Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 Next
Comments 60851 to 60900:
-
logicman at 02:46 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I would like to add my own voice to others in thanking Anthony Watts for not posting the hacked information. The hacker has caused some inconvenience, but has not found anything of value in the scientific debate. Facts, properly evaluated, cannot be outweighed by private conversations. As to the heatwave in America: it isn't local weather. Here in the UK we are also experiencing unseasonaly hot weather, as reported by the Guardian. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:58 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
EVERYONE is very strongly advised to immediately change their password to something unique to this site, and to change passwords on any other site where you used the same password as this one (and don't ever, ever do that again, because once one site is hacked they can go everywhere if you used the same password). -
Bernard J. at 01:45 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
A little while ago the only other account I have that shared both my name and my old SkS password wouldn't log me in. I was quite puzzled about the strangeness of it, but I was able to reset using the 'forgotten password' function - the email address hadn't changed. It seems that I now I have a reason to explain that oddity... And this isn't the first time that I've had accounts do this after a site hack. Fortunately, after the first time I changed most of my log-in type accounts so that each had a unique combination of ID and password. I note that at least one hard-core Denialist is leaving the links (and updates) on his blog. It seems that the Denialati have very quickly forgotten their righteous words of umbrage after Peter Glieck's scoring of material from the Heartland group - and this hack is much more clearly illegal, and in many more ways. Ah, the stinking hypocrisy. -
dana1981 at 01:17 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Anthony Watts immediately notified us when the hacker tried to post the stolen information on WUWT, and has not allowed it to be posted, so he deserves credit for doing the right thing. Unfortunately a couple of other blogs have allowed their dislike of SkS to trump their ethical standards. -
Homer Lane at 01:10 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Whenever it suits his purposes, Anthony Watts/WUWT has not scrupled to leak unilaterally leak personal information regarding WUWT posters. That is why pronouncements regarding ethics from Anthony should be discounted entirely.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is a poor way to respond to Anthony Watt's responsible and ethical stance on this issue. Please, no more of this sort of thing. -
R. Gates at 00:32 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Mark R., I agree that it is the N. American March heat wave could be seen as "just weather" but such extreme record shattering warm events are consistent with the general trends expected over the coming years, decades, and centuries. Such events are Anthropocene weather. The human fingerprint is everywhere on the planet, and while of course there is always natural variabilty, it is impossible to any longer separate out those "just weather" events that do not contain some anthropogenic influence. This is true on both the micro and macro climate scales. The day in and day out weather of the planet exists under the Anthropocene background. It is all Anthopocene weather. -
andylee at 00:30 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
If they are just unsalted MD5 passwords, 8 character alphanumeric passwords can be cracked in minutes using a GPU. They can, wait for it, run 100 billion attempts per second. As all accounts are tested practically simultaneously against the test hash, thousands of weak accounts are cracked in mere seconds. Salted hashes take much much longer, but any hash collision would produce a valid password. Bigger hashes such as SHA256 or SHA512 using a salt are currently practically impossible to crack. Medieval technology usually works much better on the soft and squidgy human owner! -
Ed Davies at 00:16 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@Paul from VA: the post says “Although user passwords are encrypted in the database, it is unknown whether the hacker has been successful in decrypting passwords.” -
Ed Davies at 00:13 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I wonder if this hasn't been happening for a while. I use unique e-mail addresses within my domain for accounts such as this. I started getting spam on the address I was using for this site so changed it at the end of January. Trawling though my spam buckets seems to show that the earliest message was for 2012-01-22 but actual messages might have started earlier - that might have been when I cleared things out (I do so every few months). Filters now changed to watch a bit more carefully for spam on all the addresses I've ever used for this site. Of course, it's possible I've leaked the address myself somehow but it seems unlikely as it's "receive only". -
Paul from VA at 00:13 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Technical Question, were the passwords stored in plaintext, or did the hackers just get the hashes that they will then have to crack offline? -
MarkR at 00:05 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
