Climategate Meets the Law - We want Gore

[boyntonstu]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

http://tinyurl.com/yeq28hh

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.


This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes."..........

It's about time that we get to the bottom of this mess.

Oil and water don't mix.

Neither should science and politics.

[Kodiak]

Do you think that Gore's Nobel Prize is at risk?

[Upchurch]

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress..."

{snip}

It's about time that we get to the bottom of this mess.

Oil and water don't mix.

Neither should science and politics.
:confused:
er.... so, are you for or against Senator Inhofe's proposal to have Congress investigate a scientific matter?

[mhaze]

:confused:
er.... so, are you for or against Senator Inhofe's proposal to have Congress investigate a scientific matter?

Hmmm.....


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

[boyntonstu]

Do you think that Gore's Nobel Prize is at risk?

I do.

How much money has Al Gore received for selling new Climate Laws?

[Upchurch]

Hmmm.....


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

...so, you're for politics meddling with science?

[mhaze]

...so, you're for politics meddling with science?

Geez....there are Senate and House committees dealing with science and the environment. Inhofe is the minority ranking member of that Senate committee. Read some of their transcripts to get the flavor of what goes on there.

Anyway, you've put the cart behind the horse. The problem is that politics has been meddling with this science, not that it could or would if an investigation is held.

FYI, I'm opposed to congressional investigations and favor criminal investigations, as false scientific premises my have knowingly been used to get government grants.

[tyr_13]

What, specifically, in those files points to wrongdoing?

[MattusMaximus]

...so, you're for politics meddling with science?

Apparently, only when he/she thinks it will suit their purposes :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

What, specifically, in those files points to wrongdoing?

If this is the standard "Climategate" nonsense a la Phil Jones & the CRU, then apparently the answer is "nothing"...

http://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

[GreyICE]

Inhofe?

Isn't there kind of a crazy file where we throw Paul, Inhofe, Bachmann, et al whenever they say something?

[Kodiak]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794.html


"...when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.""

[tyr_13]

If this is the standard "Climategate" nonsense a la Phil Jones & the CRU, then apparently the answer is "nothing"...

http://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Shhhh, I already knew the answer! It was a trap.

[Captain.Sassy]

What, specifically, in those files points to wrongdoing?

Buddy it's a lost cause. It's like bouncing a rubber ball off of a brick wall.

Mann was basically exonerated of any scientific malfeasance in his university's investiagion. Doesn't make a lick of difference to these folks.

[GreNME]

Textbook. Focus on a single person as a "spokesman" to rally against (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5545085#post5545085).

http://image.grenme.com/thread/yodafail.jpg

[fullflavormenthol]

A pathetic attempt by a minority party Senetar to politicise the non-issue dubbed "climategate". Al Gore was the spokesperson for a movie. Bringing him before Congress is nothing more than a political move. On side note, Gore is at no risk of loosing his Nobel prize.

[leftysergeant]

Inhofe has no particular credentials to head an environment-related committee. He's a bean counter. He has a vested interest in stopping science that impedes laissez faire capitalism.

The only environmental call the fool has gotten right was his stance on soot.

[a_unique_person]

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said.

That is a lie, that no one can defend. "Every assertion"? He has just scuttled his own ship.

[mhaze]

But some heads need to roll. Why not Gore's?

We should be able to all agree on that.

He's an embarrasment to the Warmers.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if he had to spend some time in his little room?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

[leftysergeant]

Put Warwick Hughes in that cage. He's probably the low life who hacked them.

[GreNME]

But some heads need to roll. Why not Gore's?

We should be able to all agree on that.

He's an embarrasment to the Warmers.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if he had to spend some time in his little room?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

Awesome. It's like you're the spokesmodel for my list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5545085#post5545085).

[Iamme]

Have the sea levels really been rising, because glaciers have been melting? I hear and even see depictions of what our coastal cities may look like once inundulated. But ARE the waters rising now?

[Redtail]

But some heads need to roll. Why not Gore's?

We should be able to all agree on that.

He's an embarrasment to the Warmers.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if he had to spend some time in his little room?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg

And if we find a large group of penguins that we didn't know about we can lock Morgan Freeman up!

[leftysergeant]

Warwick Hughes belongs in jail along with Andrew Breitbart.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own reality. That's what the radical right is doing now with hackers and wire tappers and slimebags who film people in secret and edit the hell out of the footage.

Poe be damned, these people are using Hitlerian tactics, and have about as much regard for the future of humanity.

[a_unique_person]

Have the sea levels really been rising, because glaciers have been melting? I hear and even see depictions of what our coastal cities may look like once inundulated. But ARE the waters rising now?

Sea levels are rising, now. The main reason at present is because of the ocean warming. Warm water expands.

[Hallo Alfie]

Um, I don't know who these guys are exactly, but don't you think the "Hitlerian tactics" would actually be to jail those with opposing views. Silence the dissenters.

When do we have the AGW equivalent of Nacht der langen Messer?

[lionking]

Warwick Hughes belongs in jail along with Andrew Breitbart.



Jeez you have simple solutions lefty. Anyone you disagree with belongs in the slammer.

[leftysergeant]

Um, I don't know who these guys are exactly, but don't you think the "Hitlerian tactics" would actually be to jail those with opposing views. Silence the dissenters.

Creating an illusion that someone else has committed a crime when they have not is a prisonable felony. Breitbart and Hughes are not dissenters. They are liars and slanderers and enemies of civilization.

Lok, because of Hughes and dirtbags like him, you now see angry morons screaming to have scientific reseaerch defunded. He isn't a scientist, and his actions are not dissent.

[Hallo Alfie]

Creating an illusion that someone else has committed a crime when they have not is a prisonable felony. Breitbart and Hughes are not dissenters. They are liars and slanderers and enemies of civilization.

Lok, because of Hughes and dirtbags like him, you now see angry morons screaming to have scientific reseaerch defunded. He isn't a scientist, and his actions are not dissent.

Again, I don't know these guys, but they aren't the only ones. Nor did they start the 'campaign against science', that was initiated elsewhere and they are just a part of the ongoing debate. From the sounds of it they are on the right wing fringe - and as per the left wing fringe, I personally I have no time for them.
But by locking them up you are denying them the freedom of speech and that should probably be the subject of a completely different thread. And that is Hitlerian.
And once you start with them, where do you stop?

[leftysergeant]

But by locking them up you are denying them the freedom of speech and that should probably be the subject of a completely different thread. And that is Hitlerian.
And once you start with them, where do you stop?

Limit it to hackers and wire tappers and inciters of violence.

