If that is the case, then the scientists involved at the UEA really conducted themselves poorly.What if the CRU hack was not a hack at all and the emails, were put together by a court ordered British FOIA release? And that information was actually stored on a public server and was known to exist six months ago?
OH this is going to get good. I'm buying popcorn.
NY Times reporter whitewashes Climategate story he is part of Green Hell Blog
Indeed..................If that is the case, then the scientists involved at the UEA really conducted themselves poorly.
Excuse me, I seem to be lost. I was in the Environment Forum, and suddenly, I am in Conspiracy Theories.
Excuse me, I seem to be lost. I was in the Environment Forum, and suddenly, I am in Conspiracy Theories.
Global Warming is a conspiracy theory.
The emails are not.
How can it be a conspiracy theory when over 8 out of 10 American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming?
Mr. Hoyt,
Shouldn’t Andrew Revkin haved recused himself from his Nov. 21 front-page article, “Hacked E-mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute“?
First, as Revkin briefly acknowledges in the article, he is part of the story. Isn’t it a breach of journalistic ethics for a reporter to report on a story of which he is part?
Milloy has criticized research linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer, claiming that "the vast majority of studies reported no statistical association."[13] In 1993, Milloy dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke." Five years later Milloy claimed vindication after a federal court criticized the EPA's conclusions. However, the court's finding against the EPA was overturned on appeal.
When the British Medical Journal published a meta-analysis confirming a link in 1997, Milloy wrote, "Of the 37 studies, only 7—less than 19 percent—reported statistically significant increases in lung cancer incidence... Meta-analysis of the secondhand smoke studies was a joke when EPA did it in 1993. And it remains a joke today."[14] When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"[4]
While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer.[3] However, with the release of confidential tobacco industry documents as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the objectivity of Milloy's stance on secondhand smoke has been questioned. Based on this documentation, journalists Paul D. Thacker and George Monbiot, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists and others, have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for the tobacco industry.[3][5][15]
Milloy's junkscience.com website was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[16] Milloy also worked as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a "front group" established in 1993 by Philip Morris and its public relations firm "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states."[3][17][18] Philip Morris memos describe "utilizing TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles";[19] a 1994 Philip Morris memo listed TASSC among its "Tools to Affect Legislative Decisions".[20] According to its 1997 annual report, TASSC "sponsored" junkscience.com.[21]
The New Republic reported that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to provide consulting services to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[3] In 2000 and 2001, for example, Milloy received a total of $180,000 in payments from Philip Morris for consulting services.[22] A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."[3] Milloy's association with the Cato Institute ended shortly afterwards; however, as of March 2008[update], he continues to write for FoxNews.com, where he is described as a "junk science expert."[23] Monbiot wrote: "Even after Fox News was told about the money [Milloy] had been receiving from Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing its readers about his interests."[24] Thacker wrote:
Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further.[3]
The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (no-smoke.org) similarly stated that "...Milloy has made it his life’s work to deny scientific studies conducted and published by the world’s most reputable and credible scientific agencies... and label their objective evidence as 'junk science'. Milloy has a lucrative and lengthy relationship with the tobacco industry."[25]
Except for the fact nobody brought up any kind of conspiracy..............lame arsed rationalizations are of course DOA. As has been pretty much everything you have posted in non stop knee jerk defense of the CRU story. For example, a week ago you were bleating about if these emails went back a decade. They do and so much for any idea of integrity in your posts on the same. Opps for you, again and again.What a GREAT idea, I move that all "pro-AGW" threads get moved down to tin foil hat land, because that's all they are now. The realm of fiction, the hoax has been exposed.
Finally MG, you've contributed to this forum positively.
Except for the fact nobody brought up any kind of conspiracy..............
Except for the fact nobody brought up any kind of conspiracy..............lame arsed rationalizations are of course DOA. As has been pretty much everything you have posted in non stop knee jerk defense of the CRU story. For example, a week ago you were bleating about if these emails went back a decade. They do and so much for any idea of integrity in your posts on the same. Opps for you, again and again.
Besides as one of the most passionate AGW posters at DP, the idea that you could by now bring yourself to address the information is prime time clown time in nature IMO. You are and have been just too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and doing the internet equivalent of NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU OR ANYTHING WHEN I DO THIS NYAY NYAH NYAH THING. For the life of me, and as evidence piles up about you, I can't figure out the pay off in your bold faced denials and of course your GINORMOUS blinders.:roll:
Excuse me, I seem to be lost. I was in the Environment Forum, and suddenly, I am in Conspiracy Theories.
Except for the fact nobody brought up any kind of conspiracy..............lame arsed rationalizations are of course DOA. As has been pretty much everything you have posted in non stop knee jerk defense of the CRU story. For example, a week ago you were bleating about if these emails went back a decade. They do and so much for any idea of integrity in your posts on the same. Opps for you, again and again.
Besides as one of the most passionate AGW posters at DP, the idea that you could by now bring yourself to address the information is prime time clown time in nature IMO. You are and have been just too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and doing the internet equivalent of NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU OR ANYTHING WHEN I DO THIS NYAY NYAH NYAH THING. For the life of me, and as evidence piles up about you, I can't figure out the pay off in your bold faced denials and of course your GINORMOUS blinders.:roll:
That was so good a joke I actually laughed, strictly Vaudeville but funny none the less. As if this first bit of news about the not such a hack hack is "all" anyone has.If Steve Milloy is all you have, then you are the one who's in serious denial.
Actually that was meant for Middleground.:dohYou do mean aside from the conspiracies that have been exposed by the leaked e-mail and software code (The software code's comments describing the functions to modify the data for the desired outcome)?
Meet Tom Wigley, the Climategate insider who may finally have choked on all the deceit he witnessed.
It is almost certain that the leak of 4000 documents from the University of East Anglia was not the work of a hacker but of a whisteblower. The sheer effort of retrieving, itemising and sorting all those documents, and of weeding out any that were purely personal or irrelevant, required someone who had not just the computer skills and the access, but who knew what was important, and had the motivation to put in countless hours of work.
If the leaker was an insider, here are the candidates - named and pictured. The list also shows the extraordinary reach of the University’s Climatic Research Unit into climate science circles when judged even just by formal ties.
Of course, I’m sure none of these people did leak the emails, which they would know is probably an illegal act and one likely to make them a pariah in climate science. So let’s rule out immediately the suggestion that any of these people did their duty to the public and blew the whistle on a colossal scam. I wouldn’t accuse them of anything so serious. I especially wouldn’t accuse Wigley of being a leaker.
But imagine if one of them had indeed realised that enough was enough, and too many lines had been crossed by the Climategate scientists- including criminal ones. Which one of them might have cracked, and decided to blow the whistle? Or put it this way, which of them showed the greatest evidence of an uneasy conscience - or a growing sense of seeing a wrong that needed righting?
Again, I rule out that any of these people actually did leak the emails. This is purely hypothetical - an exercise in trying to determine the most ethical and principled of the CRU staff and associates, as evidenced by the emails.
And I’m proud to say that for me the answer is a fellow Australian, Adelaide-born Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and a CRU Visiting Fellow.
Here are three examples of his frustration with Climategate scientists hiding data, fudging results, covering up, making “dishonest presentations”, and presenting “deceptive” proofs of warming. All these protests are from this year - and two from just the past two months. All show his frustration, even anger or possibly fear, at the scandalous deceit and coverups he was witnessing.
Of course, you may wonder why he didn’t go public with the serious concerns he was raising in these emails to his colleagues…
So who's the whistleblower??? The suspense is just about killing me!!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?