being made to the raw data.

Concern about the official record is not something new at all PG
Quote:
Warwick subsequently had the following papers published and a few more rejected, perhaps because they questioned the orthodoxy.

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320. [Abstract]

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at [2]http://www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

In year 2005, the Global Warming discussion was leading to many unscientific statements. I became involved, writing a letter to the national newspaper here. ‘The Australian’ 15 February 2006:

“THERE is an excellent argument for curbing the public statements of scientists like those from CSIRO, a former employer of mine. Scientists, like the public, cover a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are based on emotion rather than science.

An example is the selection of Australian weather recording sites used to construct the temperature measurements of the continent, which play a big part in southern hemisphere weather models. From the beginning, most sites that showed little or no temperature rise or a fall from, say, the 1880s to now were rejected. The few sites selected to represent Australia were mainly from capital cities and under suspicion for “heat island” effects. I could give example after example as it was one of my employment functions to distill the best results from the bogus on many mattersrelated to energy/greenhouse/nuclear etc. I found few truly objective submissions among those masquerading as science.” Geoffrey H Sherrington.

This created a storm, because the Climatic Age of Innocence in Australia was again under threat.


http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/that-fa...arming-skeptic/

And just how are those Desal plants going and endless droughts based on predictions from the likes of BOM and CSIRO ?

Like it or not PG there are some "issues" with the historical temperature record of Australia that need's serious looking at.

If people are happy enough to accept what they are told by the powers that be (Government body's)as truthful science and in turn happy to have the government policy of their country based on that information then they deserve what they get.

But so far as I am still aware I do live in a democracy and I reserve the right to question what I am being told by both the Government and their institutions, wholly funded and paid for with my tax dollars. I want value for my hard earned money and I want to know that what I am being told is the truth, not policy based interpretations of the truth that support the mantra of the Government but solid fact based Science.

And here's the real kicker PG, if a bunch of self funded armchair bloggers can drive a hole big enough to drive a mining truck thru the so called solid science of the Government funded big boy's then there are some "real issues" with it. This is not recent history either, you can bury your head in the sand and quote Al Gores gospel till the cow's come home but people are waking up to the fact that they are being sold a lie that they have to pay for.

The big thing is that the Government and the Institutions hide behind the authority of law and policy assuming that they are beyond reproach, while people like yourself support them and assume a higher moral ideology thru association of shared purpose. On the ground in the real world others are not so naive and ask questions that when ignored make them yet more curious to find answers. Unlike the majority they are independent thinkers who refuse to accept flippant strawmen as adequate reasoning for unreasonable action and keep asking why.

These people refuse to accept post modern science as an answer to rational well grounded questions and care not if they go against the grain of authority or well funded activist groups, they just seek ANSWERS that are to be found in REAL SCIENCE.

As of right now there is no proof, no strong evidence, nor even one scientific paper to show that man made production of Carbon Dioxide is responsible for any warming in the last two century's. There is however ample scientifically documented evidence that interpretations and adjustments to raw data are responsible for if not all then at least half of any observed rise in temperature over the instrumental record of the last 150 yrs.

Manmade warming is in fact proven by the adjustment of temperature records.

Top
#1115633 - 19/07/2012 23:24 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
S .O. Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 1540
Loc: Southern Victoria
Originally Posted By: Climate Strange
Oh please take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. You really think that someone is sitting in an office making all these changes to fit some unseen agenda? There are some great people working for the BoM and if any of them read some of the crap on here they must hold their heads in wonder. Why on earth do you think someone would make all those changes...don't you see how stupid it looks when you get out of the closed world of this forum and look a little more objectively.
Sure you can post 1000 links on here from all sorts of other conspiracy sites but that doesn't make it real.


I'm not sure you're aware that there are some posters ( if not that regularly ) who are in fact BOM staff , this latest arguable point is not an attack on any one person , it is a question of Systems and their interpretation of . As mentioned by Arnost Above , until say the last few months Blair ( forgive me if i've missed some of your recent posts ) , has been actively involved engaging members of this Forum . And i can off hand , think of atleast 2 or 3 others . Perhaps their staff/management has " curbed their enthusiasm " to post of late . Either way , i see in every post that Blair has ever contributed that his factual and minimalist only approach to posting to be considered that he is a straight shooter , and that he will not take personal any questioning of his departments interpretations .
But lets see if their latest silence will change , and someone springs forward to defend themselves . And i'm not talking about strictly posting counter arguements here . I'm sure the media savvy machine that they have become will publish an official Public bulletin in defence or contraction of the latest issue . One thing is for sure , they are now not exactly backward in coming forward on their stance ..... They regularly post climate updates on Facebook for crying out load ( well last time i checked anyway , maybe not of late ) .
_________________________
" Solar Powered "