Bye-bye Breitbart, Hughes and the pimp, the ho and the wannabe spy.

[BenBurch]

Limit it to hackers and wire tappers and inciters of violence.

Bye-bye Breitbart, Hughes and the pimp, the ho and the wannabe spy.

I say we just let Mossad deal with them as it sees fit.

[Hallo Alfie]

And next will be who, the truthers I suppose. Then creationists, pet owners, abortionists and so on. Where does it stop, and why would it stop?
You cry nazi tactics yet wish to treat it with more of the same.

I'm not defending them mind you, I am genuinely interested in where this might take us. But as I say, probably a topic for a new thread.

[leftysergeant]

And next will be who, the truthers I suppose. Then creationists, pet owners, abortionists and so on. Where does it stop, and why would it stop?

With people who attempt to lie to bring legal sanctions against others and incite violence.

That would probably grab a few twoofers like AJ and Bollyn and Hufschmid.

[Hallo Alfie]

Lawyers, politicians, and virtually every human being in existence lies. Many tell tales for advantage - not just to get to court. Should we go at them too?

What of Mandela - he incited violence and uprising. What would you have done with him? Or Malcolm X, Ghandi, your own coutries 'fathers'?
Others felt they told lies, some used the law to their own purposes too.
What would you have done with them?

There are scanctions for perjury and mischievous litigation already so if they were succesful in gettin others to court, would not that be a good thing?

I am reminded of Voltaire when he said to Rousseau:

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

In a 'free' country I think that this is applicable here too, is it not?


eta. It is part of the reason why I love JREF too. Differences of opinion are good and robust debate is wonderful - even the nutjobs add some spice and colour. It takes a lot to make up a vibrant community and we need every one.

[carlvs]

I say we just let Mossad deal with them as it sees fit.

I think it would be far better if we loaded them onto a rocket and sent them to Venus. After all, considering how much CO2 is in that planet's atmosphere, it should be a paradise compared to Earth. In fact, they would likely want to stay there permanently, which means that we only have to prepare said spaceship for a one-way trip ...:D:D:D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Awesome. It's like you're the spokesmodel for my list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5545085#post5545085).

Zing! :D

[leftysergeant]

Lawyers, politicians, and virtually every human being in existence lies. Many tell tales for advantage - not just to get to court. Should we go at them too?

Freedom of speech does not extend to shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. Creeps like the hacker, Breitbart and the pimp and sleaze do not intend to take anyone to court, they know they would wind up in jail themselves. But they do want to stir up public passions in support of political movements which can only work to harm other people's freedom.

They lie to suppress dissent

What of Mandela - he incited violence and uprising. What would you have done with him? Or Malcolm X, Ghandi, your own coutries 'fathers'?
Others felt they told lies, some used the law to their own purposes too.
What would you have done with them?

Given that the end was to overthrow tyranical governments, it is praiseworthy. The differejnce is that the hacker and the Breitbart sludge are tools of tyranny.

There are scanctions for perjury and mischievous litigation already so if they were succesful in gettin others to court, would not that be a good thing?

No, because the public memory has already been poisoned, and, just like twoofers, AGW deniers and Teabagger lunatics prefer their lies over reality, may even try again to rouse passions on behalf of their "oppressed" fellow nutjobs when the courts do rightfully slap them down.

They have too much in common with the idiot who went kamikaze on the IRS.

[mhaze]

Lawyers, politicians, and virtually every human being in existence lies. Many tell tales for advantage - not just to get to court. Should we go at them too?....

Why, no, of course not. But this climate thing is so divisive, and we have an opportunity here to put it behind us by locating, agreeing on, and bringing up on charges well, one of the usual suspects.

And you gotta admit whose face comes to mind....so can't we reach agreement on this? Just think of the entertainment value as he tries to stammer his way through real science questions. And look - it'd be a veritable cathartic healing process for the country. So many good things would come of...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

[daredelvis]

Why, no, of course not. But this climate thing is so divisive, and we have an opportunity here to put it behind us by locating, agreeing on, and bringing up on charges well, one of the usual suspects.



I agree, it would be awesome to see Inhofe answer questions under oath.

Daredelvis

[geni]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

http://tinyurl.com/yeq28hh

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation”

That korean cloning thing? Thats already been pretty much settled. Dito the Shinichi Fujimura mess.

[leftysergeant]

Warwick Hughes belongs in the dock, explaining why his use of the hacked e-mails is not a crime. He is an accessessory after the fact to a felony by using them..

That he uses them to prove what they do not even indicate makes him a liar, and should make him subject to recovery of damages for libel.

That anyone takes his claims of having evidence seriously, without knowing the context of the e-mails shows that AGW debniers are lacking in cognitive skills and should thus avoid calling anyone a fraud or suggesting illegal activity.

The only illegal activity brought to light in any of this was the hacking of the e-mails. I think it says something about the intellectual capacity of certain Republican senators that they think there is a shred of evidence of anything at all strange about the scientists whose e-mails were hacked, or that the hacker is anything short of a felon.

[Hallo Alfie]

Warwick Hughes belongs in the dock, explaining why his use of the hacked e-mails is not a crime. He is an accessessory after the fact to a felony by using them..

That he uses them to prove what they do not even indicate makes him a liar, and should make him subject to recovery of damages for libel.

That anyone takes his claims of having evidence seriously, without knowing the context of the e-mails shows that AGW debniers are lacking in cognitive skills and should thus avoid calling anyone a fraud or suggesting illegal activity.

The only illegal activity brought to light in any of this was the hacking of the e-mails. I think it says something about the intellectual capacity of certain Republican senators that they think there is a shred of evidence of anything at all strange about the scientists whose e-mails were hacked, or that the hacker is anything short of a felon.

You are aware that the hacked emails (hacker or whistle-blower is yet to be determined btw - not that it makes a lick of difference now that they are out) are bringing about parliamentary enquiries and other 'investigations' in the UK and elsewhere. It is entirely possible that some involved may have charges brought against them too.

So when you say that the only thing illegal was the hacking you are mistaken on two counts:
1. If it was a whistleblower there are laws protecting same. So not illegal.
2. The inquiries are incomplete and other illegalities remain to be seen.

I fear your attitude to this is very black and white - there are many shades of gray.
:)

[leftysergeant]

You are aware that the hacked emails (hacker or whistle-blower is yet to be determined btw - not that it makes a lick of difference now that they are out) are bringing about parliamentary enquiries and other 'investigations' in the UK and elsewhere.

