Climatologists ask to "hide the decline" in temperature data, amongst other things

i never post stories from fox news here, you gotta find the same story from another source like the AP. youll get flamed just for posting a story from fox news.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i never post stories from fox news here, you gotta find the same story from another source like the AP. youll get flamed just for posting a story from fox news.[/QUOTE]
Anyone who's argument against this is LOL FAUX NEWS isn't worth even trying to convince. They're beyond reach of reality.
 
Frankly I think that it's an awfully big coincidence that we never mention El Nino anymore and instead use the term Global Warming all the time instead. Coincidence?
 
[quote name='deathscythehe']Anyone who's argument against this is LOL FAUX NEWS isn't worth even trying to convince. They're beyond reach of reality.[/QUOTE]
No we aren't, fox news has a well known agenda and it isn't to prove global warming is real for sure. Their journalistic integrity lately has been less than stellar.
 
These debates somehow always suck me in even though they're the most banal of conspiracy theories.

I think we can all agree that dumping pollution and releasing it into the air is bad amirite?

I think we can also all agree that any government scientist associated with "global warming" is clearly in it for the money right?

This just seems so tame compared to denial of human rights, the economy making things for the poor even worse, and companies making money off selling drugs to people with known harmful side effects and uncertain benefits.
 
[quote name='davo1224']I think we can all agree that dumping pollution and releasing it into the air is bad amirite?[/QUOTE]

I definitely agree with that statement.

I stopped taking them seriously when they shifted their focus to water vapor and CO2 as the primary reason that the earth is in peril.
 
[quote name='davo1224']I think we can all agree that dumping pollution and releasing it into the air is bad amirite?[/QUOTE]

Sure, but what we are talking about here is CO2, not pollution. CO2 is what you, and every other animal on Earth, exhales. It's also plant food. CO2 is not pollution any more than oxygen.
 
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

When the evidence is this blatant, who needs a trial?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']No we aren't, fox news has a well known agenda and it isn't to prove global warming is real for sure. Their journalistic integrity lately has been less than stellar.[/QUOTE]
You're right.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/..._campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_tech+(RSS:+Technology)
Now you can bitch about CNN being nothing but a right wing think tank. Or maybe those right wing terrorists hacked CNN's site to add that story. It couldn't possibly be that a fact is a fact, no matter who says it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Can you give some of the examples that are particularly damning to the climate data?[/QUOTE]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I like this development.

If we can find the same problem with peak oil, I can go back to sleep.[/QUOTE]
http://aviacaoportugal.net/showthread.php?t=683

In case you don't read Portuguese:

-We were always told that oil is a fossil fuel, which arose 500 million years, originating in the decomposition of dead plants and animals. Remains of bodies have been trapped on the seabed in a layer of mud and covered by other layers of soil, formed over time the oil.

We were always told that the sun's energy is captured by living things and that we can release this stored energy back hundreds of millions of years by burning oil.

We are told that the reserves of fossil fuels, especially oil, will last at most until about 2060.

Another factor, in addition to the depletion of oil, is the moment when oil production reaches its peak, they begin to decrease. The peak of oil extraction is called "Peak Oil" [Peak Oil]. Is in fuction of this that the supply and demand varies and can have a crucial role in oil prices.

The peak of oil extraction or "Peak Oil" is the moment when the rate of oil extraction reaches its absolute maximum in all oil fields. This moment is reached when it has been extracted half of all oil that can be exploited.

Peak Oil

It is stated that the point of maximum extraction has been achieved in the past and we will against an energy crisis. The proof of this assertion, we are told, is the continued increase of oil prices of $ 25 a barrel in 2002 to $ 134 on 6/6/2008 (this article was written on this date).

For this reason, we are told that the expected energy gap should be resolved through less consumption and demand for other alternatives, such as renewable energy. We leave the oil as soon as possible because it will end soon.

We are saying that oil was formed hundreds of millions of years, which exists in a fixed amount, and when we have extracted the last drop, will be finished forever the era of oil.

But what would happen if all this story has no foundation and it is all a myth? What if the fuel oil was not produced from fossil fuels, does not spring from extinct organisms, but was otherwise? And if the oil, after all, exists in abundance and continues to be formed continuously over the earth? And if there is no energy crisis and no "Peak Oil"?

