Green -vs- Green: Eu Climate Exchange website hacked

I assume WUWT is appalled at such acts of cyber-vandalism. I would certainly denounce any effort to disrupt your website. But instead it appears you are encouraging it. You accuse climate scientists of being part of some crazy conspiracy, but hacking is a conspiracy.(NOTE: As noted below, and in Mike’s comment further down, he is unable to cite, because it doesn’t exist, thus stricken. -A
REPLY: I’ve added a clarification so that other people would not jump to the same incorrect conclusion as you.
As for your other assertion I reject it. Hacking may or may not be a conspiracy. It depends on the situation. If one person does a hacking, it can’t be a conspiracy. Further, show a citation where I specifically said, in my words, not words or interpretation of others “climate scientists of being part of some crazy conspiracy” or withdraw your claim. – Anthony

Another Pleasant Valley Sunday in the land of green.

I’m pleased to see Anthony has clarified his position for those like Mike who seem to confuse reporting with supporting.

It was just a matter of time before the environ-mentals began to see how the AGW politicians and businessmen undermine their ideals and turned on them. It warms the heart. Too bad they’ll never give up on trying to control the weather/climate and put their energy into controlling real pollution and real conservation solutions.

Sounds like the radical greenies have gone crazier than usual. I agree with Mike (#2) – this sort of thing should be denounced, not encouraged. By posting the hacked page on WUWT are you not encouraging it implicitly?
REPLY: Let’s see, by a news paper or TV reporting news such as robberies, embezzlement, vandalism, computer virus creation, or hacking, etc do they condone it? Do they need to put a disclaimer on every story saying they don’t agree with it? I think not, and they don’t.
Take http://slashdot.org/ for instance. That website reports on hackings regularly. Your don’t see disclaimers or denouncements posted with each story. – Anthony

OK – so we are agreed then that this hacking was a bad thing (in the same vein as other bad things like robberies, embezzlement, vandalism, computer virus creation).

At the risk of having “Godwin’s Law” invoked…hands up those who would have hacked into Hitler’s website?
All right, it was wrong, but a part of me has a tiny little smile,because I am convinced that carbon trading really is a scam and it distracts us from real environmental problems and causes needless expense to the common man.

Being mindful of the amount of stick sceptics have been given over the “illegal hacking” of the UEA/CRU computers (almost certainly either incompetence or a whistleblower), it will be interesting to see if the MSM pick this story up and run with it.
Of course, if they did, they might have to (a) point out how flawed is the whole concept of crap and trade and (b) the fact that the alarmists aren’t just serious scientists and concerned altruistic “student” types.
My guess is that the media will avoid this like the plague. Nothing for them here. But, if it IS reported, don’t expect to see commenters lambasting them for not making it clear that they don’t approve of the hackers! Sheesh! Whatever next!

Johnh
It could indeed have been someone pro carbon tax e.g. Australian Green party appear not to like an emissions trading scheme but prefer a carbon tax. Even though I don’t agree with it I think it is a better option because it will be easier to roll back should it prove unnecessary or ineffective than cap and trade or any ETS scheme.

I find myself wondering if I could buy a carbon credit at rock bottom prices just so I can keep the certificate as a souvenir of these crazy times

Maybe (?) the commies did it (this yesterday from the International Committee of the Fourth International, respecting ETS down-under):
In the 2007 election campaign, Rudd appealed to people’s concern over the environment and opposition to the former Howard government’s indifference. However, Labor’s policies, including the ETS, were never about resolving climate change and were instead aimed at benefitting big business and finance capital. The proposed carbon trading mechanism was to involve the handover of $123 billion in compensation to business, including to the worst corporate polluters, while establishing a national market in pollution credits. The Australian financial sector hoped to reap the benefits of establishing Sydney as the regional hub of an East Asian carbon market, potentially including China, Japan, and Indiia.
Looks like opposition climate idiocy has forged common ground with the communists for the first time since 1945 (sounds like a quote that some at WUWT would like!). It must be because a Global carbon cabal is indeed ACTUALLY worse than Hitler.

Don’t buy ’em John A when you can get ’em for nothing.
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do

The only people we hate more than BIG OIL is the European Climate Exchange

Steve says:
July 25, 2010 at 2:14 am
So, lets look at the evidence.
Methinks thou dost spend thy nights burning too much AGW midnight oil, Sherlock.
It’s elementary, dear WATT’s on….