Which is only indicitive of the lack of common snese on the part of some members of Parliment. Those memebers seriously considering the possibility that this crap is evidence should have their asses handed to them in the next elkection, because it is vclear that they are not rational thinkers. There has been a criome committed, and they are aiding and abetting the crime.

So when you say that the only thing illegal was the hacking you are mistaken on two counts:
1. If it was a whistleblower there are laws protecting same. So not illegal.
2. The inquiries are incomplete and other illegalities remain to be seen.

I fear your attitude to this is very black and white - there are many shades of gray.
:)

Bull flops. Whistle blowers are those who are present at the scene of a crime committed by their superiors and work mates. Hacking is a crime. That freaking simple. The hacker who obtained these e-mails is as much a criminal as p[imp boy O'Keefe, maybe more so, because it compromises the integrity of the internet.

The sad part is, only an idiot thinks that the out-of-context e-mails prove anything. They don't. Not a bit of it. People who think they do show less common sense than a twoofer or O'Keefe.

[Hallo Alfie]

And it is "only an idiot" who would think they mean nothing when there just might be something in them. Hence the need for independant investigation.
Hmm? :)

[mhaze]

But why does Lefty want to interrogate a dead guy?

[leftysergeant]

And it is "only an idiot" who would think they mean nothing when there just might be something in them. Hence the need for independant investigation.
Hmm? :)

But there is nothing to them. Like Breitbart's sludge, idiot boy Hughes takes crap out of context and tells you that it means something else. There is nothing in ther e-mails that supports a charge that there is fraud involved in the AGW research.

[leftysergeant]

But why does Lefty want to interrogate a dead guy?Did one of the slimeballs involved croak without my hearing about it?

[Hallo Alfie]

But there is nothing to them. Like Breitbart's sludge, idiot boy Hughes takes crap out of context and tells you that it means something else. There is nothing in ther e-mails that supports a charge that there is fraud involved in the AGW research.

Again, I am not talking about them specifically, I have no idea who they are - and frankly don't care - and I am not defending them.
I am talking some of the general priciples of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all that crap. :)

What I am saying is that by locking them up you set a very, very (is another very too much?) dangerous precedent. :)

[leftysergeant]

What I am saying is that by locking them up you set a very, very (is another very too much?) dangerous precedent. :)

What is dangerous about locking up hackers and thugs who commit crimes to manufacture evidence against innocent parties to stir the passions of morons who might want an excuse to commit violent crimes?

[Howie Felterbush]

But why does Lefty want to interrogate a dead guy?


They don't fight back.

[Hallo Alfie]

What is dangerous about locking up hackers and thugs who commit crimes to manufacture evidence against innocent parties to stir the passions of morons who might want an excuse to commit violent crimes?

Ywo things

1. I am not talking about the "hackers and thugs" specifically. How many times must I repeat that before you get it?
2. As for danger? Have a read of some Orwell some time. It revolves around the removal of some of the basic human rights and freedoms that I (and I assume you) enjoy every day.

[mhaze]

They don't fight back.But it is so much work to dig them up and carry them around.

Look, with Gore he is alive sort of and can walk to his cell on his own power. That's a lot easier.

[varwoche]

That is a lie, that no one can defend. "Every assertion"? He has just scuttled his own ship. That ship was scuttled long, long ago.

I'm not sure which is the bigger buffoon, Inhofe or this thread.

[leftysergeant]

I am talking some of the general priciples of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all that crap. :)

What I am saying is that by locking them up you set a very, very (is another very too much?) dangerous precedent. :)

Freedom of speech does not extend to criminal libel or incitement to riot and revolution.

I think the world would be a better place today had Ernst Roehm and Rudolph Hess and Goebbels sat in the same prison cell with Hitler watching each other die.

And who is this "dead guy" you right wingers say I want to prosecute?

[fullflavormenthol]

I love the fantasy that someone who makes a film can be thrown in jail because what he says may in the maximum be alarmist and in the minimum be politically inconvenient to the party who doesn't like it.

[mhaze]

I love the fantasy that someone who makes a film can be thrown in jail because what he says may in the maximum be alarmist and in the minimum be politically inconvenient to the party who doesn't like it.

So do I!

Now wouldn't it be fun to see him trying to talk without his script?

Look....

We'd just like to ask some questions....

He's just...ahh... a "person of interest".

[fullflavormenthol]

So do I!

Now wouldn't it be fun to see him trying to talk without his script?

Look....

We'd just like to ask some questions....

He's just...ahh... a "person of interest".
What does it matter? If you have questions about the science of AGW then you should go to the sources, not the activist who choose to make a documentary on the subject. This is like me asking for Ben Stein to be called before Congress to defend Creationism. It makes little sense, he isn't the one originating the ideas in the first place.

So Gore shouldn't have to go before Congress because he didn't originate the ideas, and honestly any demand that he does, and for that matter any dreams of him going to prison is simply an example of partisan right wing mental masturbation.

[mhaze]

What does it matter? If you have questions about the science of AGW then you should go to the sources, not the activist who choose to make a documentary on the subject. ....

Who said it mattered? Now you are being silly. Congressional investigations do not matter, they are all show. It'd be fun entertainment.

This is the dude who said the science was settled.

You know, the guy with the giant chart and scissorslift?

The guy that wanted to scare all the school kids that the world was coming to an end...unless they got those CFLs.

Let's hear more of these nutty things.

[fullflavormenthol]

Who said it mattered? Now you are being silly. Congressional investigations do not matter, they are all show. It'd be fun entertainment.

This is the dude who said the science was settled.

You know, the guy with the giant chart and scissorslift?

The guy that wanted to scare all the school kids that the world was coming to an end...unless they got those CFLs.

Let's hear more of these nutty things.
But again...he is not the originator of these ideas. So why call him before Congress, and why (if it is silly) post pictures of him in a cell, and for that matter even mention him "being able to walk to his cell". Very strong terms to use if you think the idea is "silly".

So is it okay to call Ben Stein before Congress to defend the ideas of Creationism, given that his movie was used to scare people into believing that the theory of evolution caused the holocaust?

[leftysergeant]

I love the fantasy that someone who makes a film can be thrown in jail because what he says may in the maximum be alarmist and in the minimum be politically inconvenient to the party who doesn't like it.

And at the same time, the rightwingers get their panties on a wad when I suggest that actual criminals who committed provable crimes with indentifiable victims to manufacture evidence for their side go to jail. Go figure.:rolleyes:

I never did accuse right wingers of being rational.

[Hallo Alfie]

But again...he is not the originator of these ideas. So why call him before Congress, and why (if it is silly) post pictures of him in a cell, and for that matter even mention him "being able to walk to his cell". Very strong terms to use if you think the idea is "silly".

So is it okay to call Ben Stein before Congress to defend the ideas of Creationism, given that his movie was used to scare people into believing that the theory of evolution caused the holocaust?

So you're saying that Al Gore's movie is alarmist and comparible to the holocast and creationism promoters and defenders? :boggled:

[fullflavormenthol]

So you're saying that Al Gore's movie is alarmist and comparible to the holocast and creationism promoters and defenders? :boggled:
Um..no, but if you want to simply highlight words and create a narrative than good for you. This is a great way to create fiction.

Of course anyone of substance can tell I am saying that if a moron wants to go after AGW they should go for the scientists in question. Just like when smart, intelligent and honest people want to show how creationism is bunk they should not focus on the spokesperson for a freecreditreport ripoff, and instead go after the tax evader that originated the nonsense.

Of course if you want to really, really, really try to paint my comment as holocaust denial (and yes you were trying) than good for you; but it doesn't work at all.

[leftysergeant]

So you're saying that Al Gore's movie is alarmist and comparible to the holocast and creationism promoters and defenders? :boggled:

Gore uses science. Stein is a religous whackadoodle.

People who say that evolution can be used to justify racism miss the point that the trends in human evolution favor dark skin and round heads and full lips and small rounded noses. "Aryan" people do not, as adults, resemble baby monkeys as much as do blacks or Asians. A black person's gluteals are more developed for upright ambulation. These are progressive trends. Europeans more resemble the dead-end Neanderthalers. Every pure race that ever existed either married out or went extinct. There is, thus, no way that evolution favors Nazi racial theories.

Creationism, however, would suggest that since God decided that there should be several models of Homo sap, we need to leave it that way, with no genetic mixing. (But if that is how God wanted it, why'd He make Barack Obama and Halle Berry so freaking gorgeous?)

[Hallo Alfie]

Meh
It just seemed a totally ludicrous thing to say, and still does - and your angry response gives me a good insight into who and what you are and that I should avoid attempting intelligent debate with you. :p :)

[fullflavormenthol]

Meh
It just seemed a totally ludicrous thing to say, and still does - and your angry response gives me a good insight into who and what you are and that I should avoid attempting intelligent debate with you. :p :)
Translation: My pathetic attempt to poison the well has been exposed, and as a result I will now try to claim the higher ground and step away from my debunked comment.

[Hallo Alfie]

Translation: My pathetic attempt to poison the well has been exposed, and as a result I will now try to claim the higher ground and step away from my debunked comment.


Interesting take. :)
Given you are the one who Godwined himself. :D

[fullflavormenthol]

Interesting take. :)
Given you are the one who Godwined himself. :D
Because I compared one movie by an activist to another movie by an activist, and it just so happened that in one movie that the activist literally tied the theory of evolution to the holocaust...yes that was a Godwin. :rolleyes:

But of course it was you who actually tried to tie things into holocaust denial (and you know you did). Pathetic, and claiming a Godwin now is merely your attempt to distance yourself from the stink of fail. I know it hurts to be pwned, but sometimes the best thing to do is walk away. Unless you want to continue this pathetic derail that obscures the issue at hand.

If Al Gore can be called before Congress to attest to the claims of AGW than Ben Stein can be called to attest for his claims that Darwin is responsible for the holocaust...and both would be a waste of time. I know that hurts, but Al Gore isn't the originator of AGW no more than Ben Stein is the originator of Creationism or the theory that Darwin caused the holocaust.

The analogy is sour apples you don't like, but don't try to claim a Godwin when you tried to twist my brilliant analogy into holocaust denial (and you know you tried).

[Hallo Alfie]

Where's my laughing dog?

Now, can you please tell me why Al Gore was brought before your congress?

[varwoche]

So you're saying that Al Gore's movie is alarmist and comparible to the holocast and creationism promoters and defenders? :boggled: More even that the dishonesty, what's impressive is the level of infantility it takes to twist fullflavormenthol's words this way.

[GreNME]

Now, can you please tell me why Al Gore was brought before your congress?

Oh, that's easy: number one on my list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5545085#post5545085). When there's a boogeyman, it's much easier to discredit an idea or thought. You see, discredit the (boogey)man and you discredit the idea or thought-- at least to an uninformed or under-informed public. Very popular well-poisoning technique, and Inhofe isn't even pretending otherwise at this point.

[Hallo Alfie]

Oh, that's easy: number one on my list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5545085#post5545085). When there's a boogeyman, it's much easier to discredit an idea or thought. You see, discredit the (boogey)man and you discredit the idea or thought-- at least to an uninformed or under-informed public. Very popular well-poisoning technique, and Inhofe isn't even pretending otherwise at this point.

I see, because he was called before congress I am placing him as the single person to be against.
Wow! :boggled:

Look I'm not sure (and I'm being serious here now btw), but didn't he speak as a spokesperson, at congress previously, on the dangers of AGW and ask for government assistance in combatting same? Including putting in legislation for tax amendments and similar?

If so, it seems to me he has set himself up as the spokesperson to answer some questions. So one could argue 'fair enough' imo.

Frankly I'm not at all that interested in him and it was you guys who brought him up, not me.:p

[GreNME]

I see, because he was called before congress I am placing him as the single person to be against.
Wow! :boggled:

Look I'm not sure (and I'm being serious here now btw), but didn't he speak as a spokesperson, at congress previously, on the dangers of AGW and ask for government assistance in combatting same? Including putting in legislation for tax amendments and similar?

If so, it seems to me he has set himself up as the spokesperson to answer some questions. So one could argue 'fair enough' imo.

Frankly I'm not at all that interested in him and it was you guys who brought him up, not me.:p

I didn't realize your name was Inhofe.

It's like you're actually trying to point out you don't actually read what's actually being said and just picking what you would rather respond to regardless. Chill the heck out, man.

[Hallo Alfie]

I didn't realize your name was Inhofe.

It's like you're actually trying to point out you don't actually read what's actually being said and just picking what you would rather respond to regardless.

Fair enough, on review I see that you weren't directing the comments directly at me. Sorry - I get lined up that often I sometimes box shadows.:cool:

But what of the other observation regarding his original appearance before congress? Seems to me he's made a rod for his own back to some extent and now people call "foul". :)

[Megalodon]

I didn't realize your name was Inhofe.

It's like you're actually trying to point out you don't actually read what's actually being said and just picking what you would rather respond to regardless. Chill the heck out, man.

I eventually put Alfie on ignore when it became apparent that he not only refused to learn anything about climatology, he refused to learn his own language.

I addressed enough "So you mean [insert inane comment that has no relation to what was written in the post quoted (or any other)]" posts from him...

[mhaze]

.....Frankly I'm not at all that interested in him and it was you guys who brought him up, not me.:pThis is because they are trying to divert attention from Gore, the sujbect of the current inquiry. It's pretty common for Gorians to be reluctant to come out of the closet. Sort of a "don't ask don't tell" attitude.

Fair enough, on review I see that you weren't directing the comments directly at me. Sorry - I get lined up that often I sometimes box shadows.:cool:

But what of the other observation regarding his original appearance before congress? Seems to me he's made a rod for his own back to some extent and now people call "foul". :)

Indeed.

Has Ben Stein been advocating before Congress and publicly, internationally, for social changes that will cost trillions?

Has Ben Stein spent $300M on a public propaganda campaign, coordinated with international and national efforts to pass legislation to increase tax burdens?

Does Ben Stein have a preferred type of light bulb for everybody to use that is the "righteous bulb?"

One would think not.

Therefore, we can determine that Gore should be brought in. He's just a "person of interest", it's nothing to worry about. Right now. It's just a preliminary investigation, of course. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

[leftysergeant]

Mhaze, you might want to wait until somebody has some evidence that there is any fraud involved in AGW research. The only crime for which there is any evidence is that relatred to criminal hacking. I have seen nothing to indicate that any of the results of AGW research are at all suspect. Thatr a few of the researchers are annoyed that some nobody wants everything assembled for him is not news.

And who the hell is this "dead guy" that I have named as being in need of interrogation? What dirtbag croaked since I first heard of him? Is Warwick Hughes no longer above room temp? Good riddance if he has passed. Same if it was the hacker who is playing researcher.

[daenku32]

So you're saying that Al Gore's movie is alarmist and comparible to the holocast and creationism promoters and defenders? :boggled:

Are you saying Al Gore's movie is WORSE than comparisons to holocaust in Stein's movie? After all, it's not like Ben Stein has been called in front of Congress for his movie. So why should Gore?

There are bunch of irony here:
1) Inhofe complaining about conflation of science and politics.
2) Complaining about oppression of "skeptics" while the topic is "getting Gore" and inquiring for charges against climate scientists.

[mhaze]

Mhaze, you might want to wait until somebody has some evidence that there is any fraud.....

Oh, no no no no no.

That's why we need to investigate.

Look, there's no reason to get all upset. We just want to ask some simple questions.

About floods, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, pandemics, historical temperatures, insect population explosions, New York City and Florida going under the ocean, and other things that he has talked with great certainty about.
But don't worry - he'll have a fair trial.

[Hallo Alfie]

Mhaze, you might want to wait until somebody has some evidence that there is any fraud involved in AGW research. The only crime for which there is any evidence is that relatred to criminal hacking. I have seen nothing to indicate that any of the results of AGW research are at all suspect. Thatr a few of the researchers are annoyed that some nobody wants everything assembled for him is not news.

And who the hell is this "dead guy" that I have named as being in need of interrogation? What dirtbag croaked since I first heard of him? Is Warwick Hughes no longer above room temp? Good riddance if he has passed. Same if it was the hacker who is playing researcher.

How nice.
Kinda echoes a (climategate) email I read once.

Are you saying Al Gore's movie is WORSE than comparisons to holocaust in Stein's movie? After all, it's not like Ben Stein has been called in front of Congress for his movie. So why should Gore?

There are bunch of irony here:
1) Inhofe complaining about conflation of science and politics.
2) Complaining about oppression of "skeptics" while the topic is "getting Gore" and inquiring for charges against climate scientists.

OK, OK. I concede:
I said a silly inflammatory thing to a totally ludicrous, silly, inane ridiculous, nonsensical, stupid and inflammatory thing.

Sorry.:o:)

[leftysergeant]

Oh, no no no no no.

That's why we need to investigate.

Look, there's no reason to get all upset. We just want to ask some simple questions.


now you are showing the same mentality as a twoofer. There is nothing to investigate in a legal sense, other than who was the low life who hacked the e-mails. That is the only crime of which there is the slightest evidence. There is a reason why crap that someone obtains in this way is not admissible in court and should never be seriously considered in a forum like this.
It ain't evidence.

Do you grasp this concept?

[Hallo Alfie]

now you are showing the same mentality as a twoofer. There is nothing to investigate in a legal sense, other than who was the low life who hacked the e-mails. That is the only crime of which there is the slightest evidence. There is a reason why crap that someone obtains in this way is not admissible in court and should never be seriously considered in a forum like this.
It ain't evidence.

Do you grasp this concept?

Maybe not yet (only maybe mind you). But it is potential evidence, possible supporting evidence, and it may yet lead to (more) evidence.

By the way, it does actually appear evidence - at the very least - on the 'charge' of not complying with FOI requirements.

[leftysergeant]

Maybe not yet (only maybe mind you). But it is potential evidence, possible supporting evidence, and it may yet lead to (more) evidence.

I have not seen anything in what has hit the press that even suggests fraud. Where is the suggestion of fraud?

By the way, it does actually appear evidence - at the very least - on the 'charge' of not complying with FOI requirements.

You mean they did not stop what they were doing to assemble a package of stuff to satisfy the curiousity of some ranting nut bar?

[Hallo Alfie]

I have not seen anything in what has hit the press that even suggests fraud. Where is the suggestion of fraud?

You mean they did not stop what they were doing to assemble a package of stuff to satisfy the curiousity of some ranting nut bar?

Where did I say fraud? Are they being investigated for fraud? Who suggested fraud? :rolleyes::)

It seems you are decided on all counts and that's your perogative. Others see it differently (you know? the people that matter) and are pursuing these allegations further. That is their perogative - and even their duty in some instances.
If - as you seem to suggest, they are completely innocent of every allegation then they will have nothing to fear, will they?

Personally, I am happy for them to follow this through and look forward to the outcomes.:)

[Hallo Alfie]

Oooh! And look!
One submission to the UK parliament looks like this....

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics
February 2010

Ouch!

So what have we got here?

Prima facie evidence
A lack of compliance
The possibility of cherry picking data
Doubts around the reliability of some reconstructions and apparent suppression of data
Reports inconsistent with contemporary data
Impediments to scientific self correction
Networks of like minded scientists (ooh ! –Could they possibly mean groupthink?)
Possible scientific malpractices

This from the Institute of Physics! Gasp.

I guess these guys have an axe to grind too?
Are anti science and/or paid by the oil companies?
Don’t understand science?
Or (insert stupid warmer stereotype/groupthink insult here)?

The stench is becoming overwhelming to others also.
:)

[leftysergeant]

Where did I say fraud? Are they being investigated for fraud? Who suggested fraud? :rolleyes::)

It seems you are decided on all counts and that's your perogative. Others see it differently (you know? the people that matter) and are pursuing these allegations further. That is their perogative - and even their duty in some instances.

I have seen nothing that suggests any wrong-doing or improper methodology.

We have here the scientific equivalent of Breitbart's sliming of ACORN. It's all balloon juice.

[GreNME]

Fair enough, on review I see that you weren't directing the comments directly at me. Sorry - I get lined up that often I sometimes box shadows.:cool:

But what of the other observation regarding his original appearance before congress? Seems to me he's made a rod for his own back to some extent and now people call "foul". :)

I'm not calling foul, and I don't see who else is. I'm pointing out quite frankly that focusing on Gore-- and he's been a popular whipping boy on the subject since his book came out, even before the release of the film of the same name-- is essentially poisoning the well, and it's a tactic that is used to efficacy. If you want to be touchy about this sort of behavior being called out for what it is, that's on you and you're perfectly welcome to the outrage. However, there is little doubt that this "discredit the person and you discredit the idea" tactic in the public discourse is one of the greatest focuses whenever global warming comes up, despite this sort of tactic clearly being a logical fallacy (basically called ad hominem). Inhofe and others in Cogress tend to exemplify this, so if you're asking why it seems Gore has made himself a target you're putting the cart well before the horse here. Poisoning the well with logical fallacies has long been a tradition in Congressional (and other) politics, regardless of the issue.

[mhaze]

I'm not calling foul, and I don't see who else is. I'm pointing out quite frankly that focusing on Gore-- and he's been a popular whipping boy on the subject since his book came out, even before the release of the film of the same name....

Exactly!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

[leftysergeant]

As an aside, I would like to ask anyone here who has some credentials in physics and engineering whether they have ever heard of the "Institute of Physics." They describe themselves in their brief as a "scientific charity with 36000 members."

That ain't a lot of people, folks. Can somebody show me that they are any more authoritative than AE911 or Bentham?

They have not, in their shrieking comments to Parliment, presented anmy real evidence of wrong doing or impropriety on the part of the hacking victims. They cherry-pick like twoofers, as far as I can see.

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm not calling foul, and I don't see who else is. I'm pointing out quite frankly that focusing on Gore-- and he's been a popular whipping boy on the subject since his book came out, even before the release of the film of the same name-- is essentially poisoning the well, and it's a tactic that is used to efficacy. If you want to be touchy about this sort of behavior being called out for what it is, that's on you and you're perfectly welcome to the outrage. However, there is little doubt that this "discredit the person and you discredit the idea" tactic in the public discourse is one of the greatest focuses whenever global warming comes up, despite this sort of tactic clearly being a logical fallacy (basically called ad hominem). Inhofe and others in Cogress tend to exemplify this, so if you're asking why it seems Gore has made himself a target you're putting the cart well before the horse here. Poisoning the well with logical fallacies has long been a tradition in Congressional (and other) politics, regardless of the issue.

Blah blah.
Funny but I could care less about him and I didn't bring him up. :rolleyes:

As an aside, I would like to ask anyone here who has some credentials in physics and engineering whether they have ever heard of the "Institute of Physics." They describe themselves in their brief as a "scientific charity with 36000 members."



You sound skeptical about them. :D

http://www.iop.org/aboutus/index.html

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

And here is their introductory brochure

http://www.iop.org/aboutus/The_Institute_of_Physics/Promoting%20physics,%20supporting%20physicists/file_26669.pdf

Hmmm. Sound like they might be paid by the oil companies. Maybe these guys should be locked up too. Clearly they want these poor innocent scientists brought before the courts too. Michievous litigation and all that. Should we string them up too LS? Or is it just any 'denier' who smells the stench that you want 'silenced'.

But to the emails themselves..
So when you scream...

It ain't evidence.
Do you grasp this concept?

Do you actually understand that it is actually evidence. Prima facie evidence in fact - I presume you know what that means. And many, many (non denier) people think something stinks too and that is why others are right for pushing this to ensure everything is above board.

Care to elaborate and/or Defend your screaming?

Like I say, important people are looking into this and I look forward to the results.

[leftysergeant]

Hmmm. Sound like they might be paid by the oil companies. Maybe these guys should be locked up too. Clearly they want these poor innocent scientists brought before the courts too. Michievous litigation and all that. Should we string them up too LS? Or is it just any 'denier' who smells the stench that you want 'silenced'.

All identifiable hackers should be required to move into a dwelling with no phone and wireless dampers and no electronic device with greater computing power than an adding machine.

Vexatious litigants should be impoverished for their efforts.

It seems it might be. Prima facie evidence in fact - I presume you know what that means.

Care to elaborate and/or Defend your screaming?

Yeah. All I hear is some bunch of dorks repeating what some dirtbag with internet access told them. I don't see any evidence of anything wrong on the researchers' parts. Just the gfutter slime who hacked them and told the world what he thought his "evidence" meant.

[Hallo Alfie]

The you would be wearing blinkers as well as being wrong. :)

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece

With regard to the emails and the FOI,

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

[Upchurch]

FWIW:
Two posts about denialism, climate change and otherwise (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/26/two-posts-about-denialism-climate-change-and-otherwise/)
Climate change denialists = climate change liars (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/climate_change_denialists_clim.php)

[a_unique_person]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece

With regard to the emails and the FOI,

The FOI requests were not to do with he science, but with internal correspondence. That is, they were to do with the political side of the attacks on the CRU by deniers, nothing to do with requesting data.

[GreNME]

Blah blah.
Funny but I could care less about him and I didn't bring him up. :rolleyes:

How much practice does it take to be as deliberately obtuse as you've accomplished being? Did you even bother reading the original post, or even the title past the word "climategate?"

[mhaze]

Look, all this chatter is a waste of time. Let's just lock him up and move on. Next thing you guys gonna be talking Miranda rights or some other nonsense.;)



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

[leftysergeant]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece

With regard to the emails and the FOI,
We do not know that the victims were referring to official records or private conversations that some dirtbag wanted access to. We have only mention of them in illegally-obtained electronic communications.

So how is this crap prima facia evidence? Of what is it prima facia evidence? (Aside from the fact that Warwick Hughes is considered a monumental pain in the butt.)

[Hallo Alfie]

We do not know that the victims were referring to official records or private conversations that some dirtbag wanted access to. We have only mention of them in illegally-obtained electronic communications.

To the best of my knowledge, we still don't know if it was a hacker or whistleblower. If the latter then legality has nothing to do with it as they are protected by other laws.

If they were obtained illegally and it comes to bear there was some impropriety then who gives a rat's toss pot as to where they came from.

As for victims, who are the victims if more serious allegations are found to have substance?

Not wanting to divert from the topic but you are premature at this stage in calling them "illegally obtained".

So how is this crap prima facia evidence? Of what is it prima facia evidence?

See post #92.
You might try reading the articles too.:)

[leftysergeant]

See post #92.
You might try reading the articles too.:)


I have read them. Where's the evidence of wrong-doing?

And how do you justify the use of hacked information? You want to know why hacked infoprmation is useless and hackers should be regarded as criminals when they try to use it to damage someone?

It's because once you have hacked a system, you can alter stuff to your wishes, thus creating fraudulent evidence.

(Well, that, plus the fact that it is illegal to hack a system even if you just want to see if there is some porn you want on someone's hard drive.)

[FarmallMTA]

...so, you're for politics meddling with science?

Wow. I wonder if you'd be interested in this since you're opposed to politics meddling with science.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5668356#post5668356

Somehow I doubt you really are opposed. You likely just don't want politics meddling with science that supports your political agenda.

[MontagK505]

A pathetic attempt by a minority party Senetar to politicise the non-issue dubbed "climategate". Al Gore was the spokesperson for a movie. Bringing him before Congress is nothing more than a political move. On side note, Gore is at no risk of loosing his Nobel prize.

I agree, having congress investigate the producer of a fictional movie does seem a waste of time. :):):)
If congress thinks goverment funds were obtained under false pretenses then they should sue them in court. (if they have actual evidence) :)

[leftysergeant]

If congress thinks goverment funds were obtained under false pretenses then they should sue them in court. (if they have actual evidence) :)

That's just the problem. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this has occurred, thus, not the slightest reasonm to even send anyone a FOIA request or subpoena.

[Hallo Alfie]

I have read them. Where's the evidence of wrong-doing?

In the judgement of people that matter.

And how do you justify the use of hacked information? You want to know why hacked infoprmation is useless and hackers should be regarded as criminals when they try to use it to damage someone?

I don't really care

It's because once you have hacked a system, you can alter stuff to your wishes, thus creating fraudulent evidence.

Damn! I thought you were being rhetorical.
But are you saying that the emails are fraudulent now?

(Well, that, plus the fact that it is illegal to hack a system even if you just want to see if there is some porn you want on someone's hard drive.)

It's not illegal if it's whistleblowing.

At any rate, why keep crying over spilt milk - they are out there now and the whole world knows about them. Squawking "not fair" like an infant will not make them go away.

That's just the problem. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this has occurred, thus, not the slightest reasonm to even send anyone a FOIA request or subpoena.

In your balanced legally trained opinion?

Your opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has one, they are a bit like arse-holes.
The only opinions that really matter in this are the 'experts' that will be involved in the investigation.
You and I are not them. :)

[leftysergeant]

In the judgement of people that matter.

People who think that this crap is evidence are too stupid to matter.

Damn! I thought you were being rhetorical.
But are you saying that the emails are fraudulent now?

No. I am saying that because the stupid sack of crap who presented them as evidence destroyed their evidenciary value, and if you cannot see why this is so, you have reasoning skill utterly inadequate for this discussion.

It's not illegal if it's whistleblowing.

It isn't whistle blowing. It is hacking and sabotage.

At any rate, why keep crying over spilt milk - they are out there now and the whole world knows about them. Squawking "not fair" like an infant will not make them go away.

What is out there is proof of the stupidity of AGW deniers who think that this illegal crap justifies their orgasmic state.



In your balanced legally trained opinion?

It's called "rationality." Try some some time.

The only opinions that really matter in this are the 'experts' that will be involved in the investigation.

Anybody who thinks that there is a reason to investigate anything other than who was the scumbag who hacked the system is not an expert. I know that you are far less an expert than I if you think otherwise.

[Hallo Alfie]

Hehe, my my, angry aren't we. :)

Let's hope they find the hackers/whistleblowers and give them the tickertape welcomes and medals that they richly deserve. They could go on a world tour and would be cheered by millions and millions. :p
Let us also hope that charges are laid against those that have broken the laws under FOI, fraud, property by deception and whatever else potentially might come from these investigations. :D

Then you might continue your own personal attacks against yourself, your priest-scientists, and players as well as your own gullibility for swallowing their - what was the delicate word you like to use? Crap - yes, crap.;)

In the meantime, you might want to have another look at what those "deniers" at the Institute of Physics think about the emails and the so called 'science' of climate change.

I am now withdrawing from this discussion until - at least - you settle down.

I will leave the last word to you.:)

[leftysergeant]

There is no evidence without context. Even some twoofers know that.

This is not the work of a whistleblower, but of a hacker. A whistleblower is someone who was actually on hand to see a crime committed. The idiot who released that data was obviously not party to any of the actions under discussion.

[Cuddles]

As an aside, I would like to ask anyone here who has some credentials in physics and engineering whether they have ever heard of the "Institute of Physics." They describe themselves in their brief as a "scientific charity with 36000 members."

That ain't a lot of people, folks. Can somebody show me that they are any more authoritative than AE911 or Bentham?

They have not, in their shrieking comments to Parliment, presented anmy real evidence of wrong doing or impropriety on the part of the hacking victims. They cherry-pick like twoofers, as far as I can see.

The IoP is the main, and pretty much the only, professional body for physicists in the UK, and I think it is the only organisation that can grant chartership (equivalent to being a chartered engineer, only for physicists). It's similar to something like the Royal College of Surgeons. If you were hoping to find it's a semi-woo non-entity, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Pretty much every physics lab and university physics department will have membership, as well as a lot of physicists individually.

[Hallo Alfie]

The IoP is the main, and pretty much the only, professional body for physicists in the UK, and I think it is the only organisation that can grant chartership (equivalent to being a chartered engineer, only for physicists). It's similar to something like the Royal College of Surgeons. If you were hoping to find it's a semi-woo non-entity, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Pretty much every physics lab and university physics department will have membership, as well as a lot of physicists individually.

They sound really really dodgy Cuddles. ;)

I reckon that paper will give others courage to speak out too and not just in the investigation.

Climategate is bringing this science to its knees - one has to wonder what they (the IoP) know and where all this will end.

[leftysergeant]

The IoP is the main, and pretty much the only, professional body for physicists in the UK, and I think it is the only organisation that can grant chartership (equivalent to being a chartered engineer, only for physicists).

That still does not make them immune to mass hysteria, nor does it make them experts on forensics. They still have sod-all for evidence that there has been wrong-doing or sloppy science, based on the documents released.

Without context, you have no evidence.

[varwoche]

Your opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has one, they are a bit like arse-holes.
The only opinions that really matter in this are the 'experts' that will be involved in the investigation.
You and I are not them. :) Oh the irony. It burns.

[Cuddles]

That still does not make them immune to mass hysteria, nor does it make them experts on forensics. They still have sod-all for evidence that there has been wrong-doing or sloppy science, based on the documents released.

Without context, you have no evidence.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted. You asked a question about the IoP, questioning their authority and size and comparing them to 9/11 truthers. The fact is that the IoP is easily the biggest and most authoritative authority in the UK with regards to physics. If there is something wrong with statements they have made, as I have no doubt there is from time to time, I'm afraid you're going to have to address the statements themselves rather than trying to dismiss the IoP in its entirety.

[Captain.Sassy]

You guys are SO CRAZY!!!!

First, you completely fetishize (I'm using this word these days) Al Gore into the embodiment of climate change science and seek to somehow undermine climate science by highlighting Gore's faults.

But then, not only do you do this, but then you undermine your own case against Gore by posting crap that makes it seem like your issue with Gore himself is based on irrational personal hatred.

Case in point:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244b83e6b7f18a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19188)

"RAAAH !!! I HATE GORE SO MUCH I WANT TO SEE HIM RAPED IN JAIL! GGRRARAAAHHHHHHAATTTTTEEEHATEHATEHATE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH"

You guys R nuts.

[mhaze]

You guys are SO CRAZY!!!!.....You guys R nuts.Look, you need to get with the program here. I know you want to.

[leftysergeant]

If there is something wrong with statements they have made, as I have no doubt there is from time to time, I'm afraid you're going to have to address the statements themselves rather than trying to dismiss the IoP in its entirety.

I take your point about their being an authoritative body.

I am just saying that they need to learn a little bit more about rules of evidence before they go off half-cocked.

They are acting like our Congress did when Breitbart and his criminal cabal went after ACORN with manufactured evidence.

There is no context for the evidence, thus it is not evidence.

[FarmallMTA]

Edited for rule 12.

[Newtons Bit]

I take your point about their being an authoritative body.

I am just saying that they need to learn a little bit more about rules of evidence before they go off half-cocked.

They are acting like our Congress did when Breitbart and his criminal cabal went after ACORN with manufactured evidence.

There is no context for the evidence, thus it is not evidence.

Rules of evidence? What the :rule10? It's not a court of law. Furthermore, CRU has owned up to those emails being legit. What do you want the scientific community supposed to do? Ignore the fact that scientists are trying to circumvent the processes that help keep the scientific community scientific (i.e. independent verification)?

[leftysergeant]

Rules of evidence? What the :rule10? It's not a court of law. Furthermore, CRU has owned up to those emails being legit.

So? Without context, what do they prove?

What do you want the scientific community supposed to do?

You might start by asking what the context was. Then, if you can find out who the hacker is, make his life hell.

Ignore the fact that scientists are trying to circumvent the processes that help keep the scientific community scientific (i.e. independent verification)?

We still have no proof that they were trying to avoid a legitimate request for information. Whaty they obviously did not want to do was stop what they were doing to kiss the ass of some vexatious twit AGW denier.

[leftysergeant]

Edited for response to modded post.

[Hallo Alfie]

So? Without context, what do they prove?

Without investigation what do they disprove?

You might start by asking what the context was. Then, if you can find out who the hacker is, make his life hell.

Irrelevant - millions of people think this stinks - someone had the balls to bring something into daylight. Well done them.

We still have no proof that they were trying to avoid a legitimate request for information.

Correct, but they now have prima facie evidence that they were trying to avoid providing information that FOI laws say they need to provide. It is now to be investigated.
I honestly don't see how you can understand that.

[leftysergeant]

Without investigation what do they disprove?

If they do not have a proper context, only an idiot would use the data in an investigation. The dirtbag who hacked the system (the most likely source) or the "whistle blower" (most likely a creature of the right wing's imagining) can tell us where he got the e-mails and what they related to or go to hell, with a stop-over in jail.

Irrelevant - millions of people think this stinks - someone had the balls to bring something into daylight. Well done them.

It is not outside the realm of probability that there are a few million shrieking monkeys thinking with their balls. Look how many people think that that little lunatic Breitbart is a serious investigative journalist.

Correct, but they now have prima facie evidence that they were trying to avoid providing information that FOI laws say they need to provide.

Cite what piece of evidence they were trying to conceal or just stop pretending that you have evidence.

It is now to be investigated.
I honestly don't see how you can understand that.

There is no probable cause under US laws. I don't know whether the UK would consider that crap admissible. Give me an example of what they did that suggests illegality, fraud or misconduct and your evidence of such.

[Hallo Alfie]

I cant stop laughing. You are basing all this anger and indignant opinion on zero knowledge of foreign law.
And then have the temerity to call others STUPID? :rolleyes:
Do you know of the term groupthink?:D

[leftysergeant]

Do you know of the term groupthink?:D

Yes. It drives right-wing AGW deniers.

[GreyICE]

Groupthink - a term used by morons to describe why the vast majority of people with common sense disagree with them.

Hey Alfie, edited your own posts and lied about it recently? Might want to start it up again, I'd be embarrassed to write that stuff if I were you.

[Hallo Alfie]

Hey Alfie, edited your own posts and lied about it recently? Might want to start it up again, I'd be embarrassed to write that stuff if I were you.

What lies are you making now?
I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.

I am many things, but a liar isn't one of them.

Prove it or retract it.

[GreyICE]

:dl:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5369486#post5369486

Yes you are.

[Hallo Alfie]

:dl:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5369486#post5369486

Yes you are.

You ... are... kidding... me ? :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp :boggled:
That is evidence of a lie. It looks a lot to me like I said something, made an addition whilst you were posting and this is supposed to be evidence of a lie. If anything it is a misunderstanding and I will acknowledge that.

FFS grow up.

[GreyICE]

Lets see, you accused me of deliberately altering your words because you edited them. As I said, it's a tactic that was working well for you! This entire 'rip terms of the 9/11 truthers' is much more pathetic.

[Captain.Sassy]

Groupthink - a term used by morons to describe why the vast majority of people with common sense disagree with them.




I like this. Very clever. Did you make it up?