Image source here
From Andrew Bolt’s blog at the Herald Sun:
Professor John Quiggin complains of smears by sceptics:
In recent years, science and scientific institutions have come under increasingly vociferous attack, with accusations of fraud, incompetence and even aspirations to world domination becoming commonplace… Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction.
Ethically unconstrained, Professor John Quiggin smears a sceptic:
In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system, I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime…
So, to sum up, McIntyre organised the campaign which led to the creation of the file, obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, received the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. Whether or not he was directly involved in the theft, or merely created the opportunity and benefited from the proceeds is impossible to determine, and essentially irrelevant.
OK professor, let’s see your evidence beyond this missive.
Somebody needs to educate Quiggin on the CRU ftp security blunder that was “the mole”. He doesn’t get it, and then proceeds to use that as “evidence” against McIntyre. It’s comical.
Here’s Professor Quiggin’s page at the University of Queensland:
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html?page=15898
“Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction.”
Did this guy just get back from a bad trip?
Is it the water or what he’s smoking?
Caleb @ur momisugly 19:10:38
There are 137 comments on Quiggin’s original post. The link just takes you to the last page. Shameless self-promotion alert.
=========================
“Stephan (16:47:17) :
You will excuse me but Australia seems to be full of really dumb organizations/institutions/governments/universities run by really dumb scientists. Having done considerable successful research there I can confirm this. Did you know you cannot light a wood barbecue in your backyard anywhere in Australia? (Its illegal). It is probably the most over-regulated, over-governed, over-rated, expensive country in the world. Even the Swedes find it (the rules and regulations)! Personal freedoms have been reduced to nothing. Basically its a country run by lawyers and this is one reason they will not let go of AGW easily. I invite anybody to go there and check it out.”
Sadly, you’re not far off the mark.
Kay (05:25:40) :
Wow. That just blows my mind. Do climate scientists have ANY sense of ethics whatsoever?
He’s not a scientist, he’s an economist’
We all know what a wonderful track record they have.
ANTHONY, PLEASE, exercise some discretion about allowing attacks based on the professor’s appearance, intelligence and other personal qualities, etc.
In my opinion, the ad hominem nature of many of these posts detracts from the high character of WUWT, which must surely be focused on what the professor has done: accused McIntyre while stating he has no evidence.
Do not the posters see that they bring themselves down to the same level by these unsavory statements?
The headline is inaccurate and should have read:
Aussie Prof: McIntyre Bears Moral Responsibility for CRU Break-In
“….but winning a libel case requires you to prove resulting personal damages. That would require McIntyre to prove professional damage (far more difficult for a retiree) or loss of income (also difficult for a retiree). ”
Standards vary from country to country, but the traditional Common Law definitions of libel and slander distinguish between slander/libel “per se”, where the damages are said to be inherent in the false and defamatory statement, and “per quod”, where damages have to be proven.
Falsely accusing someone of criminality traditionally has been “per se”.
“In an odd way this is cheering news !”
I have image copies and text copies of the various changes of text of Quiggan’s defamation, should anyone need them for evidence when the University of Queensland is taken to court. I imagine there will be hundreds of thousands of bloggers who will contribute for the legal expenses.
This is the defamation here:
“I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person (along with the actual hacker or leaker of course) who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.”
which has now been changed to:
“I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person (apart of course from the actual hacker/leaker) who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.”
Quiggin has bolded “moral” since my first post above.
“[McIntyre] bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.”
He’s also extended his disclaimer:
“And I’ve emphasized the point that we don’t know and will probably never know who actually stole or leaked the emails. That’s a question for the police. McIntyre’s responsibility, as I said, is moral.”
IANAL. It’s still a nasty, incoherent and mostly incorrect piece, but do the tweaks get him off the libel hook?
Billy Bob (20:50:55),
Even though damages may be minimal, a win is still a win; a brick in the wall, which others can reference.
Quiggin is just lucky that Steve McIntyre isn’t the kind of guy to force him or his employer to grovel.
well spotted jaymam: I missed the “along with” -> “apart from” switch in the latest iteration.
I listed a bunch of other changes at 14:19:40
Wren
Wren (15:14:30) :
Do McIntyre defenders know if he is the person who organized a campaign that harassed the University of East Anglia with FOI requests?
The University of East Anglia received 58 FOI requests of similar nature asking for details on confidentiality agreements with different countries, many of which were identical except for the specific countries mentioned. Apparently, this was an organized effort, but the following rather amusing request was from a participant who failed to follow instructions:
Yes, those of us who participated in the organized campaign know exactly what happened. I can even tell you how we organized the effort to make sure that all the countries got covered. Go read the comments. I put a list of all the countries in a comment. People then selected 5 countries, took those countries off the list and then posted the shortened list. It was hilarious because some people could not follow the simple instructions. But what do you expect from Volunteers. it was fun.
Now, what problem do you have with that exactly?
