« | »

NYT Says New Climate E-Mails Are A Crime

From an outraged (at the leak) New York Times:

New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released

November 22, 2011

The anonymous hacker who shook the world of climate science two years ago by posting a trove of stolen e-mails delivered a new batch on Tuesday, stirring up climate-change contrarians a little more than a week before global negotiations on greenhouse gases are to begin in Durban, South Africa.

What a typically unbiased lede sentence from the New York Times. Some "anonymous hacker" "stole e-mails" from "scientists" just "to stir up climate-change contrarians" and hurt vital "global negotiations."

The new e-mails appeared remarkably similar to the ones released two years ago just ahead of a similar conference in Copenhagen. They involved the same scientists and many of the same issues, and some of them carried a similar tone: catty remarks by the scientists, often about papers written by others in the field.

You see? Just like those earlier emails, these have no significance. They just contain "catty remarks" by scientists. There is no scandal. No scientific malfeasance.

Climate scientists said the release was likely intended to torpedo any potential progress in the Durban negotiations, though not much progress had been expected anyway given that countries have been reluctant to commit to binding emissions limits.

Yes, everything is bent towards stopping those negotiations. Sheesh.

Meanwhile, whatever happened to information being released because of ‘the public’s right to know’? Doesn’t The Times use that as an excuse to publish every national security secret they can get their hands on?

The University of East Anglia, the British institution at the middle of the previous hacking episode, confirmed that at least some of the newly released e-mails were authentic. The cache released in 2009 appeared to have come from a file someone obtained by hacking into the university’s computers, a crime for which no charges have been filed or suspects named. The new batch of more than 5,000 e-mails is evidently a fresh selection from the same set of records.

Just like back in 2009, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media and the rest of the Democrat Party are outraged at the supposed crime of hacking into computers.

Even though these emails have been the subject of countless ‘freedom of information’ requests that have been illegally stonewalled by the universities and ‘scientists.’ And never mind that The Times and the rest of the media never question the legality or sources of the national security secrets they publish on a nearly daily basis.

And never mind that Bradley Manning, who leaked the WikiLeaks material, is the New York Times poster boy for heroism. (And not just because he is a homosexual.) Lest we forget, those leaks have probably costs the lives of untold numbers of people around the world. Meanwhile, these leaks will do nothing worse than save taxpayers untold billions.

A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests…

What a laugh. These ‘climate scientists’ and their pals decided that they had done nothing wrong.

Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University scientist who wrote or received some of the e-mails, said they showed the opposite of any conspiracy, demonstrating instead that climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions.

“Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” Dr. Mann said in an interview Tuesday. “Science requires that.”

Yes, this is the same Michael Mann who faked the notorious ‘hockey stick’ chart in order to scare the public and to get grant money. (And bear his quote in mind for later.)

In one of the e-mails, Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, criticized a paper that Dr. Mann wrote with the climate scientist Phil Jones, which used tree rings and similar markers to find that today’s climatic warming had no precedent in recent natural history. Dr. Bradley, who has often collaborated with Dr. Mann, wrote that the 2003 paper “was truly pathetic and should never have been published.”

Dr. Bradley confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was his, but said his comment had no bearing on whether global warming was really happening. “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.”

Dr. Bradley wants to keep his funding, after all. – And it would seem to us that "Mike’s paper" has a lot of bearing on the problems we are facing, if it was a lie.

Some of the other e-mails involved comments about problems with the computer programs used to forecast future climate, known as climate models. For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”

What is so "cryptic" about that? Many climate researchers skeptics have been saying this for years.

Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.

Isn’t it amazing? When these ‘scientists’ get caught admitting that all of their computer models are wrong they just say everybody knows that.

But when ‘skeptics’ say we should not waste billions of dollars and turn our lives upside down because of computer models, they are called dangerous lunatics and ‘deniers.’

Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”

People who live on greenhouse gases shouldn’t throw stones.

Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.

“Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”

Mind you, "Dr. Mann" was just quoted about how science needs open and free discussion. And yet he wants to criminalize anyone publishing their behind the scenes ‘work.’

And nobody is supposed to notice the hypocrisy.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “NYT Says New Climate E-Mails Are A Crime”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    “And never mind that Bradley Manning, who leaked the WikiLeaks material, is the New York Times poster boy for heroism. (And not just because he is a homosexual.) Lest we forget, those leaks have probably costs the lives of untold numbers of people around the world. Meanwhile, these leaks will do nothing worse than save taxpayers untold billions.”


    The NY Slimes: proudly playing Paterno for the Sandusky’s of Science.

    They’re running out of sex scandals with which to keep the public preoccupied from the political collapse of Liberalism though. Hopefully. Gut tells me one could find scandal in the Ruling Class pretty much anywhere you shine the light.

