Home > Environment > Climategate:The smoking gun

Climategate:The smoking gun

March 12th, 2010

In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system , I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. It seems unlikely at this point that the hacker/leaker wll be identified, so as far as criminal liability is concerned, we will probably never know.

Looking over the evidence that is now available, however, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person (apart of course from the actual hacker/leaker) who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.

Here’s the timeline of key events

By July 2009, CRU had advised McIntyre that climate data used in their work was available from the original sources, but that they couldn’t release it because some sources had supplied it under confidentiality agreements.

24 July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five countries whose data they wanted of the form:

I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]

(unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request). In the end, CRU got over 100 FOI requests, all essentially identical, but different enough to pose a huge burden.

25 July 2009: The next day McIntyre announced that he had got a mass of CRU data, essentially all that sought in the harassment campaign, in a post headed “a mole”. McIntyre stated in comments that he had received the data from a person in the UK. In any case, it is clear that his harassment campaign was going hand in hand with attempts to gain unauthorised access to CRU computers, and did not stop when its supposed goal was realised.

Over the weekend beginning Friday 13 November, someone located and copied files (apparently associated with the CRU response to this effort, although this is unclear) from a back-up server at the university’s Climatic Research Unit, and attempted to load it on to the RealClimate site under the name FOIA.zip (the files were in a directory called FOI2009). That attempt failed and the files were then widely circulated to anti-science sites. It’s unclear whether the extraction of the file required sophisticated hacking, simple illegal entry to a poorly protected site, or McIntyre’s “mole”. What is clear, as this report notes is that the name FOi2009 indicates that someone associated with the campaign was responsible. As the report says

An abbreviation often used for the US Freedom of Information Act, it suggests again that the leaker was familiar with the attempts by US bloggers and others to get release of tree ring and similar data.

.

These files included large numbers of emails, selective quotation of which was the primary focus of the subsequent bogus scandal. Whatever claims might be made about access to data, there is no justification for stealing and publishing other peoples’ mail. Everyone who passed on or made use of the stolen emails was guilty of an offence against normal standards of behavior.

Having been advised of the stolen emails, McIntyre linked to them and played a prominent role in disseminating dishonest and misleading claims about their contents, focusing on the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline” which were used to suggest a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. In fact, as the U Penn investigation found, these claims were baseless. “Trick” referred to a clever way of combining data, and the “decline” was not a decline in global temperatures but a well-known problematic feature of tree ring data.

So, to sum up, McIntyre, having earlier obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, linked to the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. The excuse that he was not personally involved in the hack/leak, but merely benefited from the proceeds is essentially irrelevant in moral terms.

What can we learn from this? The first point is that what has been presented as an exercise in a quest for transparency is in fact a standard piece of rightwing harassment and intimidation of scientists, along the lines of the Data Quality Act.

The second is that those who accepted McIntyre’s self-presentation as an honest seeker after truth and the CRU scientists as secretive obstructionists have been suckered. That includes the Institute of Physics, at least some people in the British FOI office and, unfortunately, George Monbiot. Monbiot at least is clearly acting in good faith, and the FOI people presumably didn’t realise they were being played. The story with the Institute of Physics is much murkier, an irony not lost on Tim Lambert.

Note: I’ve updated this to correct some errors. In particular, I mistakenly thought the name FOIA.zip had been assigned to the files by UEA, rather than by the hacker/leaker. Also, it’s been pointed out in comments that the multiple emails referred to confidentiality agreements about data rather than data per se. And I’ve emphasized the point that we don’t know and will probably never know who actually stole or leaked the emails. That’s a question for the police. McIntyre’s responsibility, as I said, is moral.

Categories: Environment Tags:
  1. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 06:25 | #1

    Hacking is a crime. Hackers get charged when there is evidence of their activity. Steve has not been charged let alone found guilty of any such crime. You have no actual evidence that Steve was the hacker and if you did you should take it to the police. You don’t like what happened and you don’t like Steve and given that there is no evidence that he is the hacker you’re implying some alternate form of guilt by association. I think that sums up what is happening here. I’m sure your disciples will be quickly sold on the idea that Steve is a bad, bad man but otherwise your not contributing anything new to the debate. And fro
    a public interest point of view you are focusing on the least material component of the story (how data leaked rather than what was in the leaked data). Good luck with it.

  2. Alan
    March 12th, 2010 at 06:35 | #2

    Terje, the most interesting thing about the stolen emails was that many AGW deniers read them and no-one could find evidence that AGW is not happening.

  3. March 12th, 2010 at 07:11 | #3

    Pr Q said:

    I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.
    [snip]
    ….What is clear, as this report notes is that going after FOIA.zip indicates that someone in McIntyre’s circle of supporters was responsible.

    There is no doubt a crime has been committed. The University of East Anglia describe this as “illegal taking of data”. The police are investigating the server breach.

    It sounds like there is a fair element of the personal animus mixed in with professional dispute and political partisanship in the conflict between McIntyre and CRU. Wikipedia reports that McIntyre was regarded as Public Enemy Number One prior to the hack:

    Stephen McIntyre: Role in the Climatic Research Unit controversy

    Colby Cosh, writing for Maclean’s magazine, believes McIntyre’s criticisms of climate science are at the heart of the controversy over the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident in November-December 2009. McIntyre is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails. In the emails, one climate researcher dismisses him as a “bozo”, and others speculate over his funding, and argue about whether to ignore or counterattack him — although, according to Cosh, some unnamed scientists acknowledge that his criticisms have merit.

    The Associated Press analysis of the CRU e-mails stated: “Some e-mails said McIntyre’s attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him. McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. ‘Everything that I’ve done in this, I’ve done in good faith,’ he said.”

    If McIntyre wanted payback against CRU he certainly got it. Whether it was him or some associate of him who overstepped the line is open to question. I suppose McIntyre is, at the very least, in the position of a “receiver of stolen goods”.

  4. John Mashey
    March 12th, 2010 at 07:13 | #4

    re: IOP
    Physics Today (Website of IOP) has weighted in with Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission, a fairly good summary. It mentions some physicists who are unhappy with the IOP. I know some others in UK, in some cases at FRS level, who are not happy. This is slightly akin to the unfortunate mess at the American Physical Society’s Forum on Physics and Society (APS FPS) 1998 foolishness in printing a Monckton paper.