19 R Gates - America is just America, less than 2% of the globe. The heatwave looks spectacular, but could it be just the weather? Seems a bit early to say, until some does the proper analysis. But perhaps what is relevant is that it affects public understanding and what the media say. A March heatwave is reasonably annoying for climate science opponents, if we were getting the same anomalies at the height of summer though it would probably be a public relations disaster for them. -
R. Gates at 23:48 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
An unfortunate event certainly, and quite possibly the work of the same individual or group that initiated the Climategate hack. If that is the case, their desperation is sad indeed. It is to his credit that Anthony Watts is refusing to link to the site, and we'll have to see how others in the skeptical side of things respond. What is most absurd of course is any notion that anything could be gained by such a hack, as though there were any secret "warmist" communications to be revealed. Nature is revealing quite plainly the anthropogenic effect of human activity on the planet, and try as they might, deniers have less and less wiggle room to spin their fantasy. This absurdly warm March over much of North America, stretching from Mexico all the way to the edge of the Arctic iperhaps has turned the heat up on certain groups to launch personal attacks as the facts and science continue to not support their denialist position. -
Riccardo at 23:34 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
People tend to use the same password for several different services. Having it hacked might be a problem. -
andylee at 23:27 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
They won't get much joy from spamming my email address... it's been harvested to death for the last 15 years, and still going strong... I reported 300,000 spam messages to spamcop just since December! -
DrTsk at 23:19 PM on 24 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Snap. It feels like a wet towel. Lord my #ss. -
DrTsk at 23:18 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Desperate people seeking desperate measures. We got nothing to fear. They can threat/spam all the want. I got enough spam already. Thanks google for throwing it away! -
andylee at 23:18 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I don't think SKS is the only site on its server (or servers), so the entry point could have come through many other vectors. An sql injection attack may have allowed admin access to the website, and allowed uploading code that could browse the server with the webserver's permissions and reveal db passwords of all the sites and dump them and site contents to a remote machine. (Servers rarely have firewalls on outgoing traffic) Alternatively if any users account on the system was compromised via an ssh/ftp brute force attack, or via a keylogger trojan on their home machines, and the site isn't using suPHP to compartmentalize apache access, and could access any other world readable file belonging to other users' sites in the server's docroot, then that could reveal a db password if the server is not using suPHP to separate users' sites. If the hacker managed to get a shell account and if the kernel was old and yielded to a root exploit then they could have obtained ownership of the machine, and therefore ownership of all the sites and their databases. If root access was ever obtained, then nothing in the operating system can be trusted anymore, and needs wiping and reinstalling as it could just present the illusion of being your server (ala The Matrix) If SKS was the only site on the server then it could appear to be targeted, but if the server is shared then it seems more likely that it's just another random victim in the same way that hundreds of thousands of sites are broken into every year to provide email addresses, identity theft, proxy services and run as botnet controllers. Forensics should determine what happened, if they couldn't erase the logfiles. -
TScanlon at 23:11 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
The only part I'm concerned about is the spam mail that will inevitably hit my inbox as a result of this. I've already had some lovely threatening emails of late. Most of the blog talk is even less informed than usual. Clearly they haven't been moderators on forums before. -
CollinMaessen at 22:55 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I find it odd that they constantly try to get access to private information and then try to use that to smear people involved or attempt to undermine the science. As hacking software is taking a real risk and crossing a significant line. So with this I'll be waiting for some of the usual suspect to try to data mine the information and use it for just that. Although I'm pleasantly surprised by Watts not linking to the information. -
MarkR at 22:51 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
#2 Martin, as the post says, some people chose to remain anonymous. With private information publically posted on the internet, they might not be any more. We've already seen that those hostile to climate science are willing to use crime, harrassment and intimidation. And thanks to Anthony Watts for doing the right thing. -
shoyemore at 22:46 PM on 24 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Listen to this conversation between Peter Hadfield and Peter Sinclair of Climate Crock. http://climatecrocks.com/2012/03/24/potholer54-and-the-search-for-lord-monckton/ I think we have all see Monckton on stage, and we all know how good a salesman he is, and how he knows what buttons to push with his audience. However, debate in print is another matter, and here the Lord has been caught short. -
pvincell at 22:43 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
