A real life shadowrun event, hacked emails reveal global warming hoax Options

[Jericho Alar]

The opening post wasn't designed to delve into a 'highly complex and technical topic'.

no, it was designed to troll people who might be interested in discussing a highly complex and technical topic; whether qualified or not.

It may have been a subtle doublethink to get us all thinking about how Horizon might operate....

[Semerkhet]

All good points. In particular:

3. All those who question global warming are essentially labeled flat eathers or stooges for the man by the enviromentalist movement.

I would like to throttle a goodly portion of the far left "environmentalist" movement. They're not helping. Cries of "Doomsday!" drum up equally vociferous calls of "It's a hoax!" and you end up with such a polarizing chaos of misinformation that a bunch of people who should be discussing Shadowrun are instead playing out a microcosm of the larger political Kabuki theater, accomplishing nothing other than getting momentarily "internet offended."

6. We have gone completely off topic, as the OP wanted this as an example of a policlub publicity stunt, that may have involved shadowrunners.

I, for one, can guarantee that I would not have given this topic a second look if it weren't for the obvious bias of the OP. Had the OP been phrased as you indicate, i.e. simply calling our attention to the event and its similarity to events in Shadowrun, perhaps this chain of reactions might have been averted. I claim no moral high ground; I let myself be provoked and dove into the muck and mire as much as anyone.

[StealthSigma]

You mistake my purpose. I'm conducting an experiment regarding moderation of this forum. Thank you for assisting me with that personal attack and strawman demolition.

So, trolling now. K, gotcha. I'm biting.

The strawman is, of course, that I said nothing of the sort. Still, let's take your strawman for a little walk. Go ahead and tell me that everyone posting in this topic is well-informed and not just parroting what some blog or radio host has told them, and I do mean on both sides of the issue. Not all opinions are equal. I am a researcher in atmospheric science. I submit that my opinion in this matter is of marginally more value than that of someone who is not in the field. That does *not* make my opinions the be-all, end-all on this issue. I am not stating credentials in an attempt to discredit all other posters, just the few posters who offered "drive-by" opinions suspiciously similar to the most prevalent memes on both sides of the climate change debate. You, for instance, seem to put a little too much stock in that video you linked. Frankly, I don't know where to start with the problems in that analysis, but I'll just suffice to say that it's amazing what you can do with statistics, some quotes, and an agenda. If I hadn't the benefit of experience running climate models and having taken a number of courses on climate, climate modeling, remote sensing and climate statistics, I probably wouldn't have been able to spot the erroneous assumptions and other sleights of hand that go into that flawed analysis. I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying that you're not as well-informed as you seem to think you are. You can be the smartest person in the room and still be led astray by misleading information outside your area of expertise.

You're right, IF you're atmospheric science researcher then your opinions on the topic that you have researched, studied, or otherwise have had data to validate and confirm would be more weighted. I also don't know that you are an atmospheric science researcher. Hell, you could be an undergrad and it would still be a true statement. Then again, there's no verification as to your credentials. I could say I'm a FBI Special Agent in computer forensics and thus can state that the emails in question are authentic and haven't been tampered with. That doesn't make it so. That also happens to be precisely how you started in this thread. It is the argument from authority fallacy.

I work in climate research and I can tell you without a doubt that climate change is real and that human activity plays a part. That much is certain, but the devil is in the details. There is a lot we don't understand about climate systems and that means we don't know for sure how much of the ongoing climate change is the result of natural cycles and how much is human-caused. Don't let the fact that we don't know for sure convince you that we don't know anything.

[Semerkhet]

So, trolling now. K, gotcha. I'm biting.

You're right, IF you're atmospheric science researcher then your opinions on the topic that you have researched, studied, or otherwise have had data to validate and confirm would be more weighted. I also don't know that you are an atmospheric science researcher. Hell, you could be an undergrad and it would still be a true statement. Then again, there's no verification as to your credentials. I could say I'm a FBI Special Agent in computer forensics and thus can state that the emails in question are authentic and haven't been tampered with. That doesn't make it so. That also happens to be precisely how you started in this thread. It is the argument from authority fallacy.

I'll admit my first sentence qualifies as "argument from authority." However, I would counter that my first sentence did not make an extraordinary claim that would depend heavily on my supposed and unverifiable authority. On the contrary, I made absolutely sure to state as given only the most settled portion of the science, that the climate is changing and that anthropogenic emissions play *a* role. I made no claim regarding magnitude or speed of the change nor the relative magnitude of the anthropogenic component. If that much cannot be agreed upon, then we have no basis to begin a dialogue. Throughout this topic I have been arguing for the middle path, the agnostic position, if you will. I have no control over the filters with which others view my statements.

[etherial]

I look forward to the day when we have an integrated VR Matrix so I could set this thread on fire and summarily end it.

[Semerkhet]

I look forward to the day when we have an integrated VR Matrix so I could set this thread on fire and summarily end it.