    The IOP story isn’t over…

  5. jquiggin
    March 12th, 2010 at 08:19 | #5

    Terje, everyone who disseminated the stolen material, including you, has committed a crime. But such crimes are rarely prosecuted, and probably shouldn’t be.

    I’m not implying but stating directly that McIntyre has acted very badly here, as, on a smaller scale, you have also done.

  6. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 08:32 | #6

    I’m a bad, bad man.

  7. Michael
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:06 | #7

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Do you think Stephen McIntyre suggestions for others to join a coordinated barrage of FOI requests was made in good faith?

  8. MrPete
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:15 | #8

    John Quiggin, you have your facts confused. Please fact-check yourself.

    1) Crucial to the whole CRU data mess is the need to distinguish raw vs adjusted vs meta data. To just discuss “the data” is to be confused. CRU itself has lost sight of this… and they themselves lost the raw data used to produce their analysis. Since they cannot reproduce their own analysis, it’s clear that McIntyre’s requests were entirely appropriate.

    2) While the media have bandied about the word “stolen” with respect to the FOIA file, it is quite notable that the legal authorities have not made such claims. As of this date (almost four months in) we have zero evidence that any criminal activity was involved in releasing the data.

    3) On the other hand, the UK government has specifically accused CRU of criminal activity with respect to withholding FOI data… a crime that they cannot prosecute due to an incredibly short statute of limitations… a problem that they now intend to correct.

    You’ve made a number of other insinuations about McIntyre and his readership for which you have zero evidence, but they are all minor compared to the above three points. So I’ll stop here.

    Bottom line: the evidence says essentially the opposite of what you are claiming.

    CRU has admitted they don’t have their original data and cannot replicate their own work.

    The only party accused of a crime in this incident is not someone external to the university, but university staff themselves.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree. Climate science has been shown to have some badly infected spots that need to be cleaned up. We’ll all benefit as this process takes place.

  9. L Nettles
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:27 | #9

    So are you confirming the UEA docs are legitimate?

  10. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:36 | #10

    Hah, hah, hah. Double check on that ‘mole’ before it eats tunnels all through your thesis.
    =============

  11. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:38 | #11

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    You are Terje. Bad to the bone.

  12. jquiggin
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:56 | #12

    :As of this date (almost four months in) we have zero evidence that any criminal activity was involved in releasing the data.

    This is silly. The existence of a crime is obvious, which is why there has been a police investigation. What we don’t have is evidence as to how the crime was committed or by whom. But we have plenty of evidence to show that participants in the anti-science campaign, such as you, support, excuse and endorse crime.

    I haven’t made any insinuations. I’ve stated directly that McIntyre encouraged an anti-science harassment campaign, received stolen emails and lied about their contents.

  13. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:19 | #13

    Nah, the email stash was not posted to climate audit. Your article, as MrPete demonstrates, is rife with error, but none so bad as your paranoia. PS. Check on the mole. That mole is making you look very foolish. A word to the wise.
    =====================

  14. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:26 | #14

    Are you trying to tell we citizens of a free country that the existence of a police investigation makes the existence of a crime obvious? Wow, why have I wasted this much time at this outpost, clearly desolate of sense, logic, and proportion?
    ===================

  15. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:33 | #15

    Here’s a hint. That same mole gave up the Piltdown Mann’s ‘censored file’, too, which to objective observers shows a guilty conscience by Michael Mann that he knew the Principal Component analysis in MBH ’98 was bogus.

    Read up, son; you’ve got a lot to learn.
    =================

  16. Wolf
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:35 | #16

    “But we have plenty of evidence to show that participants in the anti-science campaign, such as you, support, excuse and endorse crime.”

    Care to share?

  17. Miss_Magoo
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:44 | #17

    This article is another badly written submission from the alarmist trench.
    You people really take the biscuit for the most narrow minded and prejudiced bilge.
    Instead of supporting open science, you continue to bow down to the dubious and criminal activities of a few twisted number fudgers.
    McIntyre encouraged no-one to hack into UAE. His blog is properly controlled and he does not allow the sort of behaviour common on most alarmist blogs. If you took the trouble to look further than the end of your (very long) noses, you might find something interesting.
    You thrive on rumour and innuendo, but you have to because you have nothing left to argue with now the lies and junk science have been so discredited.
    Never mind, I suppose you are pals with Graham Readfearn, so that would explain it.
    Disgusting. Just disgusting.

  18. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:55 | #18

    wow john, there must be some alarm that goes off when someone criticizes McIntrye and army of stooges goes to work
    did anyone else notice that the mole at the ABC has urged balance in reporting, close personal friend of John Howard, i think we can do without his Fox News version of balance

  19. Donald Oats
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:00 | #19

    While I agree that a superficial case may be made that Steve McIntyre instigated it, I don’t think it is as strong a case as you have attempted to present, Pr Q. I am very upset at the manner in which climate scientists are being targetted by all and every means available, particularly the inappropriate use of FOIAs. Stephen McIntyre is entirely to blame for inciting and providing the means for a concerted campaign against his longtime targets. Unfortunately for Steve Mc, the actual raw data he seeks is contained in the original tree cores removed by the various field scientists – generally not CRU scientists – and the original laboratory analysis of those rings. Once processed in this way, only numerical derivative data – aka intermediate data in the language of Steve and his readers, is passed onto the climate scientists who do the numerical and statistical processing of the data. With ice core data Steve McI needs to take samples either from the stored ice cores himself, or he needs to go to the glaciers etc and get his own ice cores. It isn’t impossible, afterall small teams such as Lonnie Thomson set up, and those of many other scientists, have made the trek up the mountains to take the cores. Only then could Steve McI be sure that he had the raw data. All the rest is derivative data and is “tainted” by the same scientists that Steve McI spends so much time attacking.

