Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'

[Truthmatters]

There is a lot, here is a link to a summary (not sure just how biased it is, it is biased)
The only one using term 'smoking gun' here is you. There is proof in these emails that the scientific method was not followed during this study. There is proof that information was 'doctored' to achieve the desired results. There is proof that information that did not fit the desired result was destroyed, making it impossible to reevaluate the information. There is evidence in these emails that emails from people requesting information was destroyed.
That makes the science flawed. That does not mean that the entire theory is flawed, but because of the manipulation of the data by these so-called experts, it make take many years before the science is actually proven one way or the other.

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

 

[Oddball]

You really have to go a long way to miss the point.

This isn't about the publication of the material, but the phony righteous indignation by the left that the e-mails were "stolen", when they've looked the other way when other "stolen" information was to their liking.

It was under Bush that whistleblowers were tossed on their ears

The BOOOOOOSH! deflection is useless here.

Get a new tune, hack.

 

[Meister]

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

your an idiot

 

[Oddball]

The New York Times didn't steal the Pentagon papers or the telephone conversation. There's a difference, but I can understand how you can't see it.

Knock off the obtuse-on-purpose act....It's not working.

The NYT didn't refuse to print the material based upon the premise that it was illegally obtained. Nor did they pursue the angle that those who illegally obtained the information needed to be prosecuted.

 

[slackjawed]

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

now now, just because i want you to read and decide for yourself and not have someone else-even me cherry pick the data for you doesnt mean i dont want to be helpful. I think i forgot this link to a summary of the emails. it is biased- not sure how badly, but it does contain links to specific emails by date and number and it is a start for you.
be nice truthmatters, I plan to

 

[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)

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Lets go through these then

 

[del]

So you did not read the emails yet you jumped all over me for not reading them?

This is my whole point with my original post.

You who think this is the smoking gun you wish and dream it is are VER WRONG.

It is bullshit and they are stolen PERSONAL emails where the guys are talking as people and not conspiring to do anything but prove what they believe their scientific investigatoions have proven to them.

They know the asshole scientists who are claiming to be against the theory are bought and paid for by the Corps to kill the thoery.

Your team of scientists are corporate whores and these guys hated them for good reason.

i've read them.

none of your posts ever have a point.

You read that whole list?

yeah, it's a lot easier to read if your lips don't get all tuckered out sounding out the big words.

maybe you can find someone to record them for you?

 

[slackjawed]

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

now now, just because i want you to read and decide for yourself and not have someone else-even me cherry pick the data for you doesnt mean i dont want to be helpful. I think i forgot this link to a summary of the emails. it is biased- not sure how badly, but it does contain links to specific emails by date and number and it is a start for you.
be nice truthmatters, I plan to

A Brief Summary of Climate-Gate | Verum Serum

damn that link keeps getting away from me, maybe it is a conspiracy-lol

 

[Oddball]

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)


Lets go through these then

Go through them yourself.

The, try to imagine what you'd be saying if the same kind of e-mails were passed around between Wall Street banksters, who knew that they were getting rich while the real estate market crumbled.

 

[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)


Lets go through these then

We could, we could discuss them all day, but that still would not address the fact that this is evidence of manipulation by the so-called researchers.
That is the whole point of the scandel, manipulation of the data.
Now the point of this thread is supposed to be whether Rep Boxer has a leg to stand on in calling for an investigation into the matter of how they emails came to be posted on a russian server.

 

[del]

No one's saying to go after people that have published them. Otherwise, you'd be in trouble yourself.

You really have to go a long way to miss the point.....Par for the course.

This isn't about the publication of the material, but the phony righteous indignation by the left that the e-mails were "stolen", when they've looked the other way when other "stolen" information was to their liking.

The New York Times didn't steal the Pentagon papers or the telephone conversation. There's a difference, but I can understand how you can't see it.

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

 

[del]

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

yeah, you're too stupid to read them before you shoot off your mouth.

 

[Ravi]

The New York Times didn't steal the Pentagon papers or the telephone conversation. There's a difference, but I can understand how you can't see it.

Knock off the obtuse-on-purpose act....It's not working.

The NYT didn't refuse to print the material based upon the premise that it was illegally obtained. Nor did they pursue the angle that those who illegally obtained the information needed to be prosecuted.

The Pentagon Papers were published because the Times felt there was a first amendment right to inform the citizens of what our government was up to. The emails are not from our government.

Tissue? Maybe you should stop letting Glenn Beck form your thoughts.

 

[Oddball]

Give it up....Your weak rationalizations are even worse than your naive-on-purpose act.

 

[Ravi]

You really have to go a long way to miss the point.....Par for the course.

This isn't about the publication of the material, but the phony righteous indignation by the left that the e-mails were "stolen", when they've looked the other way when other "stolen" information was to their liking.

The New York Times didn't steal the Pentagon papers or the telephone conversation. There's a difference, but I can understand how you can't see it.

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.

 

[del]

The New York Times didn't steal the Pentagon papers or the telephone conversation. There's a difference, but I can understand how you can't see it.

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?

 

[Oddball]

Now the point of this thread is supposed to be whether Rep Boxer has a leg to stand on in calling for an investigation into the matter of how they emails came to be posted on a russian server.

Exactly.

Once again, Boxer is just blowing off her cake hole and either demonstrating rank ignorance of jurisdiction, or preying on the ignorant whom she wants to rally to her side.

 

[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:

 

[Missourian]

Barbara Boxer said all y'all that didn't put Senator in front of her name are in BIG trouble.

You know who you are.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0609/Barbara_Boxer_Call_me_senator.html​

 

[Oddball]

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:

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?