You don't need that. A moderator would work just fine. This topic proves that no one has been minding the store lately. Not that it's gotten terribly ugly, just terribly inappropriate for Dumpshock.

[Tsuul]

The mods are not omnipresent. But if you really want to summon one, just rub the little green button on the left.

[Semerkhet]

The mods are not omnipresent. But if you really want to summon one, just rub the little green button on the left.

I'll take the fact that no one has yet pressed that button as a sign that no one ever got that offended. No real harm done. It's not like all other discussions on DS ground to a halt because of this topic.

[Jericho Alar]

So, trolling now. K, gotcha. I'm biting.



You're right, IF you're atmospheric science researcher then your opinions on the topic that you have researched, studied, or otherwise have had data to validate and confirm would be more weighted. I also don't know that you are an atmospheric science researcher. Hell, you could be an undergrad and it would still be a true statement. Then again, there's no verification as to your credentials. I could say I'm a FBI Special Agent in computer forensics and thus can state that the emails in question are authentic and haven't been tampered with. That doesn't make it so. That also happens to be precisely how you started in this thread. It is the argument from authority fallacy.

and I could tell you that there's no way to verify authenticity of emails* once they've left the SMTP server.** (appeal to authority: In a former life I was a computer engineer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif) ) and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either lying with an agenda or grossly misinformed.


*encrypted contents can be verified independently using commonly understood encryption/decryption algorithms. if a previously encrypted message is however posted 'post-decryption' it is no longer verifiable as authentic.

**as a matter of fact, there's precious little way to verify the authenticity of emails on the SMTP server, as it is relatively easy to 'fake' routing information (via renaming a sufficient number of systems) to look authentic to a lay-person or hobbyist. if it's off the SMTP server, it's just text and is so easy to fake your grandmother could probably do it.

[pbangarth]

So, is there any idea how much the guys who dumped the data onto the internet got paid for their heist?

[Cthulhudreams]

4. We only have been studying climatology for less than a century (hmmm--is it man made or natural, at certain points in earth's history the earth was almost all ice-other times almost all tropical).

Dude, we didn't even know about plate tectonics until the 1950/60s. We didn't know the earth had a core until more recently than that. We still don't know how thick the crust is, because when we actually checked the theories we discovered it didn't line up. We only accepted the ice age thing in 1870!

So yes, we do actually know more about the climate than we do the earth. Are you now going to dispute plate techtonics or the fact that the earth has a core on the basis that we've been studying it for less than a century?

[Semerkhet]

Dude, we didn't even know about plate tectonics until the 1950/60s. We didn't know the earth had a core until more recently than that. We still don't know how thick the crust is, because when we actually checked the theories we discovered it didn't line up. We only accepted the ice age thing in 1870!

So yes, we do actually know more about the climate than we do the earth. Are you now going to dispute plate techtonics or the fact that the earth has a core on the basis that we've been studying it for less than a century?

And here I was trying to wind this thing down. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[StealthSigma]

and I could tell you that there's no way to verify authenticity of emails* once they've left the SMTP server.** (appeal to authority: In a former life I was a computer engineer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif) ) and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either lying with an agenda or grossly misinformed.


*encrypted contents can be verified independently using commonly understood encryption/decryption algorithms. if a previously encrypted message is however posted 'post-decryption' it is no longer verifiable as authentic.

**as a matter of fact, there's precious little way to verify the authenticity of emails on the SMTP server, as it is relatively easy to 'fake' routing information (via renaming a sufficient number of systems) to look authentic to a lay-person or hobbyist. if it's off the SMTP server, it's just text and is so easy to fake your grandmother could probably do it.

Correct, you can spoof all that information using computer processes, and likewise you cannot verify a decrypted email is authentic via computer processes, but using only computer processes to validate the authenticity is narrow sighted at best when there are multiple ways to validate something. You still have over 60 megabytes of what amounts to mostly text data. That is a huge amount of data to fake, and frankly it would be an undertaking that would require multiple people to perform. The fact that the data is congruous within itself lends credence to its authenticity, and it's further supported by the reactions of individuals who were hacked. The statement "out of context" means its more likely authentic data rather than faked data.

Just to compare the data....

I have a PDF of the reference manual for MySQL 5.0 on my PC at this very moment. It is about 13.5MB in size. This document is 1929 pages long, however there are some images, numerous links, and various formatting styles within the document which likely inflate it. I would say that 10MB is a reasonable assessment of the text data, possible even less, however that is neither here nor there. There is at least 4x as much data contained within the emails as the MySQL PDF. 7500 pages worth emails would be a conservative estimate. The claim that the data is fake is far-fetched and bordering on conspiracy theory if not already across that line. I'd be more inclined to believe the data real, but the email headers faked so that it appeared to be from the institute and the names of the authors having been substituted through the email set.