    The Briffa argument with Steve McI is the one that to me indicates an attitude in need of adjustment (and I’m not talking about Briffa). Steve McI had received tree-ring data in 2005 and quietly sat on it. In the meanwhile, he harrangued Keith Briffa to release that data! Since Briffa did not have the right, he referred Steve McI to the researchers who had provided Briffa access – but this was after Steve McI had obtained the data. Steve McI continued to pursue Briffa publically, demanding the tree-ring data. It was last year, I think, that Steve McI revealed on his blog that he had had the data all along. It is hard to reconcile the fact that he had the data all along with the 5 years of periodically demanding the same data from Briffa. Attempts to reconcile that lead to reasonable questions about Steve McIntyre, questions that go to motive.

    It could have been petulance, but I think 5 years of demanding data by correspondence and then attacking Briffa via the web implies a level of obssessiveness that transcends mere petulance; it seems to be a too weak as a motive. My suspicion is that he hoped to find small difference in the two data sets – the one from the original tree-coring team, compared with what SMcI was hoping Briffa would provide – so that he could ask his regulars to yell conspiracy! from the top of their lungs, until the relevant universities cracked and set up inquiries into “Briffadoor” (oh, alright, “Briffagate”). By watching the ongoing dramas in the CRU incident, and the fact that SMcI made a written submission to the UK Inquiry, I have no particular reason to think his behaviour would be signficantly different if Briffa had issued raw data with differences by McI’s copy of the raw data provided by the Russian researchers that Briffa has continually told McI to ask.

    No TerjeP, Steve McIntyre is not likely to have clean hands in this. I see the issue quite differently to the interpretation Pr Q has given above, but I do agree with him that S McI has a bigger agenda than just verification/validation of the “original raw data” used by the scientists to reach their various conclusions. I’v met enough people who play these crazy games, TerjeP, and whether you agree or not with their politics and ideologies, they are toxic people best avoided.

    Nevertheless, in my opinion Pr Q’s last paragraph is the truth of the matter.

  20. Arthur Reader
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:00 | #20

    Dear Quiggy

    Just like your fellow neo-Creationist friend Tim Lambert, this diatribe is just a baseless smear against Steve McIntyre.

    It’s what happens when you can’t appeal to science or evidence, you just smear your opponents.

    There’s an obvious reason why Jones refused to give the confidentiality agreements – its because he lied about their existence to illegally obstruct examination of his data and methodology.

    Oh and the emails weren’t hacked from outside, they were leaked from within. That much is obvious to everyone except to the real denialists – people like you.

  21. Michael
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:04 | #21

    @smiths
    Yes, now Stockbrokers like Maurice Neville are ‘agnostic’ on climate. The colossal over-reach of these people beggers belief.

  22. Donald Oats
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:05 | #22

    @Donald Oats
    To clarify my comment about the strength of the case Pr. Q presents: I think that there are enough cases in which Steve McIntyre’s behaviour has questionable motives, and taken together with what Pr Q. presents provides a significantly stronger argument to support Pr Q’s final paragraph. Which I agree with, no equivocation on that.

  23. Tony G
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:06 | #23

    “CRU has admitted they don’t have their original data and cannot replicate their own work.”

    The only criminal activity is the fraud being put forward by CRU that they have replicable science that has been peer reviewed.

    If they cannot replicate their own work, how can anyone else peer review it?

    JQ you are an accomplice in the CRU’s science fraud if you keep promoting it.

  24. conrad
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:06 | #24

    I’m basically with Terje and Jack Strocchi. It seems to me that the most important thing about this now is whether the police can track down who did the initial hacking and punish those responsible. If that turns out to be one of the loony fringe that try and read emails like fundamentalists read the bible, then no doubt they’ll end up smearing themselves, although no doubt that won’t make any difference to their supporters who will pass it off as some heroic act needed to fight against the communist hordes (or whatever).

  25. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:07 | #25

    @Donald Oats

    Naw, the flurry of FOI requests in the summer of ’09 were for the confidentiality agreements.

    Naw, McIntyre did not know what of all that data was pertinent; Briffa stonewalled him on that.

    Yah, Lonnie Thompson doesn’t document his data such that his research can be checked.
    ==============

  26. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:19 | #26

    kim, is english your first language?

    Nasa scientist Gavin Schmidt in New York, an opponent of the sceptics, says that at 6.20am his time, someone tried to upload the files onto his own RealClimate website via a Turkish server.
    The hacker seems to have used a technique called “privilege escalation vulnerability” to become an administrator, rather than an ordinary user of the site.
    Schmidt says the hacker “disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server. They then created a draft post”.
    Schmidt swiftly spotted the hack and took it down.
    He also alerted CRU in Norwich.
    But even as he did that, a cryptic comment appeared on McIntyre’s site. “A miracle has happened,” it said, providing a link via the RealClimate website which immediately led to four unidentified downloads. McIntyre says he never noticed this posting at the time, and like all the other bloggers, denies all knowledge of its origin.

    the dissemination was sophisticated, co-ordinated and deceitful

  27. jim
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:21 | #27

    You are so careless in assigning “moral responsibility” that I would have to say YOU are the morally irresponsible party here.

  28. Michael
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:26 | #28

    So we have the condescension
    “Please fact-check yourself?”
    “You’re barking up the wrong tree”
    “Read up, son; you’ve got a lot to learn.?”
    “A word to the wise.”
    ?”So I’ll stop here.”
    “Here’s a hint.
    “Read up, son; you’ve got a lot to learn.?”
    “rife with error”

    The bodily function issues (infections, bilge, fudgers, smearing)
    “badly infected spots that need to be cleaned up.”
    “You people really take the biscuit for the most narrow minded and prejudiced bilge.”
    “you continue to bow down to the dubious and criminal activities of a few twisted number fudgers.”
    “Disgusting. Just disgusting.”
    “this diatribe is just a baseless smear”

    The macho posturing
    “That mole is making you look very foolish.”
    “Are you trying to tell we citizens of a free country”
    “Wow, why have I wasted this much time at this outpost, clearly desolate of sense, logic, and proportion?”

    Racial issues perhaps?
    “(very long) noses”

  29. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:27 | #29

    @smiths

    Yeah, right, that’s why it took several days for anyone to notice.
    ==================

  30. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:28 | #30

    @Michael

    Pinnochio, you putz.
    =========

  31. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:38 | #31

    how do you know it took several days for anyone to notice kim?
    are you relying on the protagonist’s own words?
    cui bono?

