Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'

[Ravi]

no, daniel ellsberg "stole" the pentagon papers. there's no substantive difference. none.

Right...so he would be the "hacker" in that case...not the New York Times.

what's your point?

As far as I know, no one said Ellsberg shouldn't be charged.

Which is what Dud seems to be claiming.

 

[del]

destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
“hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
“good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable
Lets go through these then

The first one contains this. It seems scientists want to distroy papers that are full of shit. You see when you have massive money to bribe people sometimes science gets fucked by the greedy.

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

if you think you're going to post each and every email, you are very much mistaken.

 

[Immanuel]

They are numbered adn dated PLEASE provide me with the numbers and dates in which all this proof is contained?

NO. While I do enjoy helping I do not enjoy holding your hand and doing the reading for you. The more people that read these for themselves, the more we will find out about them.
Just keep reading.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

we all know what this means

Yes, and we also know that no matter how much reading you do, even if you read that they all admitted to falsifying the data, you would still maintain your belief that there was no smoking gun. Because Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says we should go after the hacker not the message.

Immie

 

[slackjawed]

destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
“hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
“good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable
Lets go through these then

The first one contains this. It seems scientists want to distroy papers that are full of shit. You see when you have massive money to bribe people sometimes science gets fucked by the greedy.

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

That one part, the part I put in bold, is what the whole scandal boils down to. Whether the theft of the emails should be investigated is what this thread is about.
Nice work Truthmatters!

 

[Oddball]

Right...so he would be the "hacker" in that case...not the New York Times.

what's your point?

As far as I know, no one said Ellsberg shouldn't be charged.

Which is what Dud seems to be claiming.

This isn't all about you, mal.

It's about the people who have the power to prosecute people for wrongdoing, picking and choosing when they do so and when they look the other way.

 

[Modbert]

Then why destroy it?

If you're so certain that you're right and the other guy is wrong, why not prove it in front of God and everyone?

To be quite honest, I think God washed his hands of the human race a long time ago. Probably about the time we started to kill one another because someone else didn't believe in God the same exact we do. Or lack of belief.

 

[del]

Right...so he would be the "hacker" in that case...not the New York Times.

what's your point?

As far as I know, no one said Ellsberg shouldn't be charged.

Which is what Dud seems to be claiming.

clean your glasses.

it looks to me that he's taking issue with the times decision not to publish them because they're "stolen".

 

[Oddball]

Then why destroy it?

If you're so certain that you're right and the other guy is wrong, why not prove it in front of God and everyone?

To be quite honest, I think God washed his hands of the human race a long time ago. Probably about the time we started to kill one another because someone else didn't believe in God the same exact we do. Or lack of belief.

Irrelevant.

Answer the question.

 

[manifold]

...Because Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says we should go after the hacker not the message.

Except that she said no such thing.

 

[Truthmatters]

destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
“hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
“good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable
Lets go through these then

The first one contains this. It seems scientists want to distroy papers that are full of shit. You see when you have massive money to bribe people sometimes science gets fucked by the greedy.

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

I just read 93915470 and I domt see any arbitrary changing of data. I see a discussing of how they can explain a veriation of the data from their thoeries. Typical science stuff guys

 

[Ravi]

what's your point?

As far as I know, no one said Ellsberg shouldn't be charged.

Which is what Dud seems to be claiming.

clean your glasses.

it looks to me that he's taking issue with the times decision not to publish them because they're "stolen".

Why is that a problem? And please don't make the same invalid comparison to the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times has no first amendment right to someone's emails at a university in England.

 

[del]

As far as I know, no one said Ellsberg shouldn't be charged.

Which is what Dud seems to be claiming.

clean your glasses.

it looks to me that he's taking issue with the times decision not to publish them because they're "stolen".

Why is that a problem? And please don't make the same invalid comparison to the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times has no first amendment right to someone's emails at a university in England.

it's not a problem, it's just hypocritical.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I thought whistle blowing on fraudulent activity was a GOOD thing?

 

[del]

I thought whistle blowing on fraudulent activity was a GOOD thing?

only when they're the other side's frauds.

 

[Truthmatters]

I thought whistle blowing on fraudulent activity was a GOOD thing?

You didnt seem to mind when Bush punished whistle blowers

 

[del]

I thought whistle blowing on fraudulent activity was a GOOD thing?

You didnt seem to mind when Bush punished whistle blowers

you'd know that how, hack?

 

[Oddball]

I just read 93915470 and I domt see any arbitrary changing of data. I see a discussing of how they can explain a veriation of the data from their thoeries. Typical science stuff guys

We're not going to go over each and every one of them with you and deal with your denial, Baghdad Bob.

 

[Immanuel]

...Because Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says we should go after the hacker not the message.

Except that she said no such thing.

Doesn't matter... the point is that TM wont care because it goes against the Democratic Party's stance.

Immie

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The New York Times has no first amendment right to someone's emails at a university in England.

The first amendment grants rights to leaked e-mails under certain circumstances? WTF?

 

[uscitizen]

We have yet to figure out if a whistle was blown or someone just farted.

But so many of us are sure of the outcome