Peak Oil is Here

The statement that there would be a peak in oil extraction was reported in a panic, already in 1919, although that time has not yet called "Peak Oil" (this is only a new label). At that time, it was claimed by the "experts" that oil would not arrive for the next 20 years. What happened in reality? Since then, the date upon which the oil has always been driven to the future, and today, 90 years later, we still have oil, but the extraction and consumption have been increasing every year.

The Oil Abiótico (not fossil)

Where did, after all, the story of that oil would have come from fossils of living organisms and would therefore biotic? Russian geologist Mikhail Lomonosov had this idea for the first time in 1757: "The oil comes from small bodies of animals and plants, enclosed in sediments under high pressure and temperature are transformed into oil after an unthinkable". We do not know what observations led him to say this, only this theory has never been confirmed and is accepted without evidence for over 200 years and taught in universities.

But we never found fossils of animals or plants in oil reserves. This lack of evidence shows that the theory of fossil fuel is only a belief without any scientific basis. Geologists that spread the theory of fossil fuel, still have not submitted any proof of the transformation of bodies in oil.

One of the elements present on earth in our solar system is carbon. We human beings are formed largely of carbon, as well as all other creatures and plants on the planet. And in at least 10 planets and moons of our solar system were found large quantities of oil, the basis for oil.

The Cassini spacecraft discovered when passing near Titan, Saturn's moon, it is filled with liquid hydrocarbons. But there is no life there to produce the oil, they must be the result of some other chemical processing. Due to its particular configuration atomic carbon has the ability to form complex molecules and features, among all the chemical elements, the greater complexity of chemical bonds.



Here on Earth, the continental plates floating on an unimaginable amount of hydrocarbons. Deep in the Earth's mantle appear, under certain temperature, pressure and appropriate conditions, large quantities of hydrocarbons. The limestone is transformed into an inorganic chemical process. The resulting hydrocarbons are lighter than the layers of soil and sedimentary rock, so go up through the cracks of the earth and build up in layers of impermeable crust.

The hot magma is the supplier of energy to this geological phenomenon. The result gives the name of abiotic oil, because it arose not from the decomposition of biological forms of life, but by a chemical process inside the Earth. And this process happens continuously. The oil is produced continuously.


Some of the arguments most relevant to prove that the oil is of abiotic origin (non-fossil):

- The oil is extracted from great depths, exceeding 13 km. This totally contradicts the thesis of fossils, as the remains of marine life never reached such depths and temperature (very high) would have destroyed any organic material.

- The oil reserves, which should be empty since the 70's, back to fill up again for themselves. The oil reserves can not explain this phenomenon. Can only be explained by the incessant production of abiotic oil inside the earth.

- The amount of oil extracted in the last 100 years exceeds the amount of oil that could have been formed through the biomass. There was never plant and animal material enough to be turned into so much oil. Only a process of manufacture of hydrocarbons within the Earth can explain this huge amount.

- When we look at the large oil reserves in the world is well known that they occur where tectonic plates are in contact with each other or moving. In these regions there are numerous cracks, an indication that the oil comes from the interior of the earth and migrates slowly through the openings to the surface.

Plate Tectonics

- In laboratory conditions have been created similar to those that predominate in the depths of the planet. It was possible to produce methane, ethane and propane. These experiments prove that hydrocarbons can be formed inside the Earth through simple reactions Inorganic - not by the decomposition of dead organisms, as is generally accepted.

- Oil can not have 500 million years and remain so fresh in the ground today. The long molecules of carbon have would be decomposed. The oil we use is recent, otherwise it would have already volatilized long. This contradicts the appearance of oil reserves, but proves the theory of abiotic oil.


In 1970, the Russians started drilling at great depths, surpassing the 13,000 meters. Since then, Russian oil majors, including Iukos, drilled over 310 wells and extract oil there. Last year, Russia surpassed the extraction of the world's largest producer, Saudi Arabia.