  32. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:39 | #32

    @smiths

    Read up.
    ====

  33. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:51 | #33

    back up your claims with some evidence kim, thats how its done,
    you made the claim, i asked how you know, so back it up.
    there appears to be little good faith in your presence or approach,
    that seems to be in keeping with your agenda,
    the funny thing is that the more people like you pop up behaving like this, the more disgusting and deceitful the campaign looks – if thats possible,
    and terje, have a good look around at your associates, if it were me my skin would be crawling

  34. Michael
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:52 | #34

    @kim
    Are you replying on behalf of “Miss_Magoo”?

  35. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:56 | #35

    @smiths

    Regard the timeline. Also, I’m not trying to persuade anyone here. I’m trying to stimulate the fact-checking of the curious. Almost nothing your dear Professor has said here is correct. Fact check everything he’s said. The ‘mole’. Hah, an open server.
    =========================

  36. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:58 | #36

    Of coursr had your heros at Hadley obeyed the law you so revere, and released the information as the FOI act required they do, instead of kying about it, none of this would have happened and you wouldn’t have to waste your time making stupidly distorted “moral” judgements.

  37. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:05 | #37

    @Don Wagner

    Careful Don, that irony is dangerous to the sort of people who’ll believe a crime was committed because the police are investigating.
    =============

  38. Fran Barlow
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:06 | #38

    People who say yah for yes tend to be of Afrikaaner SAfrican origin … so English may well be Kim’s second language

    Separate note to PrQ … the occasional troll John Coochey managed to badmouth you over at The Drum, apropos of nothing at all. Odd how fixated some people become.

  39. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:15 | #39

    @Fran Barlow

    English correction: Pinocchio for Pinnochio and ‘us citizens of a free country’ for ‘we citizens of a free country’.

    OK, enough pissing on the rug of my host. Please check his facts. Thanks for the venue.
    =======================

  40. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:17 | #40

    I’m not trying to persuade anyone here.

    i never said you were, i think you are dishonest in your motivations and your utterances,

    I’m trying to stimulate the fact-checking of the curious.

    which leads me to feel you are dishonest with youself,

    your entire use of language is frivolous, conveys derision, mockery and contempt, and therefore has nothing to do with constructive debate, truth or facts

  41. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:23 | #41

    Agree Smiths re your comment on the fact checking ability of Kim – another troll in the line of Coochey with his derisive comment as follows

    “Almost nothing your dear Professor has said here is correct. Fact check everything he’s said.”

    Nothing but another gullible, misguided idiot. Perhaps he is part of the vexatious and malicious Mcintyres legion of bogan spam FOI senders.

    They need to get a life other than jumping in to attack when their dog barks.

  42. March 12th, 2010 at 12:23 | #42

    If there is a ongoing police investigation, then I think the results of it would actually be most interesting. It would no dount make public the individuals and/or organisations behind the clearly illegal hack. The coverage in the media would be significant, and very easily hurt the denial movement. Of course, they’d claim they *had* to resort to illegal methods, however the damage to their reputation would be enormous.

    Ultimately, I think the whole thing is going to backfire on them badly, much like the ID crowed discovered in Dover v Kitzmiller when they forced a court show down and got absolutely trounced.

    The denial community will continue to try and milk climategate for some time, and they’ll tell themselves it demonstrates a conspiracy on behalf of scientists… but ultimately in the court of public opinion they are going to get burnt, and burnt badly. I don’t suggest Steve McIntyre is the hacker, however the personal reputation of him and fellow deniers will be severaly copromised.

    It’s hard to put spin on committing crimes being investigated by the police.

  43. Jim Birch
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:25 | #43

    Wow. As one of this site’s most prolific commenters, do you have an opinion Terje?

  44. Ken Lovell
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:28 | #44

    All you are doing kim is dancing around with mindless glee at your self-perceived cleverness, chortling at being able to make anonymous fun of a professor. I thought we had got rid of that kind of juvenilia from this blog, but apparently not.

  45. Grim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:28 | #45

    @smiths

    Oh, TerjeP just wants his regular pat on the head for being such a cute little Dennis the Menace.

    Terje – have you had your claim to being a ‘man’ peer reviewed ?

  46. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:37 | #46

    Omigod, Prof. You’re own link tells you about the mole. I give up; you are hopeless.
    =================

  47. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:41 | #47

    er, uh, ‘your’ own link. Go read it. So why did you persist with alleging the mole was a person, conspiratorially linked with Steve McIntyre. Did you not read your own link, or were you being disingenuous?
    ===============

  48. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:47 | #48

    since it is quite clear your time here is rapidly running out kim, i would just like to say i feel great sorrow for you,
    whatever genes or misfortune have led you to be the sad, nasty person you clearly are, i hope you are able to spend the rest of your life trying to do something constructive and meaningful since our time on this earth is so brief, it does seem a shame to waste it so thoroughly

  49. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:53 | #49

    Michael :
    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Do you think Stephen McIntyre suggestions for others to join a coordinated barrage of FOI requests was made in good faith?

    Given the context yes.

  50. Fran Barlow
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:54 | #50

    @kim

    PrQ’s facts and inferences are plausible.

    Beyond an evident desire to make the thread about you rather than the topic, and possibly to win some minor battle for your side of the culture war, I can’t be bothered trying to fathom your aims here, so I won’t.

  51. Fran Barlow
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:54 | #51

    @kim

    PrQ’s facts and inferences are plausible.

    Beyond an evident desire to make the thread about you rather than the topic, and possibly to win some minor battle in your side of the culture war, I can’t be bothered trying to fathom your aims here, so I won’t.

  52. kim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:55 | #52

    @smiths

    I’ve been banging the boards for many years, smiths, and yes, I’ve done a lot of good. My conscience is quite clear and my instinct for the truth has been vindicated over the last few months, as the exaggerations of the alarmists, based on little more than the products of imaginative and mistaken models have been revealed for the fearmongering that they are.

    I’d like to thank all the wonderful people here, whose relative lack of invective is refreshing compared to what I’ve endured in the past on alarmist boards.
    ====================

  53. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:56 | #53

    Grim :
    @smiths
    Oh, TerjeP just wants his regular pat on the head for being such a cute little Dennis the Menace.
    Terje – have you had your claim to being a ‘man’ peer reviewed ?

