tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Actually, it is pretty safe to say that anything missing or redacted does excuse and explain what was released. Why else would they have chopped it out? Certainly not out of respect for the authors of the emails. And certainly not to cover their backsides because they already broke the law by hacking the emails in the first place. Including all of the email exchanges would be ridiculously long, for one thing. But yeah, I'm sure they mainly just included the statements they wanted people to see. If you want to argue they are bad people because they broke the law, what does that make James Hansen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Actually, it is pretty safe to say that anything missing or redacted does excuse and explain what was released. Why else would they have chopped it out? Certainly not out of respect for the authors of the emails. And certainly not to cover their backsides because they already broke the law by hacking the emails in the first place. There are plenty of emails that are damning that have no redactions.....and if the releaser of this data REALLY wanted to skew things, they would have just spliced together the sentences without the [....] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Including all of the email exchanges would be ridiculously long, for one thing. But yeah, I'm sure they mainly just included the statements they wanted people to see. If you want to argue they are bad people because they broke the law, what does that make James Hansen? I confess I"m not aware of any cybercrimes Dr Hansen has committed - please bring us up to date. But if you are referring to Dr Hansen's arrests for non-violent protesting - in my opinion that makes him a patriotic American. Assuming you're an American (on the internet that's not necessarily a safe assuption) you probably remember from Civics that it is not merely the right of every citizen, but their duty, to oppose things that are wrong. Being arrested for Civil Disobedience puts Dr Hansen in the company of people such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gahdi. I respect his courage of his beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 There are plenty of emails that are damning that have no redactions.....and if the releaser of this data REALLY wanted to skew things, they would have just spliced together the sentences without the [....] If you don't have the whole email thread, at a minimum, then you don't have the context for an email. Judging an isolated email is like an inkblot test - what you see in it reveals more about you. If the exchanges had been truly awful the hackers would simply have revealed the entire threads. Revealing the hacked emails piecemeal and heavily redacted just indicates how little substance was really there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 If you don't have the whole email thread, at a minimum, then you don't have the context for an email. Judging an isolated email is like an inkblot test - what you see in it reveals more about you. It the exchanges had been truly awful the hackers would simply have revealed the entire threads. Revealing the hacked emails piecemeal and heavily redacted just indicates how little substance was really there. Well, that certainly is one perception...however, a buddy of mine (associate Prof.) who is a pretty diehard warmer, (earlier today)says "this is bad"..... Don't shoot the messenger!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgottmann Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well, that certainly is one perception...however, a buddy of mine (associate Prof.) who is a pretty diehard warmer, (earlier today)says "this is bad"..... Don't shoot the messenger!!! I am not a Scientist and I did not stay at Holiday Express last night. While these leaked emails do not necessarily discredit the science being conducted, they sure make the scientists look bad. This undermines the public perception of science and is really very unfortunate in many ways. For those scientists completing research, is this the way you act? Do you delete emails, intimidate or suprress opposition, and use the data to "argue" your science? Really? It would seem to me that deleting findings or coming up with ways around findings that are contrary to your findings undermines the scientific method and does not belong in the field. I expect this behavior from lawyers in litigation but not from scientists. It just seems to fail the sniff test. Granted, the release of the emails in anything but the original "hacked" version leads to skepticism as well. I am not willing to say that the hackers motives are anything but a blatent attempt to make AGW scientists look bad. Just commenting that the scientists involved have made it awfully easy to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 it's the same set of emails from 2009. how could these be bad when the first release proved nothing nefarious? Different emails from same batch, yes....of course there is "proof" of nothing, but if you can't see that someone who is not tied to ideology or is objective might view these as "pretty bad", at face value (for the participants and science itself) then maybe you should FOI the rest of the emails to clear their good name.... You perceive the relevance of the emails differently than I do. Futile to go any further, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Just read through this thread. I wish I hadn't. I just lost respect for some people I thought knew their business. None of them are from East Anglia, though Its like reading a conversation between Lucille Goldberg and Linda Tripp about how to solve the European economic crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I confess I"m not aware of any cybercrimes Dr Hansen has committed - please bring us up to date. But if you are referring to Dr Hansen's arrests for non-violent protesting - in my opinion that makes him a patriotic American. Assuming you're an American (on the internet that's not necessarily a safe assuption) you probably remember from Civics that it is not merely the right of every citizen, but their duty, to oppose things that are wrong. Being arrested for Civil Disobedience