The Russians dominated the complex technique of deep drilling for over 30 years and explore inexhaustible reserves of oil in the deep Earth. This fact is ignored by the West. The Russians have proven to be totally false the explanation of Western geologists that oil would be the result of decomposed organic material.

In the 40 and 50, the Russian experts have discovered, to their surprise, the oil reserves are refilled by themselves and under. They concluded that oil is produced deep in the earth and migrates upwards, where it accumulates. Could prove this through deep drilling.

However, in 90 years, Russia was so ahead of the West in technology for deep drilling, which Wall Street banks and the Rockefeller and Rothschild provided money to Mikhail Khodorkovsky on a mission to buy the company Iukos by 309 million dollars to obtain the know-how of deep drilling.



Can now understand why President Vladimir Putin has returned to Iukos and other oil back to Russian hands. This was critical economically to Russia, and Putin expelled and arrested some Russian oligarchs.

However, the so-called "scientists", lobbyists, journalists on the payroll and the politicians want us to believe that the end of oil is coming, supposedly because the production has already peaked and is now declining. Of course, the intention is to create a climate that justifies the high price of oil and therefore gain huge profits.

It is now known that oil can be exploited almost everywhere, provided that it is willing to invest in high cost of deep drilling. Any country can become independent of energy. Simply, the owners of oil-dependent countries and want to pay high prices for imported oil.

The claim that there is a maximum in the extraction of oil is in fact a coup and a lie of the global elite. It is building a shortage and an expensive artificial. It's all about business, profit, power and control.

Moreover, it is absolutely clear to everyone that Iraq was invaded because of oil. Only it was not to extract the oil, but rather to prevent the Iraqi oil to flood the market and prices fall. Before the war with Iraq, drew six million barrels per day, and today does not reach two million. The difference was withdrawn from the market. Saddam Hussein threatened to extract huge amounts of oil and flood the market.

This meant his death sentence, and for this reason Iraq was attacked and Saddam hanged. Now the U.S. has troops there permanently. No one has license to explore oil in the country with the second largest oil reserve in the world. Therefore, Iran, with the third-largest oil reserves in the world, is now also threatened by wanting to build "weapons of mass destruction".
 
[quote name='deathscythehe']You're right.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html?eref=rss_tech&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_tech+(RSS%3A+Technology)
Now you can bitch about CNN being nothing but a right wing think tank. Or maybe those right wing terrorists hacked CNN's site to add that story. It couldn't possibly be that a fact is a fact, no matter who says it.[/QUOTE]
I refuse to believe anything fox news says without some other confirmation, i'm sorry if that gets your ass hairs in a bind.

I get most of my news from the AP. :p
 
We get shitty because conservatives act like we should continue poisoning the planet because global warming might or might not be man made.

Who cares if it will make the temperature go down? It's a good idea to clean up the planet for the long term.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I refuse to believe anything fox news says without some other confirmation, i'm sorry if that gets your ass hairs in a bind.

I get most of my news from the AP. :p[/QUOTE]
Nice, the same AP that sicked 11 full time reporters on fact checking Sarah Palins book, but not one on Obama's? Sweet, I can see why you prefer their flavor of journalistic integrity.

[quote name='depascal22']We get shitty because conservatives act like we should continue poisoning the planet because global warming might or might not be man made.

Who cares if it will make the temperature go down? It's a good idea to clean up the planet for the long term.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. So - Bulldozing incredibly risky and expensive taxation, policy, and law through the entire world's economies, for what may turn out to be a total lie/misunderstanding, is still forgivable - because it at least gets us some positive results and cleaner air down the road at some point, right? That's the logic I'm reading from you anyway.

I seem to recall similar logic made by a guy named Bush about a subject called Iraq that you, and those generally agreeing with the above paragraph, railed against. Not only that, but talking about how we were mislead based on evidence that turned out to be mostly misinformation or mistakes has been the favorite ralley cry for "change". I guess the "lies for change is justified" logic only goes so far.....

And to take the comparison further, if you think the Iraq war was expensive - going the full Monty with climate change bills will make it look like a trip to McDonalds.