    Grim – say something intelligent or else piss off.

  54. Alan
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:57 | #54

    I wonder who triggered this co-ordinated attack. Morano? Steve McIntyre? Joanne Nova?

  55. MrPete
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:59 | #55

    @Donald Oats
    It’s interesting how alarmists continue to bring up the idea that McIntyre was somehow disingenuous in his Briffa requests. What you relentlessly fail to incorporate into your meme is the prior history**, which taught McIntyre to be incredibly careful about ensuring original sources certified exactly which data version had been used.

    In that context, it was completely appropriate for him to ask Briffa for the data… impossible to presume the data he had was the correct version. And Briffa knew it: Briffa actually said he (Briffa) was going to go to the data source to get permission for McIntyre. He didn’t tell McIntyre to do it as some have suggested.

    This is all so silly. What should be a simple matter of coming together in support of improved scientific process (isn’t that something ALL of us want?!!) has turned into a political game.

    That’s one reason CA prohibits all discussion of politics and religion. The issues should be scientific, not political.
    I’ll leave you to your political banter…

    ** McIntyre had often been sent down rabbit trails where people claimed the data was available online…except the referred-to versions were never the version they had used. And of course they then accused him of stupidity, etc. With such poor metadata documentation, both in the journals and in the SI’s, their work was literally uncheckable. That’s one reason he’s become such an ardent advocate of improved scientific process with respect to data handling.

  56. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 13:11 | #56

    mrPete, if it is a “simple matter of coming together in support of improved scientific process” why do you use the word alarmists to describe people who genuinely believe there is an earth threatening problem that needs to be fixed,
    or is it that anyone who sees something dangerous and vocalises the potential is an alarmist?

  57. jquiggin
    March 12th, 2010 at 13:15 | #57

    Since various commenters seem to have missed a basic point, let me restate. Gaining unauthorised access to someone else’s emails and publishing them is a crime.

  58. March 12th, 2010 at 13:27 | #58

    jquiggin :Since various commenters seem to have missed a basic point, let me restate. Gaining unauthorised access to someone else’s emails and publishing them is a crime.

    Indeed, we’ve all been distracted by the claims of “hide the decline” and other nonsense. Put aside the questions of what the emails say, don’t say… The simple matter is that were stolen intellectual property.

    Can McIntyre hide behind “whistle blower laws”? Quite possibly his only plausible defence.

    And yet, I suspect there is a difference between an insider passing on IP/emails/evidence as *opposed* to a co-ordinated attack on the CRU’s systems, the theft of IP and then another person (McIntyre) making public these materials.

    Whistle blower laws exist in the hope of protecting individuals in government and private sector or chose to release information for the public benefit. Think the release of documents from the tobacco firms or from Enron that alerted the public to the illegal activities of those companies. What has McIntyre done? Received stolen materials. There release was a co-ordinated with an attack on Real Climate. Just before COP15.

    The timing of events, motivations of the parties concerned and the “A miracle just happened” comments cast doubt on the sincerity of McIntyre’s motivations.

    A crime, is a crime, is a crime by any other name…

  59. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 13:35 | #59

    @smiths
    Kims time in this blog isnt running out fast enough Smiths. Prof where is your delete key? This idiot needs to go find a support group. Its not here.

  60. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 13:37 | #60

    @kim
    And Kim – you keep threatening to leave but like the last of the dregs at a party you gatecrashed you are still here.

  61. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 13:49 | #61

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Michael :
    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Do you think Stephen McIntyre suggestions for others to join a coordinated barrage of FOI requests was made in good faith?

    “Given the context yes.”

    You are bad Terje. Just an old wooden spooner stirrer award should go to you. You are in here primarily in your role as dissenter from the mainstream. We can take a bit of moderation occasionally but it doesnt make you any more popular.

    We know who you really are and what you stand for and the fact that its no better than a 50 year old bikie still wearing the colours of his misspent youth doesnt make you any more palatable. Terje – you are an aberration who has not grown up and refuses to give up his flag for a flawed cause (libertarianism, rampant deregulation, delusionism on climate science no matter what the evidence or need for policy change, anti government no matter what the evidence or need for policy change)

    Yet you have nothing to offer except a utopia your kind dreamed up…with no evidence and no facts and no science…. (the perfect world where all are free tio be small town individuals with the freedoms to shoot each other and refuse a sherriff)

    Hippies used to think LSD expanded their minds as well. They were wrong and so are you…just another dreamer on planet earth. There is no small town anymore. Your kind went global and its a big town now.

    We tolerate you Terje…but dont ask me why.

  62. freespeech
    March 12th, 2010 at 13:54 | #62

    What an poor piece of “scholarly” research.
    CRU cannot describe the changes they have made to their original data.
    To attempt to replicate CRU work you need original data and the rationale for any changes made to it.
    Neither are available which would normally invalidate the output of CRU as having any scientific value.
    McIntyre asked for original data and any modification made to the data.
    CRU refused citing “confidentiality agreements”
    CRU have not been able to cite these agreements, and agree that many have been “lost”.
    CRU have supplied this “confidential” data to “friends”, which either invalidates their argument about confidentiality or shows that they honour them when it suits their data hiding agenda.
    The FOI requests by CA bloggers was subsequent to the refusal by CRU.
    The requests were made to prove that the initial rejection reason was specious.
    The requests were divided into small lots so that CRU could not hide behind a “it takes too long” rejection of the FOI request.
    The assertion that “the data is available from the original sources” is also specious.
    It does not answer specifically what data was used by CRU or what changes they made.
    It is used to “hide the denial”.