Top
#1115635 - 19/07/2012 23:36 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Climate Strange
Oh please take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. You really think that someone is sitting in an office making all these changes to fit some unseen agenda? There are some great people working for the BoM and if any of them read some of the crap on here they must hold their heads in wonder. Why on earth do you think someone would make all those changes...don't you see how stupid it looks when you get out of the closed world of this forum and look a little more objectively.
Sure you can post 1000 links on here from all sorts of other conspiracy sites but that doesn't make it real.


Just like you can post a thousand warmist links from some alarmist website story's and assume that weather is climate change caused by the emission of Co2 huh ?

I have no doubt there are some great people working at the BOM, Some of the best weather people in the country for sure but does that mean that they are infallible and never make mistakes? Does that mean that there is no influence on the output of people at all ? That people who disagree with department heads do not worry about job loss ?

You make the same assumptions as many others and think that the people who post here are some cult like group sheltered from the real world. Do yourself a favour as Molly would say and go read some of these threads back a bit before making assumptions of the people posting here.

You might also want to go do some research on people like those who resigned or were sacked from the CSIRO for not toeing the line on the global warming mantra.

Top
#1115716 - 20/07/2012 12:21 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: ROM


"and then along came the Great Global Warming Scam."



Have a read of the post below and you'll see how ridiculous the claim that there is a "Great Global Warming Scam" is.

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthrea...s_a#Post1115254
_________________________

Top
#1115718 - 20/07/2012 12:46 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
No CB.....you read from here down. Make sure you read it all and follow ALL the links. There's a lot of reading.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115719 - 20/07/2012 13:02 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Per capita CO2 emissions in China reach European levels.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 3% last year, reaching an all-time high of 34 billion tonnes in 2011. In China, the world’s most populous country, average emissions of CO2 increased by 9% to 7.2 tonnes per capita.

China is now within the range of 6 to 19 tonnes per capita emissions of the major industrialised countries. In the European Union, CO2 emissions dropped by 3% to 7.5 tonnes per capita. The United States remain one of the largest emitters of CO2, with 17.3 tones per capita, despite a decline due to the recession in 2008-2009, high oil prices and an increased share of natural gas. These are the main findings of the annual report ‘Trends in global CO2 emissions’, released today by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).

The 3% increase in global CO2 emissions in 2011 is above the past decade’s average annual increase of 2.7%, with a decrease in 2008 and a surge of 5% in 2010. The top emitters contributing to the 34 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally in 2011 are: China (29%), the United States (16%), the European Union (11%), India (6%), the Russian Federation (5%) and Japan (4%).


WUWT

....and as yet, there has been no catastrophic rise in temps... confused
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115722 - 20/07/2012 13:31 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Sorry, broken link - try this:

WUWT

smile
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115725 - 20/07/2012 13:57 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Britain’s weather won’t do what the warmists say.

Matt Ridley wonders if Britain’s warmist Met Office is predisposed to believe the warming worst when making predictions:

On March 23 this year, the Met Office issued the following prediction: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole ....”

That went well, didn’t it? April-May- June was the wettest ever in England, though not in Britain. According to the private forecaster MeteoGroup, June was probably the wettest in England and Wales since 1860…

The Met Office’s track record of ... longer-range predictions have often been not just badly wrong, but consistently biased on the warm, dry side.

In 2007, it wrongly forecast a warm summer. In 2008 it wrongly forecast a mild winter. In 2009, it said “the chances of getting the barbecue out are much higher than last year” but the summer was a washout. Also that year it said that the trend towards milder winters was likely to continue, whereupon a savage winter followed…

In October 2010 it saw “a very much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures” in the coming winter shortly before the coldest December for 100 years…

Now look at the curriculum vitae of the chairman of the Met Office, Robert Napier. He is also chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, and has been a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation and the Climate Group. He is so high up in the church of global warming, he is a carbon cardinal. I am sure he is a man of great integrity, but given this list you have to wonder if one of the organisations he chairs does not occasionally — and perhaps unconsciously — aim to please him with warm long-range forecasts.


