Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 Next
Comments 61351 to 61400:
-
andylee at 08:44 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Nefarious activity can be easily spotted with login attempts from unusual ip addresses especially from vietnam, india, pakistan, brazil, africa and other countries where many users have no clue about safe surfing, and ISPs have no obligation to keep their networks clean. (This is my personal gripe, so I developed an adaptive firewall and track 1.5 million addresses over the last decade) -
ScaredAmoeba at 08:44 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
In a roundabout way, this is recognition that SkS is a thorn in the side of the Denial Industry and deserves such attention. -
Kevin3581 at 08:32 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I get same error message as in 51 above -- no update button, just "send message". Also, when do the "forgot password" it comes back and says email sent to a bogus gmail account. -
chris at 07:53 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Thanks for that joabbess. I've implemented all your suggestions but it still won't let me change my password; since I don't use this site's password for any other log in, perhaps it doesn't matter too much... ...still, it should be possible for me to change my psswd here! -
Martin at 07:40 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@John Cook I too got this message: "Your update wasn't completed because one or more errors occurred. Please resubmit after making the following changes: That username has already been taken." Unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately - the email address in my profile is no longer valid. So I cannot use the "forgotten password" option. I have, in the meantime, changed my password on the only other website I used it. But I would like to avoid the embarrassment of seeing inappropriate messages posted under my name. Any suggestions? -
JMurphy at 07:34 AM on 25 March 2012It's not bad
Apologies for the delay in replying, mohyla103, but I have been working on something else and have only just gotten around to reading the relevant paper myself. Having done so, I believe you are once more focussing on details which are not as black-and-white as you seem to believe. Firstly, the fact that the relevant figure is 49.1% (i.e. the average snow and glacier-melt contribution to the annual flow of Chenab) over a 10 year period, suggests that the contribution is likely to have been over 50% during certain of those years. In fact, one of the graphs in the paper (showing mean monthly flow characteristics) showed how great were the deviations in monthly flow during the summer months. Also, that 49.1% contribution is concentrated in the four (mainly summer) months of June to October, so certain of those yearly rates can easily be over 50% at times during summer. Combine that with the 51.1% contribution to the yearly flow from the summer months, not all of which, of course, is due to glacier-melt but more than 50% of which could quite easily be due to glacier-melt during certain summer months of certain of the years of the study. Finally, you haven't taken account of two of the other figures in that study which showed seasonal (if I remember the term correctly) and permanent snow covered areas during March and September - again if I have remembered the correct months. During March the maximum coverage was roughly 80% but during September that that had dropped to roughly 20%. I can't believe that the amount of snow-melt would be a huge proportion of total snow/glacier-melt runoff anyway, but as the summer progresses the contribution from snow-melt would get less and less while the glacier-melt would at least remain constant but would actually probably increase. (See this abstract for further information). This means that glacier-melt would become a very large percentage of total snow/glacier-melt runoff so that, again, during certain years and certain summer months, glacier-melt would be "as much as...50-60%..." (You can see more about snow-covered areas in this study from 2001. So, to me, you have not shown that in fact your "reading of the original sources was correct and it was Barnett who was confused and/or did not report data accurately in his paper". You have made an unfair accusation for which you have not been able to provide clear evidence - you have read some abstracts and one paper, and then considered that you know more than Barnett and can accuse him of 'confusion' and 'inaccurate data-reporting'. You wrote that "[c]learing up misunderstandings is a good thing, be they my own or ones in published papers". I believe the misunderstanding is yours and not that of experienced scientists or the peer-review system. And, Barnett was NOT wrong (as far as I can see) to cite this paper as evidence, and the peer-review process did not miss any errors which you believe you have discovered. You should withdraw the accusations you have made, including the following : Considering the same kind of wording and figures appear in the abstracts of the other 2 papers cited by Barnett for this claim, I strongly suspect he and the reviewers committed the same error there. -
MattJ at 07:29 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I am glad John announced this, and a little curious just what "persona details" the hackers think they can get. As others have already speculated, emails have some value (they can be resold to spammers). But I am little more concerned if those "personal details" include passwords. Hackers could then use that to try to see if any users have used the same password somewhere else, for their login to a site with more interesting, e.g. financial data. Or it could be just an attack on the site for its position on AGW, which has made a lot of powerful enemies out of certain unscrupulous organizations and people. As for its being on a Russian site, there are two things we must not forget about today's post-Soviet Russia: 1) entire generations have been brought up to admire not civic leaders, not politicians, do-gooders or capitalists, but the Mafia and the Mafia-like structure of the KGB 2) there really are huge criminal networks of hackers taking advantage of loose law enforcement in Russia to run their hacking from there. This hacking is not the casual hacking of bored teenagers, it is very focused on criminal intents. Like Sphaerica says, we should change passwords and retire the one used on this site. -
Albatross at 07:29 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Without naming names, the two guilty parties thus far who have (without pause) posted links to people's personal and private information that was obtained illegally by hacking, appear to be representative of a larger group of "skeptic" blogs and groups who have an agenda against climate scientists and science in general. It is unfortunate that some "skeptics", seemingly unable to make substantiated and scientifically based counter argument to the theory of AGW, are forced to engage and endorse criminal behaviour. To me these desperate and extreme efforts underscore the vacuity of their arguments and that this is absolutely no longer about the science (or scientific integrity) for most "skeptics" and those who deny the theory of AGW, but rather them pursuing an ideologically-driven agenda. Some might go so far as to say that the hacking of CRU and now SkS is tacit admission by the "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW are losing. Continually refuting the constant barrage of misinformation and deception from "skeptics" is tiresome (bit necessary) and it takes much more time and effort to refute a myth than "skeptics" spend fabricating them. The sheer volume of misinformation that is being disseminated by "skeptics" and contrarians is one of the reasons that SkS needs a team of volunteers. I have no doubt that this latest hack will only strengthen the resolve of John Cook and his team to continue standing up for the science and the pursuit of truth. Thanks everyone here for their kind words and support, and thanks to Anthony Watts for taking the high road. -