Mike says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I assume WUWT is appalled at such acts of cyber-vandalism. I would certainly denounce any effort to disrupt your website. But instead it appears you are encouraging it. You accuse climate scientists of being part of some crazy conspiracy, but hacking is a conspiracy.
===================
Reply:
I know that feeding a troll is supposed to be a bad thing, but really…… Mike you’re a moron……

Jan Pompe says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:44 am
Johnh
……..I think it is a better option because it will be easier to roll back should it prove unnecessary or ineffective than cap and trade or any ETS scheme.
=========
Couldn’t agree more mate…..!

M White says:
“The only people we hate more….”
For every lesson in life there is always a Monty Python sketch! Thanks for reminding me. I wonder when Al Gore will start asking us to call him Loretta???
Malcolm

On the funny side…
This hacking would be on the same level as the Sierra club hacking into GreenPeace.
On the serious side…
Are you willing to have all your goods and services go up in price to cover the carbon tax and have no accountability in what it is actually for except for free money to new trading companies?
These massive debts that the governments have racked up have to be paid somehow.

You would think for someone operating what is in effect a trading information site that their security would have been somewhat more ‘solid’. The technical due diligence for anything related to financial or personal info goes through the roof if you are doing it properly…
Also the ‘state’ the site is currently in doesn’t bode well for the engineering level of whoever is maintaining it, and their future career prospects…
Although, that being said, the points that were made in the screen capture of the hack were on the ball – too many ‘multipliers’ and ‘exceptions’ for it to really do anything except act as a barrier to entry for competition – the climate won’t really benefit in any sense.

have you got a take on this developing story?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/ryano-foi-to-watch-will-ncar-try-to-pull-a-cru/

Amino Acids in Meteorites at 11:11 pm
“Barak Obama was part of the founding of CCX.”
Yes he was, and so was Lord Browne of BP.

The funniest thing is that everything the hackers put up on that page is exactly right. It’s been insane for the Enviro’s to support cap & trade, since as constituted it will do *nothing* to actually reduce CO2 in any real way, supposedly their main goal. It only makes “sense” from a government-business point of view; the goal for the government is to create tax revenues, the goal for business is to a) create a tradable commodity, with all the business opportunity that entails, and b) layer on enough costs that only the big boys can survive and all the smaller players get wiped out, thus guaranteeing growth and profits to the big players in spite of the increased costs.
And those 2 goals explain 99% of the Legislative support for “cap and trade”. I imagine there are a handful of True Believers even still, but this has always been about the money, and about ripping off the public while doing little else.
The hacker’s page has got that exactly right. It’s been insane for the greens to have bought into this, apparently with the excuse “it’s the best we can do” – but any honest Green who looks at this with an open mind would *Have* to hate Cap’n’Trade as much as we do! It truly is a *massive* fraud, and I mean that in the exact, literal, dictionary entry meaning of the word FRAUD. It promises to do something it cannot possibly do for the sole purpose of parting innocent people from their money.
But it does say something that it had to die (we know the bill’s dead in the Senate now) before even the most honest of them would start to tell the truth about it.

Carbon Trading always makes me think of a part of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where Douglas Adams discussed a global problem.
He described Earth as a planet where most of the people were unhappy for pretty much of the time and that most of the suggested solutions were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green bits of paper that were unhappy.

David Davidovics says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Did anyone else catch the south park reference with steps 6 and 7?
Sure did — it looks like the business model of the Underpants Gnomes:
step 1: steal underpants
step 2: ???
step 3: profit

The report by The Independent Media Centre of Australia (in WUWT post above) implies the existence of eco-terrorism by Green groups that targets other members of the Green movement.
This shows the possible existence of environmentalist cannibalism.
They are eating their own now?
John

‘We apologise for the inconveniency’ ????????
Do they mean ‘inconvenience’ ?

M White says:
July 25, 2010 at 2:09 am
“The only people we hate more than BIG OIL is the European Climate Exchange”
*HEARTY* LOL!!!
Beat me too it!
More seriously, this little incident is instructive on a number of levels. First, and foremost, many of us (me included) have been tending to view the AGW alarmists collectively as being of one mind. Such is not only incorrect but it’s a tad immoral. That’s as bad as viewing all skeptics as a monolith or all white folks, or women, or gays as a monolith. We’re individuals and when we may be collectivized, it’s only within very narrow contexts.
Secondly, this does show how irrational some of the green base are. They seem to have problems with about the only good and reasonable aspects of “cap and trade”. Seems to them that anyone making money and complying efficiently with reduction goals while still staying in business is the problem for these folks. They’re fundamentally anti-capitalist and perhaps more than a little immature and irrational.
Mark

* It’s main purpose is not to reduce emissions, but to help polluters meet “reduction” targets in the cheapest way possible, in a business-as-usual scenario.
* Leaves room for unverifiable manipulation.
* Generates outrageous profits for big industry polluters, investors in fraudulent offset projects, opportunist traders and new ‘marketplaces’ such as the European Climate Exchange.
* It distracts attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change and it’s fundamental root causes.”
Sometimes, the hardest part of being Mayor is recognizing when the village idiot has a one-in-a-lifetime flash of genius.