Andrew Bolt - Daily Telegraph
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115729 - 20/07/2012 14:22 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
Bello Weather Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/07/2012
Posts: 358
Loc: Bellingen NSW 2454
Originally Posted By: snafu
Per capita CO2 emissions in China reach European levels.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 3% last year, reaching an all-time high of 34 billion tonnes in 2011. In China, the world’s most populous country, average emissions of CO2 increased by 9% to 7.2 tonnes per capita.

China is now within the range of 6 to 19 tonnes per capita emissions of the major industrialised countries. In the European Union, CO2 emissions dropped by 3% to 7.5 tonnes per capita. The United States remain one of the largest emitters of CO2, with 17.3 tones per capita, despite a decline due to the recession in 2008-2009, high oil prices and an increased share of natural gas. These are the main findings of the annual report ‘Trends in global CO2 emissions’, released today by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).

The 3% increase in global CO2 emissions in 2011 is above the past decade’s average annual increase of 2.7%, with a decrease in 2008 and a surge of 5% in 2010. The top emitters contributing to the 34 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally in 2011 are: China (29%), the United States (16%), the European Union (11%), India (6%), the Russian Federation (5%) and Japan (4%).


WUWT

....and as yet, there has been no catastrophic rise in temps... confused

Ah, talking of Cardinals, I reckon for the sceptics / conspiracy theorists on this forum, WUWT has to be the equivalent of the Vatican smile
_________________________
www.bellingenweather.org

Top
#1115732 - 20/07/2012 14:40 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Looks like CeeBee & _PG_ have called for back-up.

This could be fun.

Quick.....everybody......circle the wagons!
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115733 - 20/07/2012 14:52 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
Bello Weather Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/07/2012
Posts: 358
Loc: Bellingen NSW 2454
Originally Posted By: snafu
Looks like CeeBee & _PG_ have called for back-up.

This could be fun.

Quick.....everybody......circle the wagons!

Wishing there was a like button on this forum....
_________________________
www.bellingenweather.org

Top
#1115754 - 20/07/2012 17:20 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bello Weather]
Alexia Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 14/12/2002
Posts: 609
Loc: Corryong
I was thinking same More fly's in the ointment

Top
#1115757 - 20/07/2012 18:06 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Alexia]
GDL Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/02/2008
Posts: 630
Loc: Bowen Mountain NSW
Sense of humor needed, CS until you joined we had CB and PG who i thought of as Hekel and Jekel the talking magpies,now its the three stooges. Prior to that CB always had to fight the sceptics point of view alone, back then i thought of him as Sheldon Cooper..............While i admire your determination its a fight you wont win the truth will out

Top
#1115770 - 20/07/2012 19:34 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: GDL]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Climategate I & II Investigation Results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/19/me...ate/#more-67825
Operation Cabin Q&As

