19. The program counter is a pointer to the instruction. 20. Program labels aren't necessary to assembled code because the offsets are part of the instruction "STOLEN CLIMATE INFO, E-MAILS LAUNCH WARMING DEBATELondon-Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online-stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change. The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a prepared statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine. More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim that the information shows that scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data. The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when D 4192 nations will seek to reach an agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping greenhouse gases.In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique- a "trick"-used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but it is contradicted by other evidence that appears to show that a rise in temperatures is continuing. The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics, who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change. However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. The University of East Anglia said that the information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The hackers' actions are clearly illegal. Are they also immoral? Does the morality, or lack thereof, of the hackers depend on whether they have exposed a huge hoax? w IS Paragraph Styles case for man-made climate change. The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a prepared statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine. More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim that the information shows that scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data. The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when D 4192 nations will seek to reach an agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping greenhouse gases.in one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique a "trick"-used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures.Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but it is contradicted by other evidence that appears to show that a rise in temperatures is continuing. The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics, who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change. However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. The University of East Anglia said that the information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The hackers' actions are clearly illegal. Are they also immoral? Does the morality, or lack thereof, of the hackers depend on whether they have exposed a huge hoax? How can we be protected from scientists who manipulate data and outcomes to suit the scientists' own opinions and vested interests? Do we need oversight of research if countries are going to formulate laws based on that research? C W 19. The program counter is a pointer to the instruction. 20. Program labels aren't necessary to assembled code because the offsets are part of the instruction "STOLEN CLIMATE INFO, E-MAILS LAUNCH WARMING DEBATELondon-Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online-stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change. The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a prepared statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine. More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim that the information shows that scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data. The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when D 4192 nations will seek to reach an agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping greenhouse gases.In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique- a "trick"-used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but it is contradicted by other evidence that appears to show that a rise in temperatures is continuing. The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics, who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change. However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. The University of East Anglia said that the information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The hackers' actions are clearly illegal. Are they also immoral? Does the morality, or lack thereof, of the hackers depend on whether they have exposed a huge hoax? w IS Paragraph Styles case for man-made climate change. The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a prepared statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine. More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim that the information shows that scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data. The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when D 4192 nations will seek to reach an agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping greenhouse gases.in one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique a "trick"-used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures.Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but it is contradicted by other evidence that appears to show that a rise in temperatures is continuing. The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics, who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change. However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. The University of East Anglia said that the information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The hackers' actions are clearly illegal. Are they also immoral? Does the morality, or lack thereof, of the hackers depend on whether they have exposed a huge hoax? How can we be protected from scientists who manipulate data and outcomes to suit the scientists' own opinions and vested interests? Do we need oversight of research if countries are going to formulate laws based on that research? C W