puts Dr Hansen in the company of people such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gahdi. I respect his courage of his beliefs. He broke the law. So it's hyprocritical to villainize others for breaking the law in a non-violent way. And no, getting arrested for civil disobedience does not automatically put you in the company of those people. That's ludicrious. I could list a bunch of dirt bags who have been arrested for civil disobedience just as easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I am not a Scientist and I did not stay at Holiday Express last night. While these leaked emails do not necessarily discredit the science being conducted, they sure make the scientists look bad. This undermines the public perception of science and is really very unfortunate in many ways. For those scientists completing research, is this the way you act? Do you delete emails, intimidate or suprress opposition, and use the data to "argue" your science? Really? It would seem to me that deleting findings or coming up with ways around findings that are contrary to your findings undermines the scientific method and does not belong in the field. I expect this behavior from lawyers in litigation but not from scientists. It just seems to fail the sniff test. Granted, the release of the emails in anything but the original "hacked" version leads to skepticism as well. I am not willing to say that the hackers motives are anything but a blatent attempt to make AGW scientists look bad. Just commenting that the scientists involved have made it awfully easy to do so. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 I am not a Scientist and I did not stay at Holiday Express last night. While these leaked emails do not necessarily discredit the science being conducted, they sure make the scientists look bad. This undermines the public perception of science and is really very unfortunate in many ways. For those scientists completing research, is this the way you act? Do you delete emails, intimidate or suprress opposition, and use the data to "argue" your science? Really? It would seem to me that deleting findings or coming up with ways around findings that are contrary to your findings undermines the scientific method and does not belong in the field. I expect this behavior from lawyers in litigation but not from scientists. It just seems to fail the sniff test. Granted, the release of the emails in anything but the original "hacked" version leads to skepticism as well. I am not willing to say that the hackers motives are anything but a blatent attempt to make AGW scientists look bad. Just commenting that the scientists involved have made it awfully easy to do so. Agree, but as one who values science and the strict method of making scientific progress, these emails, at the very least provide insight into a very different type of "science" that I was led to believe was correct....skepticism has always been touted as making hypotheses STRONGER, yet the emails blatantly demonstrate an effort to marginalize skepticism....Where's the demonstrated professionalism to those who disagree?? I see nothing but 8th grade gossip amongst many of the "professionals", wrt others who basically wanted to duplicate their findings and "double check" their conclusions. It's how science is supposed to work....not childishly referring to others as "jerks"....because they disagree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 it's the same set of emails from 2009. how could these be bad when the first release proved nothing nefarious? It happened TWICE, doncha know. No smoke without fire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 Just read through this thread. I wish I hadn't. I just lost respect for some people I thought knew their business. None of them are from East Anglia, though Its like reading a conversation between Lucille Goldberg and Linda Tripp about how to solve the European economic crisis. But did you read the emails??!!!! That's where the popcorn is required!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 where is the science bad? please be specific. Where did he/she say the science was bad? Perhaps you should read more carefully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 what fire was there the first time? I was joking.......guess it didn't show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 you have never joked around with your colleagues or vented about people who annoyed you? ever? that is all these emails are.. the people trying to make more of it than that are being hacks or else are very naive. And I say this as somebody who naively thought climategate was a big deal at first and have since changed my mind as I learnt more about the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm sorry. I have no context for your posts and given what has already been posted in this thread I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Should have made it clearer. It did seem funny that the resurfacing of this pseudocontroversy AFTER its initial debunking seems to some to be evidence for its seriousness. Its recursive enough to turn some folks into human Klein bottles, judging from their posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 He broke the law. So it's hyprocritical to villainize others for breaking the law in a non-violent way. And no, getting arrested for civil disobedience does not automatically put you in the company of those people. That's ludicrious. I could list a bunch of dirt bags who have been arrested for civil disobedience just as easily. There is nothing hypocritical about my statements. Not all laws are equally serious and it is nonsense to claim they are. Are you equating jaywalking with premeditated murder? Cybercrimes, including email hacking, are very serious because the security, privacy and integrity of electronic information is critical. There is a very fine line between this email hacking and the hacking attacks on defense and government sites. Is it any surprise that the stolen emails were sent to a server in Russia? If you honestly feel that email privacy is no big deal then post your email address and password on this thread. We are all honest bloggers here so I'm sure nothing bad would happen. Right? But