Can't we just aim for consistency here? That we shouldn't sacrifice everything for a maybe? Have we learned nothing this last decade about action without cause? Can we just at least agree to maybe throttle the drastic measures of "change" to the hard, universal scientific facts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']We get shitty because conservatives act like we should continue poisoning the planet because global warming might or might not be man made.

Who cares if it will make the temperature go down? It's a good idea to clean up the planet for the long term.[/QUOTE]

I love that its such an all or nothing proposition. If you don't support Cap and Trade, you want the whole planet to become a polluted wasteheap.

As someone else in the thread already mentioned, somewhere along the line the entire global warming discussion turned into carbon dioxide, which shouldn't even be considered a pollutant. If you want to consider it a pollutant then every single living animal on the planet is a polluter by the simple virtue of their existence. Gimme some acid raid, smog, CFCs, stuff that really fucks up the environment but since we've already made measures to drastically reduce we've gotta find the next environmental villian.

The really silly thing about "greenhouse gases" though is that water vapor is BY FAR the largest percentage of what could be considered a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. What's next, limits on the amount of water we let evaporate after a storm?
 
You cannot compare the associated press to fox news, it's no comparison. Lets be honest here for just a moment, no news organization is perfect, never has been, never will be, but if have to choose between the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity, i'll pick the AP every time.

While we're at it, you got anything against reuters?
 
I personally view and treat every single news outlet much like I do salesmen at car dealerships. They all have various reputations, some of them are more scummy than others, some are worse at hiding their real agenda of effing you over better than others - but ultimately they are all really just agenda driven and base their success on how good they make you feel in the long run.

Understanding that they all are either puppets of someone with an agenda or have an agenda themselves is the key to walking off the lot without a bloody rectum.
***********************

It looks like this story is seriously snowballing:
Telegraph:
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover
US Senate Environment and Public Works Site: Inhofe calls for a congressional hearing on "Climategate".

Washington Times:
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

More to come. I am seeing a lot of fat ladies marching on the horizon, but unfortunately religious fervor is pretty difficult to completely destroy.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']More to come. I am seeing a lot of fat ladies marching on the horizon, but unfortunately religious fervor is pretty difficult to completely destroy.[/QUOTE]

Crushing a religion is easy. You just have to let the Messiah tumble. Catch Algore with a live boy or a dead girl and you're set.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Crushing a religion is easy. You just have to let the Messiah tumble. Catch Algore with a live boy or a dead girl and you're set.[/QUOTE]

To sum up thrust in a few words, he says this while quoting Inhofe an ardent creationist and whackjob.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Crushing a religion is easy. You just have to let the Messiah tumble. Catch Algore with a live boy or a dead girl and you're set.[/QUOTE]

Meh, he already has bought millions of dollars worth of seaside property while warning of catastrophic sea level rise, jetting around the world and living in a mansion that uses 20 times as much electricity as the average house, all while lecturing the rest of us. There really can't be much more blatant hypocrisy. Al Gore's followers are in many respects a religious cult, and their faith is strong -- so strong I don't think the things you mentioned would have an effect, believe it or not.

Anyway, here's a fun video, and then a good article to read:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/1...ntry5761180.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"
 
I'd like to pass on a couple of points made by a professor at my college regarding the integrity of this situation in general:

1. The data was unpublished - Regardless of whether it was accurate or not, it has not been peer-reviewed or compared against alternative studies in order to determine if the data is repeatable or sound.

2. Private conversation and hearsay is being taken as factual data - This pretty much sums up to be the worst of scientific proof: The "Because I said so" method. This holds ZERO weight in scientific circles, and should not be taken as truth.

3. We are placing all of our faith on the efforts and intentions of a single, unknown hacker, who cannot be questioned about his methods or held accountable for his results. We have no way of knowing if he edited anything before posting it, nor his intentions (the "statement of purpose" for most experiments).

As such, it might be imperative that we actually CONFIRM such results before making large decisions on what we perceive to be a scandal. In my opinion, no actual research or experimentation has been done to confirm or deny the results, and instead the populace at large is bringing out the bane of intelligent though: ignorance.

~HotShotX
 
Tell your professor that the mere fact that these emails, which SHOULD already be public due to the freedom of information act, are not - is a pretty good indicator that they DON'T want a lot of it getting out.