  63. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 14:06 | #63

    Steve received the stolen emails in much the same way as John is receiving this comment. Steve held off commenting on them until several other parties had already published the data and released it to the broader public domain. In fact Steve was busy trying to deal with the technical aspects of a sudden traffic overload on his blog following the publication of the email by others. That he has subsequently commented on the content of the leak is hardly a crime, moral or otherwise. I agree that the transfer of these emails from the private sphere into the public sphere was wrong, just as the historical nationalisation of many corporations has been morally wrong, however such inappropriate transfers of ownership are on the whole like broken eggs and can’t be reversed by refusing to use the property in it’s new context. Telstra traces it’s roots back to the government theft of telecommunications assets in the early 20th century but I don’t think the current owners and users of that property are morally or legally at fault. Likewise the land I own and occupy and enjoy was no doubt stolen from aborigines at some point in history but I don’t carry any moral burden for that injustice. As a libertarian I have strong views about how property ought to be transfered (by voluntary consent) but where eggs can not be unscrambled and restitution can not be made and where the current owner neither instigated or assisted the original injustice the property should not be subject to any subsequent involuntary transfer. These emails are now public domain. It is wrong that this happened but it did and it can’t be undone. Given that it is public domain the public has a right to comment on it. Last time I checked Steve was a member of the general public.

    Of course John can stand his moral high ground if he promises us that he will never pass comment on the content of any leaked document or the revelations caused. Personally I think this would be a silly position to adopt. It would also in my view necessitate outright opposition to wire taps and search warrants. I don’t think privacy is so sacred that the substance revealed in any breach must never be used. Of course I agree that people are entitled to take measures to protect their privacy and that invading somebodies privacy without just cause isn’t on.

  64. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 14:12 | #64

    erm, alice LSD does expand your mind

  65. March 12th, 2010 at 14:13 | #65

    TerjeP (say tay-a) : I agree that the transfer of these emails from the private sphere into the public sphere was wrong, just as the historical nationalisation of many corporations has been morally wrong, however such inappropriate transfers of ownership are on the whole like broken eggs and can’t be reversed by refusing to use the property in it’s new context. Telstra traces it’s roots back to the government theft of telecommunications assets in the early 20th century but I don’t think the current owners and users of that property are morally or legally at fault….

    …Of course John can stand his moral high ground if he promises us that he will never pass comment on the content of any leaked document or the revelations caused

    I believe this is what is called a non sequiter? Comparing the privatisation of public assets to hacking of theft is well… I’m not sure what. The argument does not fly.

    McIntyre could have easily commented on their contents without publishing them.

    Re the last comment, there is a difference between leaked documents and stolen ones. Whistle blower laws are in place to handle such incidents, and where introduced upon the premise that it was necessary for public safety.

    Saying “leaked” instead of what they actually where – stolen – is a rhetorical trick.

  66. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 14:13 | #66

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Yes Terje and thousands of climate scientists are wronga nd you want to claim the high moral ground. What part iof this picture isnt tehe average person on the street getting?
    The fact that vested interests big tobacco, big oil,and big coal can afford their own organised hack and snow jobs ine the media?

    Most of us arent fools Terje as much as you would like us to be. We will defend the truth tellers in the same way as you persist in defending the liars. You can go to your grave with that on your conscience Terje. I hope you recall your contribution as an old man and live to regret it.

  67. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 14:16 | #67

    @smiths
    Smiths..first it expands it and then it contracts it…there are no free lunches in mind altering substances and thats the only place there are no free lunches…you get free lunches everywhere else in the business world!

  68. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 14:16 | #68

    As a libertarian I have strong views about how property ought to be transfered (by voluntary consent)

    I don’t think privacy is so sacred that the substance revealed in any breach must never be used.

    so to paraphrase, private property is sacred, and private property is not sacred

  69. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 14:27 | #69

    Terje

    I thought there was no “public domain” in your world?? yet you say

    “Given that it is public domain the public has a right to comment on it.”

    Doesnt someone own the public domain Terje? Isnt that what you want? Private ownership over the public domain. You are being hypocritical. What was stolen wasnt in the public domain. Unauthorised access to other people’s emails is a crime. Repeat crime. So why arent you defending the transgression of private property rights? (Because you are a hypocrite?)

    Yet another case where Terje is causght tripping up over his own ideologies. Its not pretty is it?

  70. March 12th, 2010 at 15:05 | #70

    Alice :Terje
    I thought there was no “public domain” in your world?? yet you say
    “Given that it is public domain the public has a right to comment on it.”
    Doesnt someone own the public domain Terje? Isnt that what you want? Private ownership over the public domain. You are being hypocritical. What was stolen wasnt in the public domain. Unauthorised access to other people’s emails is a crime. Repeat crime. So why arent you defending the transgression of private property rights? (Because you are a hypocrite?)
    Yet another case where Terje is causght tripping up over his own ideologies. Its not pretty is it?

    Ideology does not demand consistency, just subservience.

  71. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 15:54 | #71

    Alice – of course there is a public domain. It isn’t however the same as government ownership.

  72. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 15:56 | #72

    p.s. The alphabet is a classic example of something that is neither private intellectual property nor government property. The alphabet is public domain.

  73. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 16:14 | #73

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Whe would you suggest they sell the public domain then Terje?

  74. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 16:16 | #74

    We definately know a crime was comitted. The FOI people were very explicit that Hadley CRU had committed a crime by lying about reasons to release information. Thinking that Steve Macintyre committed a crime by asking for something that should be made available is reserved for the twisted little minds that believe Exxon is somehow to blame. The E-mails also say that the Hadley folks were actively soliciting funds from Shell. Further, now that the e-mails are in the open and the fact that thees paragons of scientific virtue were in fact fudging the data, it would be a crime to ignore them. People still look at the Elgin Marbles don’t they?

  75. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 16:40 | #75

    don, is the planet warming?

  76. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 17:07 | #76

    Alice :@TerjeP (say tay-a) Whe would you suggest they sell the public domain then Terje?

    I wouldn’t and I didn’t.

    It is possibly also worth pointing out that the atmosphere is in most regards currently public domain. A lot of policy debate in response to AGW is about whether this thing that is currently public domain ought to be controlled (ie ought to become property) with the government as initial owner and then privatised in a manner via an ETS. I’m very hesitant to support such a transfer of the atmosphere from the public domain into government hands and then into private hands via an ETS. I am however aware that such a move is not without precedence nor completely without merit.

  77. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 17:40 | #77

    @Don Wagner
    Another drop in from the delusionati crowd – did you whip out – change your name from Kim to Don Wagner – nice normal name for a fruitloop and drop back in here suggesting Exxon isnt to blame when its been funding the “there is no global warming” garbage you got conned with for years.

