2011-11-24 13:09:06Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I used the turkey analogy in the concluding section, but I prefer this title:

Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help

2011-11-24 14:29:20
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
74.97.39.58

Ha!  Nice post!  You can also include my post a reference.

 

The most strongly affected countries emit small amounts of CO2 per capita and have therefore contributed little to the changes in climate that they are beginning to experience.

What brings the authors to this conclusion?

Here we show that due to the small temperature variability from one year to another, the earliest emergence of significant warming occurs in the summer season in low latitude countries (≈25◦S–25◦N). We also show that a local warming signal that exceeds past variability is emerging at present, or will likely emerge in the next two decades, in many tropical countries. Further, for most countries worldwide, a mean global warming of 1 ◦C is sufficient for a significant temperature change, which is less than the total warming projected for any economically plausible emission scenario.

 

2011-11-24 14:32:31
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
74.97.39.58

Also, it might be a powerful sentence to note that the poorer nations are even more serious that the 2C number.  They want it at 1.5C

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/christiana-figueres-climate-2c-rise

2011-11-24 14:37:05
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
74.97.39.58

Also, warn John of possible intrusion, this being a hacker and all.  Although my suspitions, based on Charles Rotter's foray into their web server, are that CRU had weak security.

2011-11-24 15:19:15
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Only one comment from me - they would definitely “prefer” help that won’t “kill” them so think below wording may be better?

“However, the poor nations have explained that they want help that assists their current totally unacceptable predicament, not guarantees a death sentence.”

2011-11-24 15:23:15
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Grypo,

Good point.  I was thinking about that earlier tonight.  We might now wish to antagonize this person/group too much, and John should make damn sure that the security on the SkS server is top notch before he goes away.

2011-11-24 15:25:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Thanks grypo, have added both links, and also the version of the graphic with both figures put together.

Brian - I'll tweak that sentence.  I wouldn't say climate change is a guaranteed death sentence - that's a bit extreme.

2011-11-24 15:54:03SkS security
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Nice in theory but I'm running around like a headless chicken just trying to get everything organised before I fly to Canada on Monday so the gargantuan job of bullet proofing SkS security will have to wait. I'm reasonably confident the website is hack proof from most attempts but there are lots of precautions that have been suggested to me - a very long list, in fact - that I 

2011-11-24 15:58:58
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

I remember security being discussed before - there are plenty of petrodollars to buy the best Russian brains in the business. I was only watching something on cyber wars the other day – frightening. I suppose it all depends how bigger threat they think you are to the status quo.

Only said guarantee Dana to add punch – mild to what deniers say.

2011-11-24 17:29:59
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.242.132

Reckon you're missing a trick with that title. Should be reinforcing the link between Climategate 2.0 & 2 yr old turkey.

2011-11-24 18:03:46
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.242.132

Forgot the thumb. The hacker claiming "the reverse must also be true," is typical "skeptic" logic eh?

2011-11-24 18:36:07
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

How do we know the hacker made a mistake this time or did he intentionally put the file in to put a kind face to his devious motives?

Just like there are fake sceptics there are fake humanitarians.

Is the hacker a fake sceptic/humanitarian?

Should we somehow weave something into the post to show your concerns?

Like saying “Assuming the hacker is genuine in his concerns -----“

Or would this be seen as too cynical?

Should we just play the game by his rules?

He’s certainly getting more mileage this way.  

2011-11-25 00:20:08
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
74.97.39.58

thumb

2011-11-25 01:21:47
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.112.198

nicely done.

btw, the media reaction this time around seems to be a great yawn.  Stale turkey gets the cold shoulder.

2011-11-25 01:26:22
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

Thumbs up

2011-11-25 05:42:46
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169


Logicman,

You seems to be right about this being  a flub in the media.  Maybe this should be the last post unless something big comes up?

2011-11-25 06:25:32
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

Interesing to see, though, that if the comments on the Guardian and BBC are anything to go by, much of the general public still believes it's all a hoax and that data are routinely manipulated. This is probably down to the fact that the exoneration of scientists was hardly reported. But I agree, maybe we need to let this rest unless more problems emerge. 

2011-11-25 07:01:35
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Anne-marie,

I do not think that the Guardian and BBC threads are a true random sample.  Both are frequented by some highly ideological minds and conspiracy theorists.  they will never, ever be convinced otherwise, they will take their mindset to their graves.

You'd be surprised how many people have no idea about the first hack, nevermind the second one.  I often try to remind myself that being in the trenches means that I end up having a very narrow perspective on this.  Things often seem more hopeless and worse in the climate wars on the web than they are in the real world.

2011-11-25 07:19:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Anne-Marie, I would say that comments on any climate article are not going to be representative of the general public :-)

2011-11-25 08:47:32
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

It's also worth remembering that the people commenting in the CiF or BBC sites tend to be the motivated, extreme end of the denial spectrum, not the general public.  There may be relatively few of those (at a guess <<1% of population, probably <1% of readers), but they are disproportionately motivated to not only find, but comment on, climate articles.  Indeed some seem to have nothing better to do!  Most people wouldn't read the whole article, let alone read the comments, and even fewer will be sufficiently motivated to actually comment. I would not think the comments are anything like a random sample of the public.

The motivated commenting deniers are the ones who will be totally marginalised in a few years when the general public is left in no doubt by the next slew of records and extreme events.

2011-11-26 01:39:59
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

Ach yes, you're probably all right. I've just found the difference between the media's reaction and the commenters' reaction quite interesting. Hopefully the general public doesn't read the comments ;)