Some in the U.S. are denouncing the unethical conduct of the hackers who hacked the computers and posted the documents. Others are denouncing the unethical conduct of the scientists.

The hacking might well have been illegal but I'm not sure it was unethical since it was done to expose unethical behavior.

Thoughts?

1) The climate researchers have acted unethically in concealing their data from scrutiny.
2) The climate researchers have acted unethically in having a journal editor fired to further their agenda.
3) The climate researchers have acted unethically in concealing the extensive manipulations that protect their conclusions from being affected by data.
4) The climate researchers hjave received millions of dollars in funding and massive prestige as a result of their claims about the climate. The above acts make this tantamount to fraud.
5) The released files are so carefully sorted that they could only have been assembled by an insider. Ten years of email, programs and other files for 600 MB? That is insider knowledge.
6) It has been demonstrated that the inside clique will discredit and destroy any researcher that does not at least maintain silence, or publicly approve, their claims.
7) Ergo, it was completely ethical of the insider to blow the whistle on this, to the extent that it reveals misconduct.

8) Some people refuse to recognise climate change even when it sits up and bites them.

ChrisPer, just because your back yard looks the same as it did years ago does not mean that changes are not taking place else where.

I have seen the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro melt away in my lifetime and the locals are mourning its disappearance as they have much to lose not in an abstract debate on an internet forum but as in food to eat food from crops they need to survive. Drought is encroaching from sub Saharan Africa which is not too far away also.
Are the climate change scientists the only ones with millions of dollars to lose if new legislations should be introduced? Of course not.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 948008.ece

So no the hacking was not justified because the perpetrators used the spin we are used to seeing on trashy "news programmes" to serve their own agendas. Eg. They handpicked phrases and deliberately edited them so that they appeared to hold a meaning of their own design rather than the one originally intended.

ChristineO: I'm just curious. When in our history has the climate not been changing? It doesn't concern you that those who have been screaming for everyone to run for their lives have been lying and cooking the books?

Oh, and the perpetrators haven't used the files at all. They simply made them available for people to read. The files speak for themselves. The spin has come from the true believers explaining the files.

Christine is saying (I think) that the criticism is only looking at snippets out of context. (Examples - hide the decline, its a travesty that we can't) She is right, they are doing that, but that is only part of the picture.
The released files have shown that the bristlecone pine data on tree-rings was taken out of context (cherry-picked) to create the faked hockey stick curve too! The measured temperature data and tree-ring data were spliced at 1960 to conceal the shockingly bad correlation between the two series. And the medieval warm period seems to have been air-brushed by these guys too.

Plus they show that the programming was horribly fudged, data not preserved and real data concealed by the researchers. If that was corporate data on which investors relied, those researchers would be at risk of serious jail time. Instead the herd instinct has set the world's leaders on a course for making the West more like Cuba.

With the outing of the concealed shonky work, there is a chance that the debate can actually had, that the evidence can be tested. If the raw data can be reverified, of course.

The bit that tickled my fancy was all the raw data from a site in Australia that iidn't exist at the time, now I'd like to see that explained away.

Christine,

The drought and desertification that is encroaching from the Saharan area is not something new, apparently it's been going on for thousands of years.

The original question seemed to ask: Is hacking unethical if it exposes unethical behaviour?

I think yes, but that the good result is greater in some instances.

However I do not think 'hacking' is a true description of the unauthorised release of this data. 'Whistleblowing' might be a better description.

patrickt wrote:

...The hacking might well have been illegal but I'm not sure it was unethical since it was done to expose unethical behaviour. ... Thoughts?

Ethics is relative.

To the vast majority of scientists and in fact people generally, global warming is accepted. Snow is melting on mountains, glaciers are shrinking and it is certainly hotter in Sydney today than it was thirty years ago. I wish also to restate for the umpteenth time, that the scientific method cannot prove anything, it can only disprove a hypothesis. It has disproven the hypothesis that the world has cooled over the last hundred years or so, because the world is getting warmer. I think not much more has been disproved. If this is unclear, please look up the meaning of scientific method.