    You cant pump up the amount of oil we have in a century, burn it and expect there not to be some damage.

    Don – go away.

  78. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 17:43 | #78

    nice normal name for a fruitloop

    Alice I thought name calling violated John Quiggins dinner party rules.

  79. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:00 | #79

    @smiths
    Probably, Why do you ask?

  80. March 12th, 2010 at 18:03 | #80

    Your “evidence” is nothing more than assertions and your own characterizations:
    “24 July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five countries whose data they wanted of the form:

    I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]

    (unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request)

    What facts do you present that McIntyre was behind this? You seem to have left this out. Linking to a fellow “anti-denialist” is like asking a wife where her husband was the night of the crime. Do you have any proof? The link is in itself only an assertion, and by someone with an axe to grind.

    “25 July 2009: The next day McIntyre announced that he had got a mass of CRU data, essentially all that sought in the harassment campaign, from “a mole”. Note that this may be true or may be misdirection to protect external hackers. In any case, it is clear that his harassment campaign was going hand in hand with attempts to gain unauthorised access to CRU computers, and did not stop when its supposed goal was realised.”

    You clearly ADMIT that both possibilities exist, but then you proceed having proven nothing, but as if the incriminating supposition is true. It would get a big fat “F” in Logic 101 class.

    Your assertion that his FOIA request wet hand in hand with attempts to gain access to their computers – that is quite a stretch of logic there – quite a quantum leap in jumping to a conclusion. Mind giving actual facts? Assertions from other blogs don’t count as facts. You should know that by now, having your own blog. Assertions MAY be facts, but they MAY not be, also.

    As to “its supposed goal was reached”: Are you asserting that CRU has given up all their data, emails and methods (as required by UK law)? If so, you are sore mistaken. SOME data has been turned over. Not enough for anyone to make heads or tails from it. As to emails, those are not all relinquished per their laws yet, not as far as I have heard. I could be wrong on the emails; I know people are still waiting for adequate data and methods with which to replicate the work done at CRU over 10 years ago, which no one has ever been able to replicate per scientific custom and requirements.

  81. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:05 | #81

    @Alice
    I’m suggesting that scientists who lie and fudge data are to blame, plus delusional idiots like yourself who follow them over the cliff in your own dull-witted fasion. Tell us how much money Steve Macintyre got from Exxon genius? Tell us why it’s ok for Phil Jones to try and get funds from the oil industry? Why aren’t you getting your panties in a twist about that?

  82. March 12th, 2010 at 18:21 | #82

    BTW, since the very beginning, I’ve thought it was Phil Jones himself who outed CRU.

    If it was an insider who compiled the emails and docs and then released them, is it a crime? I believe it might be, but don’t know for sure.

    For an outsider to have filtered through all their emails AND docs it would have taken a VERY long time, all the while connected to their server. That the police investigation hasn’t stepped up to label this as definitively a hack – this says a lot. By process of elimination, it suggests an inside job.

    Jones having run away almost from the first moment – what was that all about?

    And some of his recent statements suggest he is not sold on the “consensus” nearly as much as any of us would expect.

    I think the bugger has a conscience and decided he’d been bullied by Michael Mann enough, and that he decided to blow it before the emails DID get erased. YES, I know it was him who suggested deleting them. That argues the opposite, I know. But some intuition tells me to expect the unexpected.

    The butler did not do it. There are only about 11 people at CRU. Briffa was a suspect. Who among them had reason? Who among them could DO it?

    I think it was Jones.

    Am I speculating? Hey, so are you!

  83. Grim
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:29 | #83

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    “Grim – say something intelligent or else piss off.”

    Wau, that’s eloquent, TerjeP, couldn’ta said it better myself.

  84. March 12th, 2010 at 18:33 | #84

    @smiths
    Gavin Schmidt was online at NASA GISS at 6:20 am? Boy, there is an eager beaver!

    Should we suspect him? WTF was he doing at work at 6:20am??? Up all night hacking into CRU so he could send the zip file? He must have been the only white collar person in the western hemisphere at work at that time of the morning.

  85. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:37 | #85

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje – so does swamping which you are seriously in danger of violating.
    As for you Don Wagner
    Anyone who believes Exxon hasnt been funding your delusionist anti science that you have so gullibly swallowed whole, without even chewing, for years has to be a fruit loop…let me show you why

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

    http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/exxon.html

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

    http://www.exxposeexxon.com/newsroom/page.jsp?itemID=30375328

    Choose one Don Wagner – I could post a million links here about Exxon’s funding and promotion of the sort if rubbish you believe.

    Its in the public domain. Well and truly. Its big tobacco all over again.

    I bet you have not read or informed yourself of any funding sources for the fruitloop anti science industry and if you did you would still go around the world saying “people who think Exxon funded delusionist anti science are mad.”

    We are not dreaming.

    You are.

  86. March 12th, 2010 at 18:37 | #86

    @Don Wagner
    Yep. At most one crime was committed. Outing a crime – only those who got outed consider it a crime. Outing it is whistleblowing. While it can get you fired, it isn’t a crime. Except in the eyes of Antonin Scalia – Mr. “I am not an activist judge!”

  87. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:42 | #87

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Plus Terje – I didnt tell anyone to P….O….
    You need to mind your own dinner party manners (that is if you actually get invited to any).

  88. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:51 | #88

    Ha ha ha Terje….

    You say, refering to the privatisation of the atmosphere itself that we all breathe,….

    “I am however aware that such a move is not without precedence nor completely without merit.”

    How on earth can I take you seriously?? ROFL

    (I think thats the only reason why you are still here Terje…hanging by a thread due to the kindness of the Prof, dinner party host. You are a barrel of laughs.).

  89. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 18:58 | #89

    Alice – I told Grim to PO because like you Grim was making rude remarks. Grim was also contribute nothing.

  90. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 19:06 | #90

    Don and Kim (our two newest drop outs).