if you're saying that it's a good thing that their emails were hacked but that your emails are nobody's business then you are the hypocritical one. And you claimed that you can "list a bunch of dirt bags who have been arrested for civil disobedience". Okay, put up or shut up. Let's see your list, and for each person give us a link to why they are a 'dirtbag'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgottmann Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 what opposition was suppressed? be specific. The emails repeatedly reference attempts to stack journals or undermine those in opposition to the their position. I will post the emails. where is the science bad? please be specific. I never said the science was bad. To the contrary, I said the release of the emails was an attempt to make the scientists look bad. In this regard, I am skeptical of the released emials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Just when I started to gain more respect for AGW and the honest and reliable science being conducted, I'm now forced to be on my guard. Even if the emails are slightly taken out of context, it still shows alot of sneaky and unappropriate conversations going on. I honestly don't mind the hackers of the world, as long as they are responsible in finding deceitful practices and aren't maliciously abusing personal property. I still think reduction of CO2 emissions and switch to all renewable resources is still necessary just because there is no reason to have any type of pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 There is nothing hypocritical about my statements. Not all laws are equally serious and it is nonsense to claim they are. Are you equating jaywalking with premeditated murder? Not going to even read further when you start with this gem. Did you miss the part where I said "non-violent" crimes? Just face it: you and others were making a big deal out of the fact that hacking is breaking the law. Well, as you have so ably illustrated, breaking the law is just fine if you support the cause. In your case, Hansen's actions (which you equate with the actions of MLK and Gandhi). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Should have made it clearer. It did seem funny that the resurfacing of this pseudocontroversy AFTER its initial debunking seems to some to be evidence for its seriousness. Its recursive enough to turn some folks into human Klein bottles, judging from their posts. There was nothing to debunk. It's not science. It is what it is, people on both sides obviously got too worked up about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Just when I started to gain more respect for AGW and the honest and reliable science being conducted, I'm now forced to be on my guard. Even if the emails are slightly taken out of context, it still shows alot of sneaky and unappropriate conversations going on. I honestly don't mind the hackers of the world, as long as they are responsible in finding deceitful practices and aren't maliciously abusing personal property. I still think reduction of CO2 emissions and switch to all renewable resources is still necessary just because there is no reason to have any type of pollution. I feel you on that. I don't really care what these guys have to say or what they did because the only people that have the real say in how our govt handles climate change is the President, the Senators, and the Congress. And to a lesser degree the Governors, state senators, and local officials. But that is a to a much lesser degree. When those people get into Climate Talk and still hold power it is scary. I was told earlier in this thread that this ruins some things I was told or manipulated about when it comes to climate change. I asked for specific proofs of what this disproves but nothing was presented, nothing has been dis-proven. Take it from me. You sound like a smart kid. If you really want to get a decent grip on climate change you need to forget everyone and everything out there. I remember when I thought Al Gore was some one to listen to and take serious on climate change. And while I respect his passion for what he believes in. it is clear he doesn't get it. Neither do these men get what having Honor and Duty mean. I have a hard time understanding why a scientist or group of them can not just be (explicit) scientists. (explicit) idiots. Why be this stupid and petty. Why talk about any sort of trickery or bull(bleep). Why not just being a (explicit) scientist. When I study science I study science as objective as possible. I don't write emails to people or have private conversations in the manner those men did. I write my thoughts and back them with the data as I understand it as best as I can. Since I dedicated myself to that. My Sea Ice predictions became top notch for me and I have done very well. I do not understand why these sceintists can not wake up and look in the (explicit) mirror and decide today and every day they look in that mirror at THEMSELVES that they are going to live with honor, integrity, dignity, and most important personal honestly and accountability. If you are a climate scientist and your findings support this much warming, you show your data and write that this show this much warming. If your findings show this much cooling, the you show your data and write that this shows this much cooling. WTF is this rooting for warming or for cooling or man made vs natural or happening vs it's not happening. Who gives a (bleep). That is completely (explicit) irrelevant. Science isn't a sports team. Science isn't a religion, Science isn't a end or a beginning. Science is a state of understanding, proper understanding, and the endless pursuit for the Truth above all else. The truth is all that matters, all that there is. the only goal in every single scientist, professional or hobbyist, the pursuit of absolute understanding and absolute truth is all that matters and all that there is. PottercountyWXobserver, I promise you that whatever you get here from me you will see that I try to be as honest and open as possible. I can tell you that you should ignore everyone, including myself and do your own research and come to your own conclusions. You can come back here and collaborate it with us. Even