The cause of global warming can be argued, but this is secondary. It is happening. Conclusive proof is always after the fact, when it will be obvious. The non-believers will say they were misinformed or something was missing - "but no one told me about that" or "why wasn't X included" etc. and the believers will say "we helped prevent the problem."

To me it is simply a matter of risk mitigation. If the non-believers are wrong, then we are all in deep shite. Can we risk it?

So, I say that given global warming is occurring (global warming is simply a form thermal pollution) and we need to something about it and I don't mean install an air-conditioner which cools me and heats everyone else.

So, back to the original question: Making discrepancies in some scientific research public may have been ethical in a short term sense, but if it delays actions to reduce global warming, then it is probably unethical because it will result in a bad outcome for mankind in the future.

So ethics is relative. What is ethical for me today, maybe unethical for me tomorrow, and visa versa. There is no absolute unchanging ethics. We must each make our decisions based upon what information we have at the time and what we believe the best outcome will be.

I believe it is unethical not to take action today to reduce our individual contribution to pollution, including global warming. I maybe wrong, but it would be unethical in my mind to say, I'm all right, the future generations can look after themselves. I don't want to risk my children or their children on the hunger for more and more energy hungry stuff.

Three problems with the global warming argument in my mind:

1) I have not seen conclusive proof that global warming is occurring

2) I have not seen conclusive proof that global warming is due to carbon emissions.

3) I detest the nature of language associated with global warming theory- people talk about 'believers' (as 'good') and 'skeptics' (as 'bad'). This makes it sound more like a religious cult than a scientific theory.

I do not doubt we need to find sustainable living practices. That is obvious, but as for global warming occurring and us causing it, I am yet to be convinced. I heard Barnaby Joyce say the other day that only 3% of the world's carbon comes from humans... 3%... so are we really making that much difference? Or is global warming occurring naturally?

Airzone: "The cause of global warming can be argued, but this is secondary."
Secondary? It's the "human-caused" business that is what it's all about. When I was in junior high and learned that where I lived used to be under a glacier a mile thick, I suspected the climate had warmed considerably. But then, I'm not a scientist.

"To me it is simply a matter of risk mitigation. If the non-believers are wrong, then we are all in deep shite. Can we risk it?"
And if the cause is the sun, and we spend billions upon billions in destroying industry and then learn it didn't do any good, we be in a really deep hole. Can we risk it?

"I believe it is unethical not to take action today to reduce our individual contribution to pollution, including global warming. I maybe wrong, but it would be unethical in my mind to say, I'm all right, the future generations can look after themselves. I don't want to risk my children or their children on the hunger for more and more energy hungry stuff."

I skipped over your usual philosphy of ethics are what you want them to be and are subject to change tomorrow. You are assuming that your chosen action has no consequences for your children or their children. If we make sacrifices for a "crisis" engineered by political scientists that will also has consequences for your children and their children and my children and their children.

So, back to the original thread. Your view of the ethics of releasing the files is based on your belief that the files are damaging to your beliefs? Whistelblowers are ethical is they support something you want and unethical if they support something you don't want?

Airzone wrote:

.... Ethics is relative. .... I wish also to restate for the umpteenth time, that the scientific method cannot prove anything, it can only disprove a hypothesis. .... If this is unclear, please look up the meaning of scientific method.

There are no absolutes, nor can anyone prove anything. All we can do is make our best guess based upon what information we have and our own analysis.

Although maybe the following does prove global warming??? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 766874.htm even if it is only the warming up of those arguing about it!

I will leave you in peace on this issue as clearly we have different views on the topic.

All depends on how you define 'proven' and 'absolute'.

The link doesn't work.

I'm open the possibility of climate change but it has not been proven to me yet. Or, in your words, 'the information I have has not led to me believing the 'best guess' is that climate change is happenning from man's actions'...

". . . nor can anyone prove anything".

Not so; Descartes proved that he existed, "I think, therefore I am".

