Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10132)	2/23/2012 1:40:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Yes, there are. Wegner's commission, as well as McIntyre and McKittrick, are better minds than yours. You're doing anoher diversion thing by bringing up Muller. Muller addressed temperatures over the past two centuries, NOT over the past thousand years.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10132)	2/23/2012 1:59:26 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Anthony Watts & other skeptics shows what ethical people do when they find private information belonging to others: An example of a different ethos when you have access to private documents Posted on February 23, 2012 by Anthony Watts While many websites are deriding me for my mentions in the Fakegate emails distributed by Dr. Peter Gleick, and many now (including Dr. Gavin Schmidt) are coming down on Dr. Gleick for his lack of ethics, I thought it might be useful to remind the climate community at large that I too was recently in receipt of private documents through a security lapse presented in the Climategate 2 emails. I (and many other WUWT readers who notified me about it) had full and open access in Dr. Phil Jones Journal of Physical Research (JGR) author account, which showed all of his papers (including some not published yet) plus comments from reviewers. What did I do with the access? Read below to find out. To demonstrate what I did, I’m reposting an excerpt from this WUWT essay: Who gets the most access to network data (like emails at CRU)? ============================================================= The sharing of system access in emails was broadly demonstrated in Climategate 2.0. For example, Dr. Phil Jones and others at CRU sent some emails out years ago that linked to papers under review at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Some WUWT readers found these early on, and sure enough, such links from years ago in the CG2 emails still worked. A few days ago I made the issue known to Dr. Phil Jones and to the JGR journal staff so they could close this security hole. As far as I know, all have been closed. I’ve tested again tonight and the live link fails now. Now that they have been closed, I can talk about it safely without putting JGR’s manuscript system at risk. From: Anthony Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:10 PM To: p.jones@uea.xxxx.xxx Cc: grlonline@xxxx.xxx ; jgr-atmospheres@xxxxx.xxx Subject: password enabled JGR links in Climategate 2 files Dear Dr. Jones, I know that you know me, and probably do not like me for my views and publications. Regardless of what you may think of me and my work, it has been brought to my attention by a reader of my blog that there are open access links to your manuscripts at JGR included in the email that are now in the public view. Therefore, it is my duty to inform you that in the recent release of Climategate 2 files there are links to JGR journal review pages for your publications and also for the publications for Dr. Keith Briffa. For example, this link: jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org[access code redacted] I have verified that in fact that link opens your JGR account and provides full access to your JGR account. In fact there are 35 different emails in this release that contain live links to JGR/AGU author pages. Similar other links exist, such as for Dr. Keith Briffa and others at CRU. This of course is an unintended and unacceptable consequence of the email release. I am cc:ing Joost de Gouw Editor, JGR Atmospheres in hopes that he can take action to close this open access to these accounts. It is a holiday here in the USA (Thanksgiving) and there may not be office hours on Friday but hopefully he is monitoring emails. JGR should immediately change all passwords access for these CRU members and I would advise against allowing transmission of live links such as the one above in the future. JGR might also consider a more secure method of manuscript sharing for review. The open nature of these links is not publicly “on the radar” even though they are in fact public as a part of the email cache, and I do not plan on divulging them for any reason. Any mention of these links will be deleted from any public comments on my blog should any appear. Dr. de Gouw (or anyone at JGR) and Dr. Jones, please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Anthony Watts So clearly, CRU and others in the emails didn’t think twice about sending around open access live links. As David M. Hoffer points out in his article, the researchers don’t seem to have a clue about security. They also leave “sensitive” files they don’t want to share under FOIA requests lying about on open FTP servers. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think any of the research staff at CRU had either broad access nor the specific tech knowledge to pull this “hack” off. Somebody who had the ability to peek at these emails as part of their job might just as easily have had access to the RealClimate Server too. Remember there’s almost a quarter million emails we haven’t seen. Chances are, one of those contained the key to the RC server, which allowed them to become an RC administrator and post the original FOIA story which Gavin Schmidt caught and squelched. I and others I correspond with have our theories about who the leaker might be. From my perspective now, someone with broad system access looks to be a more likely candidate than a malicious outsider. UPDATE: Many people in comments think I’m doing something wrong by writing to Phil Jones and AGU/JGR. In Phil Jones reply to me, he wrote: A couple of other people sent me emails about this issue. So clearly I wasn’t the first to notify him of the open links to AGU. But more importantly, my email was also sent to AGU editors and the editor of JGR Atmospheres. Despite what troubles Jones and his group have caused over the year with skeptics, AGU/JGR has been a reasonable journal that has published skeptical papers, including my own. Protecting that relationship with skeptics who publish is valuable and the last thing we need is a scandal where papers submitted to AGU/JGR are showing up on other skeptic websites before they are reviewed because Jones sent active links around in emails. Having the knowledge of the security holes was a damned if I do damned if I don’t proposition, but I opted on the side of doing what I felt was the right course of action. If that upsets a few people, so be it. – Anthony ============================================================== I’ll note that Phil Jones recently had his CRUTEMP4 paper published… Jones, P. D., D. H. Lister, T. J. Osborn, C. Harpham, M. Salmon, and C. P. Morice Hemispheric and large-scale land surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010 J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2011JD017139, in press. [ Abstract] [ PDF] (accepted 17 January 2012) …and no skeptic I know of, including me, has yet “outed” the early drafts and author notes contained in Phil Jones JGR account. It would have been easy to do so, to publish Dr. Jones first submitted draft for the broadest peer review possible on the Internet. But no skeptic (that I know of as of this writing) did. That’s a difference of distinction compared to the actions of people who created Fakegate via potentially criminal actions. wattsupwiththat.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10132)	2/23/2012 2:47:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I am very much looking forward to the court case where Gleick presents the “original” memo as evidence. Today thanks to a nifty government program called Echelon most printers(at least those from HP, Xerox, Dell, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, amongst others now imbed microscopic code on everything they print. A Forensic Science team will be able to look at the Gleick’s memo and will be able to tell the printer it came from without much difficulty. My money is it coming from Gleick’s very own Epson Printer, the same one he used to scan the document. wattsupwiththat.com ..... Jimbo says: February 23, 2012 at 2:05 am I may be way off the mark here but isn’t DeSmogBlog funded by a convicted money launderer by the name of John Lefebvre? Two former directors and founding shareholders of NETeller Plc, a British online money transfer company, have been charged in the United States with laundering billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds. Canadians Stephen Lawrence, 46, and John Lefebvre, 55, were arrested on Monday — Lawrence in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Lefebvre in Malibu, California — U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/01/16/us-crime-neteller-idUSN1622302920070116 http://www.taxabletalk.com/tag/neteller/ http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/02/01/blog-funder-guilty-money-laundering Blog Funder Guilty of Money-Laundering February 1, 2008 John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges. The DeSmog Blog is operated by a small group of public relations people who specialize in attempting to discredit respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory. Ironically, DeSmog Blog's favorite tactic is to claim scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory are funded by "dirty money." The revelation of the blog's major source of funding as a convicted money launderer may undermine DeSmog's attempts to smear the integrity of respected, law-abiding scientists who disagree with them. Apparently unashamed by their criminal connections, the DeSmog Blog Web site proclaims, "The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre. ... John has been outspoken, uncompromising, and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog." Lefebvre, who pleaded guilty in June 2007, faces up to 20 years in a federal penitentiary.