Well, there's a huge hullabaloo going around about the sooper-top-seekrit e-mails of some of the biggest proponents of global warmening in the scientific community having been pilfered by some nefarious hacker (note to world: I have an alibi. In fact, I have several.) and published on the web. And my, isn't it enlightening to see what they have to say amongst themselves when they think no one else is listening.
Probably the best site thus far for digging out the good stuff is PowerLine. They have a superb writeup of the first e-mail to garner attention -- where Professor Phil Jones talked about using a "trick" to adjust the data to "hide" some inconvenient evidence.
Now, this is certainly incriminating, it is far from damning. "Trick" is not necessarily deceptive -- a "trick shot" in pool is flashy, but hardly misleading. I use some math "tricks" to do complicated calculations in my head, and they are very accurate. And there is very little lying done between a "lady of negotiable virtue" and her "trick" -- both know the exact nature of their transaction.
This would hardly be the first time a grand conspiracy theory hung on the definition of a single word. Remember the infamous "Downing Street Memos?" The "smoking gun" there was a single sentence that hung on a specific interpretation of a single word:
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
"Fixed" in that context could mean a couple of things. To the conspiracy-minded, "fixed" meant "rigged" or "fabricated." To those of us who are a bit more familiar with the Queen's English, "fixed" was more likely to mean "attached." Or, as I thought at the time, a synonym for "fixated."
Fortunately, in the Global Warmening case, there are more damning facts. The PowerLine guys found a chain of e-mails where the scientists were discussing how to best keep their discussions out of public scrutiny -- including trying to solicit e-mailers to announce they had an "expectation of privacy" after the fact and discussing other ways to foil a Freedom Of Information Act request for the e-mails, including simply deleting them.
There ain't no spinning those e-mails. There is a direct, causal link spelled out -- someone wanted the e-mails, so first they tried to find ways to refuse the request, then moved on to deleting them.
I'm just a layman here, but I always thought the scientific ideal was the dissemination of information, not suppression of it.
I guess that's why I don't hold some advanced degree.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Global Warming
Comments (10)
And now the New York Times ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Justrand
| November 23, 2009 11:33 AM | Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
And now the New York Times has decided that it will NOT publish anyh of the emails because [wait for it] they were obtained illegally!
LOL!
Yup, the same "news"paper that published any and EVERY thing it could get its hands on to try and destroy national security, has developed ETHICAL STANDARDS!!!
Irony...oh yeah.
1. Posted by Justrand
| November 23, 2009 11:33 AM |
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 11:33
2. Posted by cirby | November 23, 2009 11:51 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
As a lot of people are pointing out, the emails aren't the worst of it.
Some folks have dug into the source code and data that were included, and found a programming horror show. Terrible code, munged-up datasets, and (to top things off) a README file that outlines many of the really, really dumb things that were done in the computer models - and a lot of comments that boil down to "this model put out the wrong numbers when given real-world data, so they changed the program to bypass the data..."
2. Posted by cirby | November 23, 2009 11:51 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 11:51
3. Posted by 914 | November 23, 2009 12:06 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Liberals..
3. Posted by 914 | November 23, 2009 12:06 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 12:06
4. Posted by Les Nessman | November 23, 2009 12:36 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
As I said on the other Wizbang thread about this scandal:
"So how much 'inconvenient' data, emails, etc have been/will be deleted by the AGW adherents? Once it is gone, we may never know.
Scientists, my ass."
4. Posted by Les Nessman | November 23, 2009 12:36 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 12:36
5. Posted by WildWillie | November 23, 2009 1:25 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
This is almost the final nail in the global warming hoax casket.
The NYT did not have any problem publishing the emails hacked from Palin's account. I wonder what the difference is? ww
5. Posted by WildWillie | November 23, 2009 1:25 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 13:25
6. Posted by 2klbofun | November 23, 2009 1:37 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Can we now call it Piltdown-Man-Made Global Warming? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man)
6. Posted by 2klbofun | November 23, 2009 1:37 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 13:37
7. Posted by Gmac | November 23, 2009 1:55 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"Yup, the same "news"paper that published any and EVERY thing it could get its hands on to try and destroy national security, has developed ETHICAL STANDARDS!!!"
Did you know that even ice tea hurts coming out of your nose?
These people have just killed off the greatest hoax perpetrated on the public since who knows and all they can do is whine that the e-mails were obtained illegally?
Keep digging idiots, this should be amusing to watch...
7. Posted by Gmac | November 23, 2009 1:55 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 13:55
8. Posted by GarandFan | November 23, 2009 2:15 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
When in doubt, KILL THE MESSENGER! And Pinch wonders why the NYT stock keeps falling.
8. Posted by GarandFan | November 23, 2009 2:15 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 14:15
9. Posted by Hank | November 23, 2009 2:26 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
The NY Times and the MSM are going to have real problems reporting this as it will make them look bad also.
After all, the MSM has been parroting the "Global Warming" hysteria in lock-step for years.
To report honestly on this makes them look even worse, if that is possible.
Expect "John Edwards" coverage.
9. Posted by Hank | November 23, 2009 2:26 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 14:26
10. Posted by Neo | November 23, 2009 5:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Except for the conspiracy aspects of the contents of FOIA2009.zip, exactly why was all this stuff secret in the first place ?
Likewise, if the part of the theory that says this was put together as part of the review to Steve McIntyre's FOIA request (last email was Nov 12, 2009), exactly what contained with FOIA2009.zip, aside from the embarrassing conspiracy perpetrated by CRU employees, were the CRU officials trying to protect by denying the request on Nov. 13, 2009.
Finally, the legal department of CRU found nothing strange reading this material that obviously reveals many unethical, if not illegal, acts by CRU employees ?
Frankly, the best course for the CRU and the University of East Anglia is to announce that a ongoing probe had been started on Nov. 12, 2009 into the actions of various employees of the CRU, from material that came to light because of a FOIA request.
10. Posted by Neo | November 23, 2009 5:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 23, 2009 17:55