John, thanks for all the work to keep the credible, peer-reviewed science on climate change in the forefront. Have changed my password as suggested. -
CBDunkerson at 22:38 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
'Hacking' and 'breaching a security hole' are synonymous. Someone found a way to get around the SkS website security. The 'unflattering' things being said seem pathetic even by usual denier standards. They committed a crime for this? Really? Though reading the hacker's bizarrely delusional words (i.e. "This is an anonymous leak per the standard, but I will consider stepping bravely forward if I get caught.") I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about their bizarrely delusional actions. -
jsam at 22:29 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Having just read that Anthony Watts is not posting the link I retract and apologise for my slight to him (post 6). -
Lionel A at 22:28 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Some nasty people out there, I too would suspect the same hands as with the CRUhack. This does not come as a surprise. Keep up the good work which is obviously perceived as a threat. -
hank_ at 22:08 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
From what I understand it's being referred to in the blogosphere as a 'breach of a security hole' at SKS. And blogs are talking about SKS's internal "The Consensus Project" in an unflattering way. Make sure you're using the latest version of your blogging software (ie; Wordpress, etc).Response: [JC] The "breach of security hole" is a falsehood provided by the hacker, trying to deflect from the illegal activity of hacking a website and publishing private details online. The entire user database was dumped. That is only possible via hacking or if one has the database password. Only I have that. -
jsam at 22:06 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
SkS has proven to be too good at debunking. I was assuming you were always a target. I wonder if it'll end up in the hands of the delightful Delingpole and Watts as per climatenongate. I'm sure some brave denier will step forward and confess. :-))Moderator Response: [Riccardo] Anthony Watts is explicitly mentioned in the post as not willing to spread the stolen files. Let's be fair. -
CBDunkerson at 22:03 PM on 24 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
andylee wrote: "...perhaps he'll have to consider a new career" Sadly he can always fall back on promoting his miracle cure for pretty much everything (i.e. Graves' Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, et cetera)... he just needs the desperate sick people to send more money so that he'll be able to bring it to market. Monckton will always land on his feet. After all, he is a member of parliament and a Nobel prize winner. There is something seriously wrong with the world when a person like Monckton is treated as an international hero rather than rotting in jail. -
CBDunkerson at 21:52 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Anyone else wondering if there is a connection to the CRU hack here? Given that this is a public discussion board the only 'benefit' the perpetrator(s) could hope to gain from this would be harassment of the site participants. Maybe 'behind the scenes' discussions about the administration of the site. Are the deluded and the deluders really that hard up for new material? They seemed to be doing 'just fine' churning out a constant stream of mindless arguments against reality. -
andylee at 21:44 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
It's just another skirmish in the climate wars just giving more credibility to the AGW case because of frightened fossil fuel interests. Either that, or just the usual Russians hacking for email lists. In either case, I have no fear, but others might. -
Jsquared at 21:41 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Changing password via 'Update Profile Form' just worked for me. I think it's just another form of harassment. -
Martin at 21:26 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I tried to change my name by clicking on Update Profile form. I got an error message "That username has already been taken". I don't understand why anybody would do somtething like this. Afterall, everything we posted is public. Reposting anything I wrote on a russian website doesn#t make any sense. -
andylee at 21:22 PM on 24 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
John, this is sad news, but as a webhosting provider for 15 years it is my field of expertise and would be happy to help for free. -
andylee at 20:44 PM on 24 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Brilliantly summed up, Bernard. This is still a squabble in a tea cup, but it may yet make more mainstream news and bring some focus to the facts. Now that it appears that he has become a liability to those that seek his services, perhaps he'll have to consider a new career whether he responds or not. -
barry at 20:39 PM on 24 March 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
" "The story put forth by Al Gore" is essentially that the strong historical correlation between CO2 and global surface temperature demonstrates that CO2 is the climate's biggest control knob, and Gore is correct on this point. Yes, historically temperature changes have been initiated by orbital cycles approximately 800 years before an atmospheric CO2 increase. At that point, the oceans warmed enough to release CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn amplified the existing warming and continued to drive global warming for several thousand years."