Please tell me how you would actually prove the hacked emails are legit? They could release "cleaned versions" to compare against, and which one would your all-important peer reviewed "scientific circles" believe?

The most important thing this event has done is make a number of people, especially a number of scientists, put down their kool-aid and double check things. And question things. You mention the peer-review process. Well the peer review process hasn't really happened with the climate change theories pretty much ever. Dissenting or differing views/data have been laughed off the table for years now. That's not how science works or should. That's part of the problem - and hopefully that will change.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'd like to pass on a couple of points made by a professor at my college regarding the integrity of this situation in general:

1. The data was unpublished - Regardless of whether it was accurate or not, it has not been peer-reviewed or compared against alternative studies in order to determine if the data is repeatable or sound.

2. Private conversation and hearsay is being taken as factual data - This pretty much sums up to be the worst of scientific proof: The "Because I said so" method. This holds ZERO weight in scientific circles, and should not be taken as truth.

3. We are placing all of our faith on the efforts and intentions of a single, unknown hacker, who cannot be questioned about his methods or held accountable for his results. We have no way of knowing if he edited anything before posting it, nor his intentions (the "statement of purpose" for most experiments).

As such, it might be imperative that we actually CONFIRM such results before making large decisions on what we perceive to be a scandal. In my opinion, no actual research or experimentation has been done to confirm or deny the results, and instead the populace at large is bringing out the bane of intelligent though: ignorance.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

1. One of the most disturbing things about the e-mails is the success the CRU folks had in corrupting the peer-review process and using it to squelch other views.

2. Your professor needs more information. It's not just private conversation (some of which is fairly damning of those involved), but there are a lot of non-email files as well. The information in these (such as I quoted above) is a gold mine in terms of being able to understand the thought processes and inner workings of CRU, especially since they are so secretive (which is actually anti-scientific).

3. I don't think anybody from CRU or anywhere else has disputed that these e-mails are legitimate. In fact, several publications (I think the NY Times, since one of its reporters was involved) and individuals outside CRU have confirmed that e-mail they got or sent that appears in the leaked e-mails is legitimate. So unless we get contrary information I'm inclined to think these are the real deal. CRU themselves have not denied that, which should pretty much settle this issue.

The bottom line is that these e-mails are damaging to the reputation of the scientists involved, as well as the whole field of climatology. They also uncover criminal activity such as destroying information subject to FOIA requests and grant fraud. These are pretty sad things to learn about scientists who are supposed to be dispassionately searching for the truth. This information by no means proves the theory of global warming to be true or false, but it does pretty much destroy the "consensus" and "settled science" horseshit we've been fed over the years mainly by these people and alarmist media. And hopefully it destroys any chance cap-and-trade has to pass the Senate, which would be a travesty since it's the worst piece of legislation to pass either the House or the Senate in my lifetime.

EDIT: here is the "decline" they were hiding:

briffa_recon.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can someone explain why the use of "Algore," as opposed to "Al Gore?" I suspect it's some sort of petty Rushism that is intended to demean the target but serves mostly as a billboard that reads, "The person using this phrase is a moron."
 
[quote name='Cheese']Thanks for admitting you're a petty moron. That's very stand-up of you.[/QUOTE]

You're half right. I'm petty.

http://twitter.com/ALgore

EDIT: [quote name='Cheese']...serves mostly as a billboard that reads, "The person using this phrase is a moron.[/QUOTE]

AlPhoto_bigger.jpg


This moron even posted his picture and made "algore" his screen name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This email business is a TOTAL red herring. It's "hey look over here" and ignore the facts. It doesn't point to anything, it doesn't prove anything. In fact, if all the idiots can come up with in 30+ years of climate study is a few out-of-context emails, that shows they are grasping at straws. Furthermore, there is NASA and NOAA data that show the same thing as CRU.

I wish all these so-called skeptics were 1/10 as hard on the hackers and Oil-Funded "scientists" as they are on climate researchers.
 