Riccardo at 06:58 AM on 25 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
william aerosols are washed away quickly in the troposphere. If they end up in the stratosphere and above they'll stay there much longer. I can't give you the number right away, but sure it will be long enough for the feedbacks to kick in; and once the atmospheric and ocean circulation have changed and the planet cooled, it takes time to reverse the process. -
joabbess at 06:39 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@chris #47 This worked for me. Maybe it can work for you too ? I used the "Forgot Password" option, and then got an email with the password in, and was able to login and then change my password via the Update Profile form :- http://www.skepticalscience.com/profile.php?a=updateprofileform You might want to refresh your browser cache before trying any of this. -
chris at 06:35 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
My Profile won't let change my password. It says: ---------------------------- Profile Update Error Your update wasn't completed because one or more errors occurred. Please resubmit after making the following changes: That username has already been taken ---------------------------- any suggestions? -
joabbess at 06:34 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I am annoyed, but sadly not very surprised, that Skeptical Science has been hacked. The better you are, the higher profile target you become for those who disrespect climate change science, it seems. It continues to appall me that somebody with such excellent information technology skills should use them for such a worthless and destructive activity. It appears that sabotage is the last resort of those who are losing the academic argument, or who have the most to lose from the policy decided on the basis of climate change science, because of their stocks and share holdings in mining and energy. -
John Russell at 06:26 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Password changed successfully. I do hope the denial crowd spend hours and hours trawling through every comment on SkS. You never know they might learn something! -
dana1981 at 06:24 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I also feel bad that this event has overshadowed Peter Hadfield's excellent Monckton debate video. Please everyone, don't forget about that post! -
dana1981 at 06:23 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
arch stanton @41 - I personally view it as a compliment that the hacker felt SkS was important and influential enough to be worth hacking! -
william5331 at 06:10 AM on 25 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the younger Dryas was caused by an impact, what mechanism would have caused it to persist for nearly a thousand years. We are told that aerosols, if not constantly renewed, would pretty well disappear from the air in a few weeks. Meteorite dust should do the same. As for the lake burst theory, it seems very reasonable that this influx of fresh water would shut down the Gulf Stream but surly this water would have been mixed into the sea in a few years at the most. What kept the Gulf Stream shut down for a thousand years. -
monkeyorchid at 05:52 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Might be a good idea to send out an email to all members with a heading other than "skeptical science posts", as I tend to regard these emails as non-urgent, to be checked at leisure. It'd be good to send a message with a heading like "Skeptical science user details hacked" so that you catch everyone's attention quickly! I certainly won't be backing off, and very much doubt that anyone else will be either. I'm impressed by the display of integrity by Anthony Watts ... I only hope that perhaps he'll start to see just how low his "side" have sunk, and that perhaps he considers his position on other matters with similar care. -
arch stanton at 05:22 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Well, wasn’t that ethical of them. John and the rest of you here – after you are done feeling outraged, disgusted, violated and inconvenienced - you should take it as a complement IMO. -
muoncounter at 04:14 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
'Breaching a security hole' is a delightful euphemism. Let's insist it be called what it is: This is theft, a crime in most places. Anyone receiving these stolen goods is just as criminal. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I'm sure there are people pouring over the comments looking for the information that links SkS to Maurice Strong, the Rothchild's, Al Gore and other sources of massive funding. They're going to be sorely disappointed. -
Dan at 04:03 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Oh, good. I miss all the hate mail I used to get when Tim ball unsuccessfully sued me and my University for a million denier dollars. dan.johnson@Leth.ca -
Daniel J. Andrews at 03:48 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Password changed just fine. Thanks. I'm not worried about spam as that's my throwaway email address. Good on Anthony for his refusal to host the stolen material. That's two complimentary things I've heard about him today from sites that have challenged some of his posts in the past. -
John Hartz at 03:45 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Whatever the hacker's motive, the net result will be to make the all-volunteer SkS athor team even more commited to its mission. -
John Hartz at 03:40 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!" -
Bob Loblaw at 03:24 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
No spam or unexpected emails in my inbox from this, but profiles changed just in case. Apart from risks of harassment, due to private email addresses being exposed, there is also the possibility that the perpetrators just wish to scare people away from participating in SkS. Those that have chosen to participate anonymously (or pseudonomously) may not feel comfortable with the idea that their personal or work lives are at risk. Clearly, someone in the denialsphere is looking at SkS as "the enemy". This is the result of someone that considers SkS to be a serious opponent, so I hope that all contributors continue to participate. -
Doc Snow at 03:23 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Luckily, I'd used a different password here--now changed per the update form. Other than that, I don't much care; anyone who spends a little time can find my real name and location. Which, of course, doesn't make the violation any less unethical--especially since others here may have reason to feel quite differently on this issue than I do. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:00 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I would also like to thank Anthony Watts and the other bloggers who have refused to share the links; it is greatly appreciated. I hope the hacker draws the conclusion from their response that his or her actions were not in any way justifiable, especially revealing contributors private details, that was absolutely reprehensible. -
2012 and all that at 02:51 AM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Thanks for notification of this... this is terrible news and I hope the cuplrits are discovered soon. As per your advice I've changed my details. -
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.
Prev 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 Next