  2. Reality Bytes says:

    “And nobody noticed the hypocracy.”

    Hey! with Washington & the media in full swing, we’re bound to miss one or two. Where do we start?!

    • Mithrandir says:

      The Media, always finding the innocuity of a pro-liberal story. Here is how today’s media would have reported the Ted Kennedy incident.

      Mary Jo Kopechne Was a Whore…neighbors say
      Nobody is quite sure what an attractive young political campaign worker thinks she was doing in a very married man’s car last evening. But, according to sources, she was drunk off her log, after attending a party with other young pretty workers, who also should have been home that night. It is believed that she distracted Massachusetts Senator, The Honorable Edward Kennedy, while doing her an Irish Catholic favor by driving her home, despite having no obligation to do so. He is the youngest brother if John F. Kennedy, who was fatally shot in 1963, god rest his soul…..Amen, by some right-wing activist obviously opposed to Kennedy’s racial tolerance.
      After being distracted and rolling his car, a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88, with known steering problems, Sen. Kennedy, badly injured and disoriented, was not able to lift the half submerged car onto his shoulders and shake-out poor old drunkard, Mary Jo.
      Police rushed to the scene after hearing a loud shriek in the area that set off alarms: “Why God! Take me so that I may join my brothers! She will give life and I’m old!”
      The right-wing blogosphere is falsely claiming Kennedy was also drunk, as there is no evidence to back this up.

  3. Mithrandir says:

    I think ANY scientist who does research on global warming should DISCLOSE ALL TIES TO GOVERNMENT MONEY. So we can check to see if there is any conflict of interests going on here….you know since saving the earth is so important and all.
    ~Family members who may benefit from government jobs or grant money.
    ~What money anyone has received in the past.
    ~What benefit there is in producing positive global warming data.
    ~What money or jobs are likely to be given in the future.

    If this all is so important, ALL SCIENTISTS WORKING ON GLOBAL WARMING must cease to accept any government money, now or in their lifetimes (or their family or anyone associated with them), not accept any government raise, promotion in the future, never seek a public sector job, and dedicate their life to saving the planet. THEN I may accept their selfless data if I am sure there is no benefit to them what-so-ever. But…….you subsidize it, you get more of it, and the gov’t is (wink-wink) getting the results that they paid for.

  4. parentofed says:

    Who are the criminals, Dr. Mann asks. Look in the mirror, Mike Mann; you are one of them.

  5. mbabbitt says:

    I remember the Pentagon Papers. NYT published them because they served the public interest.

  6. David says:

    This wouldn’t happen if climate science wasn’t such an academic inbred subculture. Science being ran like a business! They refuse to share the source data and the code for their models, acting like it is trademark material. Newton would have gotten real far with calculus had had he just written a paper saying the derivative of X^2 is 2 but refused to explain how he figured that out!
    In my experience in academia, you read other peoples work critically to figure out what they did wrong and how you could do it better. That is what makes a peer review process lead to progress. But these papers read like everyone always agrees about everything and all the evidence supports them. Mathematic theory papers are not that confident!

    Secret science = alchemy. That is the real crime here.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Also see: Mutual Admiration Society, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutual_admiration_society

      1. (idiomatic) A group of two or more people, in a workplace or other social environment, who routinely express considerable esteem and support for one another, sometimes to the point of exaggeration or pretense.

      It’s this run amok. They figured out that if they praise one another, albeit emptily, they still garner the respect and undeserved accolades (and funding) from politicians who, by and large, like to be surrounded by smart people so they, themselves also appear smart. It’s sickening times one thousand. It’s also the sort of thing that has permeated many entities throughout history.

      It’s very damaging.

  7. crosspatch says:

    I find it interesting that they are still attributing this to an “anonymous hacker” when there is no evidence that there was any “hacking” at all. There is no evidence that anyone gained access from outside. This is looking like an “inside” job where someone had access to a large store of mail and simply copied it. This was likely the result of either improper file security allowing general internal access to things that shouldn’t have had such access, or someone who did have the proper access simply copied the files.

    To date there has been no evidence of any “hackery” of any sort.

  8. bobdog says:

    No, it’s not a crime. It’s freedom of speech. Recall how the New York Times treated Julian Assange and every other security leak they’ve published over the past 50 years.

    Every time, we see hand-wringing from the Times’ editorial staff, agonizing over the painful decision to publish stories that damage the US, carefully balancing “freedom of speech” against the “public’s right to know”. After about five seconds of deliberation, the “public’s right to know” is a clear winner. Every time.

    So, because this story involves a blasphemous attack on the Times’ political posturing, this is somehow a crime worthy of a major investigation.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »