Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The controversy surrounding the global warming scandal today deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked emails more than a month before they were made public.
In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
Quote:
The emails apparently show researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.
Can we say whistle blower?. And now we know that the narrative of a hacker is another lie.
They keep using "context" as their defense, but they do not realize that it is context to which places them in such hot water. *chuckle*
Nah. I am just unwilling to imagine a context where that is not yet possible. I realize that this is all the rage in certain circles at the moment, but I will refrain. Thank you so very much for your smug "concern" about what faceless people on the internet think though. I do hope it helps you to feel better about yourself and to get through your day, when you behave as if you are talking to children.
The irony. You've already decided, so please spare us the lectures insinuating closed-mindedness, and have a look in the mirror.
We have no context. Since comments are written language and not code, we need the context. If it makes you feel better to assume the context so that you can rub your hands together and proclaim "Victory!" have at it! But, you can do it on your own, thanks. No one is under any obligation to agree with or "admit" anything until we get more info.
All I see at the moment is an underskilled and stressed out coder. We don't know that even if the data is fudged, that it was because he was told to do it and that he wasn't just simply taking shortcuts because he was a crappy coder. It would seem to me that they wouldn't be that sloppy, if they were actually trying to hide something that big.
But hey, I am arguing with someone who has conniptions about and reads subliminal assassination premonition motives into Michelle Obama choices of clothing so... what do I expect, really?
To obtain context, as I said, you need:
1. The information concerning this issue from the position of those who were auditing the work of those at CRU and the requests for information by them.
2. The public responses by those at CRU concerning the auditing inquires of the data and methodology and responses to FOI requests.
3. The context of the issues with inconsistencies and problems concerning the peer review process as well as improper policy violations that some journals had with the "peer reviewed research". More specifically the fact that research was published while it did not archive its data (a big no no in publishing).
4. The details of the audits concerning specific divergence with the work in question.
Now add in...
5. The emails that corespond to each public issue (For instance two posts above you a response by Phil jones that he has deleted emails while his public response is he deleted nothing at CRU). Also there are numerous comments concerning McIntyre's requests where the private emails reveal they were stone walling and attempting to avoid answering to his requests.
6. The code comments and database comments along with the code which validates the noted functions in the comments where they manipulated data to deal with divergence in the data and correlate with the inquiries problems with the replications.
Now with all that, you have context.
With just emails... not so much, which is why they are spinning it hard because they are hoping those who they have duped with fallacious claims in the first place will be easily convinced with like explanations.
They know it won't explain it to those close to the issue, rather this has been about the lemmings and political sway in the first place. They have nothing to gain meeting those who know what is going on, that is why they are not contesting them directly and using the media as their spin center. After all, the media is mostly in the tank with the idea already, patting a few on the back and feigning outrage is all it takes to convince them, and you it seems.
1. The information concerning this issue from the position of those who were auditing the work of those at CRU and the requests for information by them.
2. The public responses by those at CRU concerning the auditing inquires of the data and methodology and responses to FOI requests.
3. The context of the issues with inconsistencies and problems concerning the peer review process as well as improper policy violations that some journals had with the "peer reviewed research". More specifically the fact that research was published while it did not archive its data (a big no no in publishing).
4. The details of the audits concerning specific divergence with the work in question.
Now add in...
5. The emails that corespond to each public issue (For instance two posts above you a response by Phil jones that he has deleted emails while his public response is he deleted nothing at CRU). Also there are numerous comments concerning McIntyre's requests where the private emails reveal they were stone walling and attempting to avoid answering to his requests.
6. The code comments and database comments along with the code which validates the noted functions in the comments where they manipulated data to deal with divergence in the data.
Now with all that, you have context.
With just emails... not so much, which is why they are spinning it hard because they are hoping those who they have duped with fallacious claims in the first place will be easily convinced with like explanations.
They know it won't explain it to those close to the issue, rather this has been about the lemmings and political sway in the first place. They have nothing to gain meeting those who know what is going on, that is why they are not contesting them directly and using the media as their spin center. After all, the media is mostly in the tank with the idea already, patting a few on the back and feigning outrage is all it takes to convince them, and you it seems.
No. I have your conception of it. You folks have already held your kangaroo court trial and attained your verdict. Which seems rather contrary to the "American way of justice". So, I refuse to. You're going to have to live with that.
Nah. I am just unwilling to imagine a context where that is not yet possible. I realize that this is all the rage in certain circles at the moment, but I will refrain. Thank you so very much for your smug "concern" about what faceless people on the internet think though. I do hope it helps you to feel better about yourself and to get through your day, when you behave as if you are talking to children.
The irony. You've already decided, so please spare us the lectures insinuating closed-mindedness, and have a look in the mirror.
*bigger chuckle and a head pat*
Sorry, your attempt at playing the role of the objective "wait and see" reserved thinker is a failed attempt. You see, when we were attempting to provide discussion on this long before this incident, the arrogance from you and your supporting crowd was unsurpassed. The attacks and calls of "denial" were screamed from the roof tops. The arrogance in responses and constant questions to intelligence were deafening.
Children is how they acted, they haven't earned back the respect of being considered adults when they approach this information in the same arrogant and ignorant manner they did before.
That is, you have been measured and have been found wanting. Don't get angry at me for being duped. That is something you need to reconcile with yourself.
No. I have your conception of it. You folks have already held your kangaroo court trial and attained your verdict. Which seems rather contrary to the "American way of justice". So, I refuse to. You're going to have to live with that.
Oh I will accept nothing short of a full investigation into the matter and a fully qualified and validated report of the issue before we assign sentence. Quite the contrary, this is where we get to show you how scientific process is supposed to be applied.
I expect the code, comments and emails will take much time to fully be analyzed and in the process, some which may be suspect may be explained as not so, but having been involved in this from the start, not all are so and in fact many are so blatant that little analysis will be required before they are able to fully track for the account.
I will leave false accusations without any evidence to your side of the argument. After all, it has been a unique quality in the field to which you so emotionally attach your devotion to.
Can we say whistle blower?. And now we know that the narrative of a hacker is another lie.
*chuckle*
Oh... hmm... this is going to make the spin more difficult.
Take away hacker and the outrage of theft is about 1/2 the argument of Trenberth and the others leaving only weak excuses to claims of "out of context".
No. I have your conception of it. You folks have already held your kangaroo court trial and attained your verdict. Which seems rather contrary to the "American way of justice". So, I refuse to. You're going to have to live with that.
Eh...did you not notice the BBC reporter that said he received these files over 3 weeks ago?
Quote:
Take away hacker and the outrage of theft is about 1/2 the argument of Trenberth and the others leaving only weak excuses to claims of "out of context".
I'd like to ask this guy; Why has he (and the BBC) been sitting on them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