The following questions and answers are an abridged version of Norfolk Constabulary’s Operation Cabin media briefing held on Thursday 19 July 2012.
How do you know it was an external hack?
In outline terms, we know it came via the internet from a number of different IP addresses, in various countries, which may have been proxy servers.
The attack was, first of all, into the web server (CRUweb8) in the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the UEA. From there, a link was established to a CRU back-up server (CRUback3).
It’s fair to say, the university has to draw the right balance between giving access to information – it’s an academic establishment and, as such, has a proportionate level of security which enables people to work remotely and access information to operate in that academic environment. As a consequence of the attack, the UEA has taken a number of measures and its ICT infrastructure now looks very different.
We identified that the attackers breached several password layers to get through and they got to a position where they employed different methodologies to return the data. We identified a significant quantity of data that was taken in this way, certainly in excess of that which was subsequently published in the two files in 2009 and 2011.
We’ve used the expression ‘sophisticated’ and that’s because that’s the view of our experts who conducted that side of the investigation for us. They identified that, as well as achieving the breach, they also took significant steps to conceal their tracks and lay false trails and change information available to us in order to frustrate the investigation. The conclusion was the person /s were highly competent in what they were doing.
That technical investigation was the primary line of investigation although we did cater for other possibilities, these were later ruled out.
Which specific countries were involved in the trail of proxy servers and which countries were either helpful or uncooperative in your investigations?
While we will not be confirming the names of the countries specifically, we can confirm there were a number across the majority of the continents.
We would underline that the use of a proxy server in any country is not necessarily evidence that the hack originated in that domain.
We worked with partners in these countries and the level of response and support we got varied from being excellent to being quite time consuming.
The logistics involved meant it was a complex picture with different legal jurisdictions and sovereignties. Sometimes it’s a procedural issue and sometimes it’s a political issue with a small or a big P.
Can you confirm that the US was helpful?
We will not confirm the identity of individual countries but we can say, in general terms, there is a healthy and productive relationship between law enforcement in the US and the UK.
Did you detect that any national government could be behind this?
No. The hypothesis was, and remains, that the person or persons responsible for this could be anyone on a spectrum from an individual right through to the other end of the spectrum, including commercial organisations and governments. It is obvious that some commercial organisations would have an interest in maintaining their commercial position; similarly there will be economies and governments which have an interest in protecting their position. To be clear, we did not get any indication as to who was responsible.
It is clear the person responsible has knowledge of this subject; did you interview all the bloggers that showed an interest?
We interviewed a number of people and the logistical issues involved meant that much of this work was carried out remotely because, physically travelling to countries, and the logistics involved in achieving that – for the anticipated outcome – would have not be proportionate.
Of course, the climate sceptic community would, in the main, give the appearance of welcoming the published data because it supports their view. Therefore, we were realistic about the prospect of them being helpful to our investigation.
Can you describe what investigations you undertook at the UEA and who you interviewed there?
The focus internally was on the IT infrastructure and working out from there. We also looked at people working at or with connections to the Climate Research Unit and, in simple terms, we were looking for anything obvious. All members of staff were interviewed. If someone had some obvious links or had an axe to grind, then that might have been a line of enquiry.
Generally speaking, it was a screening exercise which did not provide any positive lines of enquiry.
Whilst - because we have not found the perpetrators - we cannot say categorically that no-one at the UEA is involved, there is no evidence to suggest that there was. The nature and sophistication of the attack does not suggest that it was anyone at the UEA.
You say that the hacker had to go through a series of passwords; do you know that someone at the UEA would not have had access to these passwords?
Anyone with access to these passwords has been excluded as a suspect. Additionally, there was some evidence of work undertaken to break passwords.
It has been reported that the hacker accessed the server on three separate occasions, can you confirm if that’s true and if there were any further attempts to access the server after ‘climategate’ broke and have there been any recently?
The report is inaccurate. The attack was conducted over a period of time and access would have occurred on a number of occasions and certainly more than three. Of course, we only know what we know. I have already described it was a sophisticated attack; we have established a substantial amount of what happened. What I can’t say is whether we have established everything that happened.
There were no further data breaches once the story had broken in November 2009, not least because we had taken possession of Cruback3 and it wasn’t available to be accessed.
Do you know when the attacks began?
There’s a timeline of events and there has been speculation, in the media and the blogs,
that there may have been an orchestrated campaign of Freedom of Information requests to the University in the summer of 2009. It appears the attacks were undertaken late in that summer, early autumn, through to November. The first tactic that we were aware of was in September 2009.
There was news that some other institutions, including in Canada, that may have come under a similar attack at that time. Are there any other institutions that you have found that were attacked at this time?
We did have some dialogue and there were one or two that had been attacked and we did have a preliminary examination but they did not give us any indication or cause to suspect that it was in any way linked to the UEA.
What happens to Cruback3 now?
It has been returned to the University of East Anglia, having been retained as an exhibit through the course of the investigation. It was necessary to retain the actual server for this time. It contained a massive amount of data, something in the region of five terabytes.
When the second batch of e-mails was released, there was the note that came with them. Did you or your colleagues contemplate doing structural linguistics or analysis to try and trace it to a particular location in the world?
It was speculated on and it was something we did consider. Our conclusion was that it would be unlikely to take the investigation anywhere and, in fact, if you are trying to conceal your tracks it could have been constructed to mislead.
You have been restricted by the statute of limitations, would you have continued with this investigation otherwise?
The decision to close the case was a combination of the time limit and an acknowledgement that we had pursued this as far as we reasonably can.
Did you consider prosecuting people dealing in the information that was clearly stolen?
In terms of offences committed, it becomes a much greyer area. The same challenges exist in terms of identifying those individuals. An operational decision was made not to pursue this.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1115774 - 20/07/2012 19:52 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
From the Q&A

Quote:
The nature and sophistication of the attack does not suggest that it was anyone at the UEA.


Yes... a fourteen year old hacker can break into the Pentagon/CIA network, but breaking into a public server simply password protected is beyond anyone at UEA.

WTF?
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
Page 236 of 323 < 1 2 ... 234 235 236 237 238 ... 322 323 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 34 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
benny200, ChaseNZ, ptera, stormymick1, ThunderstormZ, typhoonbeach
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529247 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image