[quote name='usickenme']This email business is a TOTAL red herring. It's "hey look over here" and ignore the facts. It doesn't point to anything, it doesn't prove anything. In fact, if all the idiots can come up with in 30+ years of climate study is a few out-of-context emails, that shows they are grasping at straws. Furthermore, there is NASA and NOAA data that show the same thing as CRU.

I wish all these so-called skeptics were 1/10 as hard on the hackers and Oil-Funded "scientists" as they are on climate researchers.[/QUOTE]

I bet that Nasa data has really good pics of da Nile.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I wish all these so-called skeptics were 1/10 as hard on the hackers and Oil-Funded "scientists" as they are on climate researchers.[/QUOTE]

They are tough on hackers - just only when it suits their purposes.

Of all the slings and arrows Sarah Palin suffered on the campaign trail, perhaps the "most disruptive and discouraging" was having her email account hacked into, the one-time vice presidential candidate writes in her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life. She echoed that sentiment in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity broadcast Wednesday night. At the height of the presidential campaign, a 20-year-old University of Tennessee student hacked into Palin's Yahoo email account and posted it online.
...
In her book, Palin explains how she felt after the hack. "I was horrified to realize that millions of people could read my personal messages, including the thoughts of a friend who had written of her heartbreak over her pending divorce," Palin writes, adding: "What kind of responsible press outfit would broadcast stolen private correspondence?"
...
[The Palin email hacker] faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three year term of supervised release, and will be tried next spring.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/20/sarah-palin-yahoo-email-hack-was-devastating-to-campaign/

Fox news gave Palin's story a platform - the same Fox news that manipulates the hacked scientist emails to further their anti-conservationist agenda.

Why worry though - the only people taking this email manipulation seriously are either willfully ignorant or people who couldn't give you a basic description of the scientific method. People like Saudi Arabians who live under a theocratic monarchy, or the fat, drunk and toothless "drill baby drill" crowd here in the backwoods corners of good ol' USA.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I support criminal activity, too, guys.[/QUOTE]

It's yet to be ascertained whether it was hacking or a whistleblower, or just some data that CRU stupidly left on a publicly accessible FTP site or something. To say it's criminal is jumping the gun.
 
It's information that should have been retrievable via the freedom of information act (which is why they were scrambling to delete emails). But we shouldn't condone criminal behavior so we should just ignore everything said criminal behavior produces.

Re-attach the blinders and refill your kool-aid cups people - nothing to see here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I support criminal activity, too, guys.[/QUOTE]

Myke - what's your stance on illegal immigration and individuals lying when filing their tax papers?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ That's the way our justice system works, honeypot.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying if I hacked emails that showed an affair your wife was having, then showed them to you, you'd have no choice but to completely ignore it? Awesome.
 
What, are you UncleBob all of a sudden?

Can't people make arguments anymore by explaining the inherent logic of their arguments instead of resorting to (incorrectly) presumed self-evident analogies?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So you're saying if I hacked emails that showed an affair your wife was having, then showed them to you, you'd have no choice but to completely ignore it? Awesome.[/QUOTE]

Get a lawyer in here, and I'm sure he can clear up what myke was saying. I imagine it has to do with search warrants and the like, such as "due discovery" or whatever that phrase is [that I heard on that one episode of The Office].

In other words, your example is just showing some stuff to myke in his home, versus something admissible in court. The former doesn't function under protocol like the latter, where you have to go by the book.

Hence the "that's how our judicial system works."

I'm taking a stab at this. My brain meats hurt.
 
I understand that. It's irrelevant though, as these emails don't ever need to go to court to try and achieve anything. Their damage is already done.

You can have official bodies like the UN try to say they refuse to look at those emails or take them into consideration for any decision because of how they were obtained, but that will create a public opinion nightmare for them.

The emails exist. Anyone can look at them. They are incredibly powerful without ever having to be used in a court.

Here's another analogy for some eye rolling: If someone hacked emails to show Vice President Biden took pics of himself humping a goat and made them public, what would happen? Would those emails be admissible in court? Probably not. But Obama would be forced to make him resign because of public opinion.

Whoever hacked those emails never intended to use them for any kind of legal pressure, otherwise they would have kept them hidden until court day. They leaked them to the public for this reason.
 
bread's done
Back
Top