    Someone between teh vexatious Steve McIntyre – his website and the world – structured and organised a mass email FOI submission across the globe using email networks. Its like being asked for your date of birth 60 million times and if you are a genuine scientific research organisation they dont have time to deal with a snowstorm of electronically deluged FOI requests. Any small business would be out of business under these conditions. Id like to say it was an attack – it was indeed. It was alos immoral and greedy and well funded.

    Get it? It was a paper attack only it wasnt on paper. It was organised – there were form FOI requests and they fell from the networks like snow on scientific organisations across the globe.

    Do I want want scientists dealing with this garbage…why arent you delusionati complaining about the scientists being buried in so much regulatory garbage they cant do their job?

    How come you arent championing the deregulation of science like you do the de-regulation of business????…on your terms the FOIs (hundreds and hundreds of them) should have been shredded as useless wasteful hindering regulation. But no …you want your deregulation when it suits you and your FOI regulation when it doesnt.
    Its a political game spelt “mad right wing conservative bogans” and you want to win politics and then power. Not a chance – dishonest and rotten to the core.

  91. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 19:08 | #91

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    No excuse Terje – Grim wasnt as rude as you at the dinner party!

  92. March 12th, 2010 at 19:34 | #92

    @Alice
    There is no evidence of what you are saing – only the assertions here and a few other warmers are organizing – and hoping to do what with it? It has no reality. It is in their imaginations.

  93. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:01 | #93

    Alice :@TerjeP (say tay-a) No excuse Terje – Grim wasnt as rude as you at the dinner party!

    Alice – you’re not in a position to criticise.

  94. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:03 | #94

    Alice :Don and Kim (our two newest drop outs).
    Someone between teh vexatious Steve McIntyre – his website and the world – structured and organised a mass email FOI submission across the globe using email networks. Its like being asked for your date of birth 60 million times and if you are a genuine scientific research organisation they dont have time to deal with a snowstorm of electronically deluged FOI requests.

    Actually the total number of FOI requests received by Hadley in 2009 was 105, not millions. Furthermore, in spite of your belief, they are humans, not gods, and therefore subject to the FOI law. What is so difficult about that concept that you don’t get it? Had they released the information instead of lying about it when initially asked they and you wouldn’t look like the fools they are

    Any small business would be out of business under these conditions.

    Any small business that lied and obstructed the way your Hadley Heros did would find it’s executives in jail

    Id like to say it was an attack – it was indeed. It was alos immoral and greedy and well funded.

    You have no proof, no reason to believe it other than you’re too shallow intellectually to do a little research so you have to rely on the other inhabitants of your little echo chamber

    Get it? It was a paper attack only it wasnt on paper. It was organised – there were form FOI requests and they fell from the networks like snow on scientific organisations across the globe.

    105 snowflakes. What a blizzard. I’d blame global warming

    Do I want want scientists dealing with this garbage…why arent you delusionati complaining about the scientists being buried in so much regulatory garbage they cant do their job?

    If they did their job instead of trying to make sure no one could replicate their “Science” and find out how incompetent they really are there would be no discussion

    How come you arent championing the deregulation of science like you do the de-regulation of business????…

    You keep making shit up like this someone is going to mistake you for a climate scientist

    I don’t champion the deregulation of business but I will be when we get the climate scientists straightened out.

    on your terms the FOIs (hundreds and hundreds of them)

    105. Stop lying. It doesn’t enhance the debate

    should have been shredded as useless wasteful hindering regulation. But no …you want your deregulation when it suits you and your FOI regulation when it doesnt.

    Sorry, you got me mistaken for Phil Jones

    Its a political game spelt “mad right wing conservative bogans” and you want to win politics and then power. Not a chance – dishonest and rotten to the core.

    Your rant, unencumbered by facts or truth, and laden with made up shit, like my “Championing of business deregulation” is typical of fraud artists who’ve been exposed.
    you calling me dishonest is the ultimate irony. What a small minded loser you are.

  95. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:19 | #95

    Alice :@TerjeP (say tay-a) Terje – so does swamping which you are seriously in danger of violating.As for you Don WagnerAnyone who believes Exxon hasnt been funding your delusionist anti science that you have so gullibly swallowed whole, without even chewing, for years has to be a fruit loop…let me show you why
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
    http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/exxon.html
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil
    http://www.exxposeexxon.com/newsroom/page.jsp?itemID=30375328
    Choose one Don Wagner – I could post a million links here about Exxon’s funding and promotion of the sort if rubbish you believe.

    Wow. 16 million in seven years. That must explain why the world media was 100% behind the global warming people all these years. Until the e-mails exposed them for the fraud artists they really are. Anothet thing, I didn’t see a link to how much they paid Steve Macintyre. He is the one this artical is blaming or do you remember that far back

    Its in the public domain. Well and truly. Its big tobacco all over again.
    I bet you have not read or informed yourself of any funding sources for the fruitloop anti science industry and if you did you would still go around the world saying “people who think Exxon funded delusionist anti science are mad.”

    Fruit loops are a cereal manufactured by General Mills. Normal people stop using them as an insult about the eighth grade. Scfientists are those that propose theories and submit their work openly for confirmation or rebuttal, unlike the folks you worship. By the way, I’ve informed myself quite well. That’s why I can expose your cluelessness so easily. Oh, and it’s not anti science, it’s anti dishonesty.

    We are not dreaming.

    You are. In Technicolour

  96. March 12th, 2010 at 20:22 | #96

    Gee you focus on the pettyness of who may have obtained the emails but forget about the billions dquandered on the AGW scam. Do you normally look for flees in the room but ignore the herd of charging elephants!

  97. John from France
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:27 | #97

    Steve certainly was morally responsible. Good job he was. Too few of us are

  98. Don Wagner
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:49 | #98

    John from France :Steve certainly was morally responsible. Good job he was. Too few of us are

    Amen

  99. smiths
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:59 | #99

    oh bugger, twawki i keep forgeting,
    what exactly is the AGW scam again?

    and don, the UK Met officce and Nasa say that the last decade was the warmest,
    each of the last seven decades have been warmer than the last,
    do you believe them?

  100. sdfc
    March 12th, 2010 at 21:03 | #100

    Smiths you would think the extreme weather events around the globe would have them thinking, however such are the limits of their argument that they use them as “evidence” global warming is not happening.

Comment pages
1 2 8331
Comments are closed.