Breaking: Hackers attempt to access Canadian government Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis

This is a news release we’ve put out North American-wide.

On the heels of the controversial story about emails and data stolen by hackers from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, it has now been revealed that individuals posing as network technicians recently attempted to infiltrate another climate data center operated by the Government of Canada.

According to sources at the University of Victoria, two people claiming to be network computer technicians presented themselves at the headquarters of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis and tried to gain access to the data servers. When challenged by an employee, the two individuals hastily left. The timing of this attempted break-in is very suspicious given that it occurred so closely on the heels of the release of hacked emails and data from a similar facility housed at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

The story was also verified by a UVIC spokesperson in an interview yesterday with the National Post. 

This is disturbing news and it shows that there is an organized criminal campaign that is going to great lengths to infiltrate secure facilities and steal private data,” said Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. “We don’t know who is behind these criminal acts, but we hope they will eventually be unmasked by police. In the meantime, what we do know is that the individuals and organizations that quickly launched an online PR campaign to misrepresent the content of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia are part of a decades-long confusion campaign to delay government action on the issue.”

The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded “free-market” think tanks and pseudo-science experts that would call into question the scientific research on climate change, create doubt in the minds of the public and politicians, and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policies in the United States and elsewhere.

It is no coincidence that the groups publicizing the University of East Anglia email hacking story also have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists. See attached backgrounder for more details.

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay “experts” $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI’s board of directors.

Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heartland Institute: Organizes a “denier conference” every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still recieve grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.

National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag lineC02, We Call it Life.” Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

Check out Brad Johnson’s post on the Wonk Room for his take: Watergate Redux: Break-ins Reported At Another Top Climate Research Center


When climate temperature data is destroyed in Britain and we can’t even let the public know what it is in Canada. Would be something else if these people just wanted information. I doubt the story is true though.

The original raw data provided to CRU was destroyed (by their own admission) ostensibly to “save space”. Can you believe that?! There is now no audit trail to verify their data products.

“no audit trail to verify their products” - and, of course, the similarity of those “products” with those of NASA and NOAA is for you pure coincidence or, even better, the result of the same conspiracy.

you’re changing the subject. Is the original untouched data available or not? People want to know.

“not really, but look over there” is a weak answer.

The data wasn’t destroyed. Some of it was only deleted from the CRU servers. Unless CRU’s servers are magical, that didn’t delete it from the entire world, you imbecile.

I was thinking the email hack had to be a coordinated effort. Two people showing up to get in physically has to be frightening.
Who is funding this, and what kind of people are willing to do this racket? Significant computer skill is needed to pretend to be a network specialist.
And who went through the thousands of emails looking for something to distort? Wouldn”t that have to be a PR person?

Above all else, we must remain calm. It’s been reported that there are no serious injuries, save for a number of massive egos showing signs of acute deflation.

Call it civil disobedience. Weren’t Dr. James Hansen and THE GOREACLE recommending that recently as a justification for ideologically certified property crimes?

The Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis deserves the expectation of protection. Do they have anything to hide?

It’s a big conspiracy RIGHT?, just like AGW.

Just imagine, two guys showing up with their toolboxes and, WHAT, rubber masks, baseball bats, AK’s, Uzi’s, water pistols in rubber holsters? What gave them away, their Harper bumper stickers, thier clean shaven appearance, their lack of arrogant attitude, or I bet…

They had a great bloody H1 Hummer painted perhaps in a Cadpat scheme with a no more Ignatieff bumper sticker?

There was no attempted break in, just more NOISE generating a distraction to move attention away from the real problem. The scientists got caught, read the letters yourself…..

this stolen email bit is taking a long time to blow over. What does that demonstrate?

I keep looking for signs that voices of skepticism are being quieted, but I see the opposite. Skepticism seems to only grow louder and louder.

Obviously the imminent climate disaster community has a lot more work to do.

1st - they have to convince people in general that there is a real threat. They aren’t succeeding. Everyday people talk about the weather a lot more than the climate. They talk about economic concerns and various personal interests. Climate is just not important to very many in the real world.

2nd - they have to convince people that the cure is better than the disease. That’s going to be a hard sell.

They have to accomplish these 2 things throughout the world and they have to do it in some short time frame.