[Jericho Alar]

This is where it was my mistake for not indicating that I wasn't talking at all about the authenticity of these emails. (in fact, if you read through my posts I don't believe I ever address them.) the simple matter is that the graph that was constructed by the scientists in question at the time was already discredited for other (less sensational) reasons and that all any email dump from an institution is going to show is that office politics is alive and well in the Sciences.*

I happen to believe that these emails are entirely legitimate**. I happen to disagree that they're damaging to climate science as a whole or that they discredit current climate change theories ("current" being theories seeing work post ~2005 or so.) At most these emails will be damaging to the scientists implicated within their contents.

I was mostly just making the point to be facetious (hence the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif) ) although the broader point that you shouldn't trust what's written in an email presented to you by a third party without doing some digging to get corroborating evidence is an important one.


*same goes for squashed data in peer-reviewed journals. I take it most of the people finding this surprising have never tried to have something published in one of these before.

**lest this be misunderstood from vague wording: I mean the dump is legit; the emails are probably being taken somewhat out of context, my understanding is this is not the complete dump (and for good reason - pulling a full server is an absurd amount of largely redundant data) and the person who dumped them presumably has an agenda of some sort, so given the opportunity I fully expect some reasonable amount of pruning to have taken place; nevertheless I expect that these were not faked simply because it was not necessary to fake them - enough people are involved for a long enough time and scientists are human too. (Well, most of them.)

[Weaver95]

no, it was designed to troll people who might be interested in discussing a highly complex and technical topic; whether qualified or not.

It may have been a subtle doublethink to get us all thinking about how Horizon might operate....

Or maybe I just like to knock over a vase and see what kind of reaction I get.

One thing is for sure - this story has some very blatant shadowrun connotations. It's also continuing to grow in scope, and it's got people thinking about the implications of unethical scientists and policy decisions on a global scale. Not a bad thing in my book. I kinda like it when we shake things up a bit.

Rather than looking at this discussion as an excuse to be offended, try instead to ponder the implications for your next SR campaign. this is as real as it gets - we've got actual corporations and political leaders all out in the open doing their thing on this issue. And all this because of one unknown hacker who dumped his data into the public domain....

[Cthulhudreams]

Ah so you where posting it for a political purpose, and then you lied about not doing so. Awesome! That's a great way to start a discussion that isn't polarised in any way.

[Weaver95]

Ah so you where posting it for a political purpose, and then you lied about not doing so. Awesome! That's a great way to start a discussion that isn't polarised in any way.

I didn't say it was political. I said that I like to shake things up a bit and see what falls out.

[Cthulhudreams]

With a political statement, yes.

[Weaver95]

With a political statement, yes.

if it makes you feel better to believe that, then by all means - go right ahead with your bad self.

[Cthulhudreams]

Well, how else is one supposed to take

From what it's looking like, the folks at the CRC have been cooking the books when it comes to data analysis. suppressing opposing viewpoints, coordinating with various politicians, feeding false data to government agencies and planning committees. you name it.

Maybe I could have said it was a lie? A non factual statement? A stupid conspiracy theory? But you know, I went with political.

[Weaver95]

Well, how else is one supposed to take

Maybe I could have said it was a lie? A non factual statement? A stupid conspiracy theory? But you know, I went with political.

those guys DID do some very unethical things. everything I've said was accurate. you may take that as you will.

[Cthulhudreams]

hahaha.

When quoted out of context, they may look like they did some unethical things, but turning over the rocks soon reveals that they didn't.

[Weaver95]

hahaha.

When quoted out of context, they may look like they did some unethical things, but turning over the rocks soon reveals that they didn't.

there's a whole lotta context in that archive. its up on wikileaks if you want to see it for yourself.

Basically, the defense has resorted to two main strategies:

1. flat out denial. the emails are fake, it didn't happen, it never happened, OMG IT DIDN'T HAPPEN MAKE IT STOP...*ahem*. sorry. As I was saying, this is one of the two main defensive memes propagated right now. As more people read the archive and realize just how highly improbable it is to have crafted such a hoax, this meme is dying a slow death.

2. it's a conspiracy. this one has started roughly over the past 24-48 hours. As I understand it, the current popular strain of this meme pins the blame on a vague collection of gas and oil companies. It varies as to the size and scope of the conspiracy (everything from them planning the hack to merely taking advantage of it once they learned about it), but this one tends to incorporate X-files levels of paranoia regarding the ability to 'the man' to infiltrate and expose the inner workings of the global warming scientific crowd. I think this meme is gonna stick around a while - it's got a lot of the usual tropes in all the right places.

[Cthulhudreams]

No, the scientists have responded directly to most of the stuff brought up in articles by the times of london and others, including stating exactly what they did with the 'trick' to the results for example.

[Weaver95]

No, the scientists have responded directly to most of the stuff brought up in articles by the times of london and others, including stating exactly what they did with the 'trick' to the results for example.

actually, their explanations have been fairly limited. And that's just ONE of the allegations made against them. For example - I haven't heard them get close to explaining how they corrupted the peer review process. And believe me, they did their level best to do just that.