#6 on the page should have been “Makes its own gravy”.

Lest we forget the esteemed Catlin ‘expedition’ and their unique portrayal of the waggle-dance. Still LMTO…..

Cute.
On a par with those noble protagonists from that great literary digest, Mad magazine, Spy vs Spy.

The ‘Climate on Sale’ or perhaps more like ‘Climate For Sale’ strikes me as an apt cry against the ‘warmist’ tendency.
The reason ‘climate’ is popular is the many ways many can make money out of it.

Karl Maki says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:17 am
Sure did — it looks like the business model of the Underpants Gnomes:
step 1: steal underpants
step 2: ???
step 3: profit
======================
Thats the one 😉

Mike,
You may have the impression that only Goddard and Watts have questions bout temperature data. But you have to step back and take a look at a bigger picture:
UHI adjusted or not adjusted:

Digital direct action? That’s some fantastic Newspeak Indymedia!

wws writes:
“It truly is a *massive* fraud, and I mean that in the exact, literal, dictionary entry meaning of the word FRAUD. It promises to do something it cannot possibly do for the sole purpose of parting innocent people from their money.”
It is Enron written large and in stone. Only an MSM drinking the koolaid could forget Enron and fail to Connect the dots to Cap’n Fraud.

Obviously this hack was the antisocial act by green extremists who have a mindset which is beyond rational democratic debate, but that does not make it insignificant. It is an act of civil war inside the AGW movement.
Without condoning what the cranks have done it is still possible to understand the frustration of green activists who take the scare stories at face value. Look at it from their point of view: Carbon trading is not doing the job it was designed to do and big non green businesses are milking the scheme for easy money.
Worst of all the IPCC has a chairman, Pachauri, who owns a big slice of the Chicago and Indian Carbon Exchanges through his connections with TERI. In other words the man who leads the organisation that set up the failing carbon trading scheme is one of the businessmen who gains financially from every carbon transation that takes place.
The green movement has a conflict at its heart. It feeds hotheads and now the hotheads are turning on the organisation that primed them to behave in an irrational and unstable way.

So, the Green Church is now divided in two groups, the gnostics, the true believers in Gaia and the agnostics, those who only care for the formal/political side of the issue, the ones with a more practical vision, who will collect the alms while selling indulgences.
Delicious!

Oh dear diddums, th’ Ecofascists are fighting among themselves. tch, tch.
… What’s the bet that before long they’ll be blowing each other up and assassinating one another….. and the media will blame us poor bemused bluddy skeptics who are standing on the sidelines armed only with facts.
Perhaps I’m being a pessimist. But I put nothing past the media or the eco nuts anymore.

Steve says:
July 25, 2010 at 2:14 am
“So, lets look at the evidence. There’s seems to be a rash of bad schoolboy-error grammar errors in the hacker’s text, especially with an inability to correctly spell “its”, i.e. the possessive of it.”
“…”
“Now let’s look at Anthony’s text introducing the hack:
“the European Climate Exchange (ECX), had it’s main page hacked””
“Hummmmm. Watson, what do you make of it?”
Well, Steve, it is evident to me that you are more Inspector Lestrade than Sherlock Holmes, and there is no doubt in my mind that Holmes would be decidedly unimpressed by your rush to draw attention to someone else’s minor lapse in grammar while exposing in your comment your own rather obvious shortcomings in this area. For example, how about what should be (even for a schoolboy) the glaringly obvious error in “There’s seems to be …”? Or how about the multiple errors in “… a rash of bad schoolboy-error grammar errors …”? This latter example not only has errors of punctuation and redundancy, it also uses a noun, i.e.,”grammar”, in lieu of the required adjectival form, i.e., “grammatic” or “grammatical”. The tortured phrasing, moreover, is obviously the result of your over egging the verbal pudding in order to try to maximize your snarky insult to Anthony.
On this evidence, if asked to deduce your own educational attainments, I would think that Holmes might well quip: “Elementary, my dear Watson”.

While hacking is generally bad, it seems it is the best way to find out what the wackos are up to. Oh well…