3rd - The cure for climate change has to actually work. The CO2 has to be brought down to 350 and there has to be a major payoff, otherwise why are we doing it?

So, my conclusion is that the prospects for success in this endeavor are so vanishingly small that they approach zero. Our only hope is that CO2 theory is way off the mark.

“they have to convince people in general that there is a real threat. They aren’t succeeding.”

In a recent Harris-Decima poll two-thirds of Canadians agreed with the statement that “Climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.”

Yeah, and if you take a poll on whether they believe in a healthy diet and regular exercise, you’ll get a high number too. What people say and what they demonstrate they believe are often two different things.

Take note of the long line of SUV’s at the Tim Hortons drive through. That is what people really believe.

It’s like smoking. A couple months ago I asked a young guy who was smoking if he thinks it’s true that smoking is as bad as they say.

He says “Yeah probably”

That’s what he says, but that’s not what he believes.

People demonstrate what they believe and they don’t believe climate is any kind of problem.

Global warming support has never been polled in Canada. Their is an ekos poll out that shows global warming at the bottom of the heap for priorities with the economy and social issues beating out global warming.

The politics for global warming are such that they have peaked and are on the declide and this time Mikes nature trick can’t hide it. The only game changer I see are if we have a summer that is a super scorcher or a really warm winter, but even that won’t be enough. Most of the electorate is educated enough to know that local weather patterns don’t measure the planets climate. I think Global warmers will have to get a strong binding resolution out of coppenhagen to keep the issue alive.

Climate gate has changed the debate from some independent unbiased scientists giving us the straight goods, to a bunch of political elites telling people how to live. They will have to spin hard to get all the climategate mud off of them.

Most importantly, there is no evidence of two people showing up. Who are the “sources” that claimed this happened? These “sources” are likely making the story up.

Because of the material evidence. The difference between a claim and the actuality of one.

I’m sorry Arnie, is english not your first language? Do you not understand what evidence is and how it pertains to reality? Say did you hear that Al Gore cancelled his travel plans to Copenhagen. Quite coincidental don’t you think? Maybe he broke his hockey stick.

There is no evidence of two people showing up. None. The link that is supposed to verify the story does no such thing.

From: “Mick Kelly”
To: [email protected]
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], t.o’[email protected]

Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,etc. By email? In person?

I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me! I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: [email protected]

So, this is different, right? Don’t bother, please.

Your article keenly accentuates the tribal angle that is currently under discussion everywhere but here. Welcome to Dissssneyland.

And think about if for a sec. If the Canadians who are most probably a little better secured than most had no forward facing servers, it would take a physical attack as such to gain entrance. A stupid ploy but even stupider criminals. There are easier methods such reporting a break in where none exists. Lying is becoming epidemic and academic in the world of AWG extremism. How’s the book selling? Well I hope.

Lets think about this for a minute. Why not more break ins? Capital idea, even if they are not real? Where is the evidence, the police reports, the physical evidence, the tapes of the suspects attempting entry and why were they not caught and detained. Why were they not identified? Oh, the keystone cops thing again? Phones down, did they steal them too? Cut the lines, oh well, no cell phones either, not earning enough? Email? Smoke signals perhaps. Semaphore flags, Morse code, fly the flag upside down? Oh you do that anyway….. No wonder it didn’t work. Security a little lax and not ramped up a notch since we all know that preparation once warned is a useless premise to those embracing left wing thinking. Preparation and defense is best left to those militants on the right, huh? Ya, I bet……

Seems the AGW supporters are getting better at criminal fantasy than climate fantasy since the public is knows that context is not a matter of interpretation like their second weapon, relativism. The dates concerning those emails has no bearing on their veracity and it is SO disingenuous to even suggest such a thing as so many leftist blogs are doing. Truth is truth and context be damned, I am reading these emails myself and they leave little to imagine and even less to contextualize.

Enjoy your 15 minutes of shade…..

This destroys the denialists’ claim that the CRU hack could have been done by a whistleblower. Doug Leahey of Friends of Science was on Calgary CBC radio yesterday making this feeble argument. The hacker is no whistleblower but a thief.

Would be a more apt title if he or she saves us from massive taxes, poverty and a life of destitution.

It destroys no such claim. The above post has no evidence no links to such. At this point in time, no one can say who hacked the e-mails.