with the short comings of this forum it is one of the top notch forums for fair and honest discussions. the mods have promised to get rid of the trash. This place will be top notch without the trash. You can already see it in this thread. Things would of gotten way out of hand otherwise. There is a lot we still need to learn. if we can leave the BS at the door when we come here and keep this forum a place of science only we can learn a lot here, get a long for the most part, and have riveting discussions. I personally will work hard to be more respectful and open minded of others opinions while still challenging myself and others to only operate with strong opinions backed with merit & legit data. I hope the rest of us can also do this so we can finally get on the same page even if it comes with many POVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Just when I started to gain more respect for AGW and the honest and reliable science being conducted, I'm now forced to be on my guard. Even if the emails are slightly taken out of context, it still shows alot of sneaky and unappropriate conversations going on. I honestly don't mind the hackers of the world, as long as they are responsible in finding deceitful practices and aren't maliciously abusing personal property. I still think reduction of CO2 emissions and switch to all renewable resources is still necessary just because there is no reason to have any type of pollution. You have to understand the threat these scientists are trying to protect themselves from. Their e-mail conversations reveal an attempt to insulate themselves from the behaviors of disingenuous interests who's only intent is to tear down the science whether that science deserves to be or not. These interests do this by distorting the science while finding fault with everything the science covers from top to bottom. These people are not in it to advance the science, they are in it to demolish it. The climate scientists know what is going on and are manipulated just as we on this forum are, except that they are the direct recipients of attacks on the sciences they research. They do not wish to grant these disingenuous scumbags a platform or direct access to their work since they know for a fact the material will be used against them for less than honorable purposes. Societies response...blame the victim! Please don't allow the scum to get away with it any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 You have to understand the threat these scientists are trying to protect themselves from. Their e-mail conversations reveal an attempt to insulate themselves from the behaviors of disingenuous interests who's only intent is to tear down the science whether that science deserves to be or not. These interests do this by distorting the science while finding fault with everything the science covers from top to bottom. These people are not in it to advance the science, they are in it to demolish it. The climate scientists know what is going on and are manipulated just as we on this forum are, except that they are the direct recipients of attacks on the sciences they research. They do not wish to grant these disingenuous scumbags a platform or direct access to their work since they know for a fact the material will be used against them for less than honorable purposes. Societies response...blame the victim! Please don't allow the scum to get away with it any longer. How do you characterize someone that has "disingenuous interests"?.....As far as I've seen it, every person who has disagreement, or is skeptical of just a piece or two of the overall hypothesis seems to get the disingenuous tag..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 How do you characterize someone that has "disingenuous interests"?.....As far as I've seen it, every person who has disagreement, or is skeptical of just a piece or two of the overall hypothesis seems to get the disingenuous tag..... Imagine living in a different universe. The powers of confirmation bias will doom certain posters to circle the wagon. Even if Al Gore, President Obama, and James Hansen went on t.v. tomorrow to declare Global Warming a lie, most of the acolytes will still tow the party line and carry the water for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 This thread does not deserve pinning. There are far more important advances and events in climate science which have started threads on this forum and which did not get pinned. Most recently the BEST study which I don't remember getting pinned. Lots of others. This is comparable to pinning the IRS-Buffet thread in PR.. it's a complete non-story created by hacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 Pinned thread?...I think that's a first for this forum...not sure I agree with the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Here's Jason Samenow's take on the e-mails. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climategate-20-do-new-emails-undermine-global-warming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html#pagebreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Here's Jason Samenow's take on the e-mails. http://www.washingto....html#pagebreak Excellent summary. Not one person in this thread has been able to to take a single one of these emails and make a persuasive argument that it shows any serious misconduct or reflects poorly on the actual science. As soon as you take one email and begin to understand the context in which it was made, you begin to realize that it is much less serious than it seems on its surface. For example, many of the emails concern apparent 'suppression' of a journal and certain authors which publish in it by boycotting that journal. Sounds serious right? Until you understand just exactly how objectively wrong the work being published was and how their 'peer-review' was not actually peer-review at all but rather an agenda driven stamp of approval by cronies. Once you understand just how objectively unscientific the work being published was and the methods of this journal, suddenly boycotting it no longer appears to be suppression of legitimate research, but rather a commendable attempt to prevent the subversion of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.