Pachauri: Email theft a "recreational distraction"

Sat, 2009-12-12 08:42Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Pachauri: Email theft a "recreational distraction"

The theft and release of the University of East Anglia emails is nothing more than a “recreational distraction” to the Copenhagen climate summit, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri said at a news conference today.

Yet immediately after he said it, another senior IPCC member said he believed that his colleagues have, from the very beginning, underestimated the potential effect of the email story on public understanding of climate science - and public support for action in Copenhagen.

Pachauri (or “Pachy,” as he seems to be known  among his friends) had called a news conference on the “Scientific Basis” for climate change. It wound up being a review of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, a reiteration of news that “the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

The question (which I posed and which Pachauri did not answer) was whether the UNFCCC or the IPCC would have felt such a conference was necessary had the emails not been used so effectively to call the science into question.

Pachauri rose specifically and forcefully to the defence of the IPCC. He and his co-presenters described the process of review thre number of scientists, the range of different sources and the extent of the review. The IPCC fielded and either incorporated or responded to 20,000 reviewer comments, after which the entire Summary for Policy Makers was subjected to word-by-word review and acceptance by all the governments that are party to the convention - including such would-be denier nations as Saudi Arabia.

“To devise an ogranization today to come up with something to meet the needs of the world, you would invent something that is clearly identical to what the IPCC is,” Pachauri concluded.

Yet the emails have been used effectively and repeatedly to undermine public confidence, and that effort is likely to redouble, especially if those assembled here in Copenhagen actually come to an agreement. The Senate Republican letter demanding an independent investigation, for example, must be considered as a shot across the bow. The Senate minority won’t just quibble about any concessions that President Barack Obama makes here this week, they will deny the necessity to have even attended the conference. (Another bow shot: Sarah Palin says Barack Obama should boycott Copenhagen climate talks).

So, regardless of how sincerely Pachauri has said that the science is sound and the opportunity for denial over, the argument - the email-fueled argument - is just starting to heat up.

Comments

It is clear that thievery is now a political tactic that the deniers reserve for their camp only (or is it okay if we start hacking polluter lobby servers?). They demand we trust this anonymous thief (or thieves) who selectively published the data.

Their arguments around these emails are as deceitful as the theft itself.

With these stolen goods published in Russia, they want us to stop efforts to counter global warming and to rewind the debate back 10 years. Fools.

Now that is what you call being a “denialist!!!

The thought that someone within the CRU or its circle of friends(eg Hansen), would sobotage Copenhagen is too horrible to contemplate.

And yet, there is the God of AGW saying Copenhagen should fail!

Hmm.. maybe he did the release of the FOI info..

On what grounds do you claim “CRU e-mails were leaked”?

– bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

Yet there exists within the climate science community someone with a desire to stop the run away fraud that is already killing millions by diverting money from real efforts to better the lot of humankind and the environment.

…maybe someone who has family members starving because corn prices doubled as a result of “green” ethanol production, subsidized by the taxpayer, and cheered on by Greenpeace and its camp followers.

Do you have evidence that the emails were leaked? Where is that evidence? Scotland Yard and the other police agencies investigating this theft would surely appreciate your cooperation in helping them solve the case.

And why would a leaker first post the data to Realclimate’s server then to some Russian web site?

Do you have anything logical or evidence-based to say to back up your claim?

He just doesn’t want to admit it was a theft because it makes the denialists look sleazier than ever.

An analysis was done on Wattupwiththat a few days ago. You can go and read it. I found the logic convincing.

As for posting it on realclimate first, that is not the case, it was sent to a UK media first. I would suppose that after 30 days the leaker got frustrated and decided to try Realclimate since he/she had access. That did not work, so it went to a Russian server.

I think it as Hansen, after all, he said Copenhagen should fail.

Shorter Ed_B:

The evidence that it was a leak:

1. Watts says so, and I like what he says.
2. The attacker broke into a Russian server, which proves it was a leak.

* * *

Does Ed_B realize how dumb that is?

– bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

“Yes, emails came from here - but we didn’t do it, say Russians Tomsk: Emails were sent from this Siberian town

Russian secret service agents admitted yesterday that the hacked ‘Warmergate’ emails were uploaded on a Siberian internet server, but strenuously denied a clandestine state-sponsored operation to wreck the Copenhagen summit.
The FSB - formerly the KGB - confirmed that thousands of messages to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were distributed to the world from the city of Tomsk, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link.

They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible.
A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’
The Kremlin’s top climate change official, Alexander Bedritsky, denied the Russian government was involved in breaking into the CRU’s computer system.

‘You can post information on a computer from any other country. It is nonsense to blame Russia,’ he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0ZaMNUELj

Of course he’s going to say this. His job and reputation are on the line. Expose AGW as a fraud and he is done. Thus means nothing for him to make such statements.

What matters is the evidence and independant investigation in to the CONTENT of the emails and other documents.

“Of course he’s going to say this. His job and reputation are on the line. Expose AGW as a fraud and he is done. Thus means nothing for him to make such statements.”

Of course JR Wakefield is going to say this. In denial land, every action and its opposite is proof that global warming is a hoax.

“Yet the emails have been used effectively and repeatedly to undermine public confidence, and that effort is likely to redouble, especially if those assembled here in Copenhagen actually come to an agreement.”

I don’t see people going on the streets protesting against the CRU scientists’ ‘fraud’. I still see only the same old sock puppets, shills, trolls, and concern trolls who have always been there spouting climate inactivist claptrap well before the CRU crack incident.

The inactivists haven’t been exactly very “effective” in undermining public confidence, even though they’ll like to pretend that they’ve been.

– bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

but a lot of people don’t read past the headlines, and the optics aren’t good. The best thing that can happen now is for the situation to be fully and transparently investigated and the results made clear, but look what happened in the case of the British judge’s decision in favour of showing AIT in the schools. They managed to twist that all out of shape and it’s still doing the rounds in the blogosphere as a “victory” for the sceptics. You can’t win for losing, unless you resort to their tactics. Fern

“To devise an ogranization today to come up with something to meet the needs of the world, you would invent something that is clearly identical to what the IPCC is.”

And I have, at every opportunity, challenged the denier to community to do just that: write their own report complete with references to the scientific literature. I have also challenged them to identify their perceived errors in the IPPC 4AR, line-by-line and reference-by-reference. The best I ever get back in return is that that would be pointless because the IPCC is “political.”

I heard this IPCC “expert” has had extensive experience on the railways.

So he must be knowledgeable about “fiddles”.

Great, so if Pachauri is not a climate scientist, then he’s not qualified to say anything about climate science, we shouldn’t trust him; and if Pachauri _is_ a climate scientist, then whatever he says is only to save his own reputation (see JR Wakefield below), so we shouldn’t trust him.

Yet another example of global warming deniers’ ad-hoc ‘logic’.

– bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/