According to realclimate (via Lorius 1990), The 'biggest control knob' during glacial transitions is albedo change. CO2 comes in second. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ You're not necessarily wrong, but the example doesn't seem to support the contention. -
Sapient Fridge at 18:42 PM on 24 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Typo: "misinformtion tour" -
andyrussell at 18:24 PM on 24 March 2012Stauning and Friis-Christensen on Solar Cycle Length and Global Warming
There was a nice response to the FC&L paper from CRU: Kelly and Wigley (1992) Solar cycle length, greenhouse forcing and global climate. Nature. 360, 328-330. Amongst other things, they struggled to recreate the cycle length data that was used by FC&L. -
Bernard J. at 17:43 PM on 24 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Monckton is sandwiched between Hadfield's rock of logic and science's hard place of scientifically defensible fact. It doesn't seem to be a comfortable location for Christopher. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:03 PM on 24 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Wow. I only just looked at this article. Love it Kate. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:28 AM on 24 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
So the question is whether the YD represents a transient glitch, or a soft reboot of nature. By comparison, what we are doing now is equivalent to a planetary reformat and reinstallation of the operating system. Maybe the new version will fix the problems encountered in the Anthropocene V1.0 application. -
Riduna at 10:05 AM on 24 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Kate writes … “Tell me, people in 5000 – how bad did the climate get? What happened to the amphibians and the boreal forest? Did the methane hydrates give way, and if so, at what point? How much did the oceans rise?” Unfortunately, we will not have to wait 5,000 years to get answers to these questions. The answers will be evident to our grandchildren this century and we can already provide good estimates of the state of things to come. Slow feedbacks, especially albedo loss, methane emissions and sea level rise, are already having an effect and with global warming will be exacerbated by reduced aerosol emissions and the end of solar quiescence. Warming in temperate regions and the Arctic (so called amplification) is neither unexpected or a sudden event. Both have been made inevitable by emissions arising from burning of fossil fuels - as has the triggering of slow feedbacks over which we have no control. The outcome from these events has been outlined by many climate scientists and include: • seasonally sea-ice free Arctic within a decade, • passing the tipping point heralding collapse of the Greenland/W. Antarctic ice sheets, • sea level rise of up to 5 metres by 2100 with most of the rice occurring after 2070, • Sudden or chronic emission of Siberian methane producing sudden irreversible climate change before 2100, • Reduction of population and at worst extinction of plant and animal species due to infections and loss of habitat, We know these are likely outcomes our continued burning fossil fuels. We know that this combustion is not necessary to meet our energy needs, yet we persist in it because vested interests prefer short term profit to avoidance of longer term disaster and because governments, having been repeatedly warned of these outcomes, lack the political will to take action to curb and, as rapidly as possible, eliminate CO2 emissions. We have a choice and so far, the wrong choice has been made. -
jyyh at 09:08 AM on 24 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
I linked the last image to FB, hope you do not mind. Whatever that indeed means, I found it worth a link. -
jyyh at 09:06 AM on 24 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
Thanks! so there might indeed have been an impact back then! I may have to do yet a third story besides note#4 and this to have all bases covered. -
John Mason at 05:23 AM on 24 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
Doc - indeed, it was like that researching it. But it is new - and controversial, in terms of the notion that an impactor may have been involved. Hypotheses that are barely a decade old often go through such periods and when that time has finished they either remain as a possibility or are consigned to the mists of time! Once they pass their first centenary they are relatively bomb-proof.... hence guys like S Fred Singer et al turning upon those who try to suggest that the Greenhouse Effect is some kind of hoax. They're 90+ years too late on that one! -
SirNubwub at 04:15 AM on 24 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
DB@ response to 47 Fair enough. Philippe Chantreau @7 I found the articles supporting my statements with minimal effort on Google. You can do the same to find them. -
Doc Snow at 03:44 AM on 24 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
Indeed. Frustratingly inconclusive story, yet the moral is certainly apt. I guess we just need to "stay tuned!" -
Joel_Huberman at 00:55 AM on 24 March 2012Stauning and Friis-Christensen on Solar Cycle Length and Global Warming
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one stumped by acronyms. I'd like to suggest that all commenters define their acronyms at first use. -
Tony O at 22:01 PM on 23 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Is not the plastic phase of isostatic rebound that happens first much quicker? There is already measurable rises in the edges of Greenland as the ice sheet edge thins. So We have to add this effect to the effective sea level rise. -
Doug Hutcheson at 19:47 PM on 23 March 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
TC: you are quite right. Please regard "deliberately" as an unsupported assertion that should be snipped. I regret making such an error and apologise to Mr. Singer unreservedly. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:47 PM on 23 March 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
Does anyone else see the irony in his closing effort?So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.
- Who is the 'we' he refers to? Has he started doing actual research again, with collaborators, or is this the Royal 'we'?
- What theory is he perfecting? The so-far missing denier talisman, a theory which disproves AGW, while explaining all the evidence? I wait with bated breath ... not.
- Apart from American Thinker, which was not a respected, peer-reviewed journal last time I looked, where is he publishing his new research?
- He hopes the truth will out? When did he change his mind?
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." -Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
I think the truth about Singer is out and has been for a long time: he is a rabid denier, but now attempting to wear the disguise of a luke-denier (kinda like a luke-warmer, but still denying the obvious).Moderator Response: TC: The misquote of Houghton is egregious, but it is not clear that Singer originated the misquote or is familiar with the information that shows it to be a misquote. His misquotation may therefore be negligent rather than deliberate. Please keep such accusations within the supporting evidence, and in light of the comments policy, do not make them lightly even if you feel they are justified.
Prev 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 Next