Homogenized Darwin temperature data appears to be fiddled from actual decline to significant rise in temperature.
http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/

Samuel wrote:

". . . nor can anyone prove anything".

Not so; Descartes proved that he existed, "I think, therefore I am".

I will quote from the book "the problems with Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell.
p7. Descartes ... invented ... the method of systematic doubt
.. he would not believe anything which he did not see quite clearly and distinctly to be true.
... by applying this method he gradually became convinced that the only existence of which he could be quite certain of was his own.
p8. Cognito, ergo sum

But some care is needed in using Descartes' argument ... (it) says rather more than strictly certain ... it does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person who we call 'I' ... etc.

So, according to the esteemed Mr Russell there are flaws with that statement, as indeed there are flaws in all statements and all scientific research. But that doesn't mean the results are false. They may well be true, just not proven. Proof is not as easy as many of us assume.

I am happy to choose my directions based upon my best guess, if I wait for indisputable proof then I will never act. This is what concerns me about any debate, including the global warming debate; many people want 100% certainty. It does not exist. And so that lack of certainty can be used to "do nothing". I have no problem if a decision is made by an individual and the conclusion is different to mine, but to say, "I will wait until it is proved" is not a wise option to my mind and it is often employed by those who have a vested interest in the status quo. For example car manufacturers on this issue &/or suppliers & manufacturers of cigarettes and alcohol on public health, the policy of having 4 large domestic banks etc. Only time can tell the answer of course.

To act ethically we must make our own decision based upon our best efforts. By making our own decision we can then take responsibility for the outcome of our decisions. This is not a perfect approach but is an ethical one. I know there is a fear of being wrong that sometimes makes us hesitate in making decisions, and caution has a useful purpose. But I am not going to pass the buck and blame others, I see the responsibility of my actions rests with me, not with a group of politicians or a group of scientists or even my children. My actions are my responsibility. To me, this is acting ethically. And yes, others will have different actions and as long as their actions are considered, then they are acting in accordance with their own ethics. My ethics are not your ethics, ethics are not absolute right and wrongs; ethics is about values, how they work, what they mean but not the setting of values.

Seriously, do we want to wait for the politicians to tell us what to do? Between vested financial interests and politicians I reckon our individual futures just don't figure much.

It is my perception - maybe not yours, that is OK - that there is increasing pollution, and heat is one of the pollutants. So, I am trying to do my bit to reduce my footprint on this earth. I accept there will never be absolute proof. Personally I don't give a damn about the absolute proof, never ending statistics, pretty graphs and pie charts, the countless studies and figures ... it makes simple common sense to me that we are burning more fuel every year, cutting down more trees, glaciers are melting, air-conditioners sales are growing, it doesn't snow where it used to when I was a boy etc. It is pretty hot standing in the middle of a main road and yet cool under a few trees. Today we have more roads and fewer trees, so it seems logical (but unproven) that it is hotter and that is not good for our long term viability. This sort of observation is enough for me. Maybe not for others, I understand that but I only ask that we all look around and ask the question "Is it warmer today than it was twenty years ago?". It certainly isn't cooler in my experience and as Descartes said "he would not believe anything which he did not see quite clearly and distinctly to be true.", well, I am experiencing the increased pollutants and warming quite clearly in my own experience.

Life and existence is not about certainty, but about our best guess. I've made my best guess.

Regardless of Mr Russell; when I studied philosophy Descartes was considered to be absolutely right in his contention that if he was capable of thinking then he existed. Perhaps all around him was illusion but if he could imagine himself to be a human being then he existed, perhaps not as that which he perceived himself to be but none the less he must exist in some form to be able to formulate thought.

So there is one thing of which we can be 100% certain.

I am 100% certain that it is hot today.

I disagree, therefore we (you and me and them) are not certain (100%). Philosophy by Airzone 2009!

Doesn't matter to me if you're not certain, I'm still certain

Plus if we define hot as anything over 28 degrees, and the temperature is 32 degrees, it is certainly hot