1. CRU consolidated all the requests into ONE REQUEST. That is their right to do. they responded to these requests in under the 18 hour mandated time time.
2. My request to them was different. I requested the agreements for 5 countries and then I also requested some additional documents. I did this because I knew they could consolidate all the requests into one request.
My additional request was DENIED because they thought it MIGHT take more than 18 hours.
3. CRU answered the 58 requests. Jones wrote a 1000 word essay and they posted up 4 of the agreements. ( or was it 5)
But for your sake wren lets lay out the facts.
1. In 2002 you ask Jones for data and he sends it to you. Jones says
he has to watch what he is doing because the data is covered by agreements.
2. in 2005, you write a paper critical of his co author, mann.
3. in 2007, you request data from Jones, an update to the data he gave you
in 2002.
4. he says no and tells you that 98% of the data is at GHCN.
5. In 2009 You learn that Jones has sent the data to Webster.
6. Jones gives the data to the MET.
7. You ask the MET for the data. They say no and claim that releasing the data will harm international relations. And they cite the existence of confidentiality agreements that Jones claims prevent him from releasing the data.
So, you have to ask yourself. Jones gave me the data before. Jones thinks that onlt 2% of it is covered by agreements. Jones gave the data to webster.
WHAT”S UP WITH THAT? what exactly do these agreements say? How can Webster get the data and not me? Jones gave it to me in 2002 before I was critical of him, WHAT GIVES? And what is this claim that international relations will be damaged?
So then you actually FIND the data ( a 2003 version, everyone forget this)
on the FTP site. You tell CRU that you will destroy it if they ask you to.
After all, international relations are at stake. After all, this is confidential data. CRU say nothing. Wow, Most confidentiality agreements require you to
inform the owner of the breech.
Anyways, you want to know WHY CRU denies you and yet releases it to Webster and posts it on FTPs. SO,
8. You ask CRU for the data given to webster.
9. CRU say NO. they cite agrements that preclude “release to non academics”
10. You know this is horse poo. So do your readers who have written confidentiality agreements. You restrict USE!
11. So, you test CRU. 4 academics request the data.
12. CRU change their excuse. Now they argue that the agreements prevent any release.
So at this point you know they are lying. they are making stuff up about the actual content of the agreements. So what is your next LOGICAL STEP?
you cant get the data because they say the data if covered by agreements.
They’ve switched their description of what the agreements say, so what do you do Wren?
Ask for the agreements.
I would ignore Prof. Quiggin, just like I ignore R. Gates. They both traffic in disinformation.
Here is a list of amendments made to Qiggan’s statement at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/12/climategatethe-smoking-gun/
Original text:
“By July 2009, CRU had advised McIntyre that climate data used in their work was available from the original sources, and that he should seek it from them.”
Amended text:
“By July 2009, CRU had advised McIntyre that climate data used in their work was available from the original sources, but that they couldn’t release it because some sources had supplied it under confidentiality agreements.”
Original text:
“Over the next few months, CRU started preparing a response to McIntyre. Over the weekend beginning Friday 13 November, someone located and copied files associated with this effort from a back-up server at the university’s Climatic Research Unit, and attempted to load it on to the RealClimate site under the name FOIA.zip (the files were in a directory called FOI2009).”
Amended text:
“Over the weekend beginning Friday 13 November, someone located and copied files (apparently associated with the CRU response to this effort, although this is unclear) from a back-up server at the university’s Climatic Research Unit, and attempted to load it on to the RealClimate site under the name FOIA.zip (the files were in a directory called FOI2009). That attempt failed and the files were then widely circulated to anti-science sites.”
Original text:
“As well as data, these files included large numbers of emails, selective quotation of which”
Amended text:
“These files included large numbers of emails, selective quotation of which was the primary focus of the subsequent bogus scandal. Whatever claims might be made about access to data, there is no justification for stealing and publishing other peoples’ mail. Everyone who passed on or made use of the stolen emails was guilty of an offence against normal standards of behavior.”
Original text:
“So, to sum up, McIntyre organised the campaign which led to the creation of the file, obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, linked to the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. Whether or not he was directly involved in the theft, or merely created the opportunity and benefited from the proceeds is impossible to determine, and essentially irrelevant in moral terms.”
Amended text:
“So, to sum up, McIntyre, having earlier obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, linked to the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. The excuse that he was not personally involved in the hack/leak, but merely benefited from the proceeds is essentially irrelevant in moral terms.”
Original text:
“Note: I’ve updated this to correct some errors. In particular, I mistakenly thought the name FOIA.zip had been assigned to the files by UEA, rather than by the hacker/leaker.”
Amended text:
“Note: I’ve updated this to correct some errors. In particular, I mistakenly thought the name FOIA.zip had been assigned to the files by UEA, rather than by the hacker/leaker. Also, it’s been pointed out in comments that the multiple emails referred to confidentiality agreements about data rather than data per se. And I’ve emphasized the point that we don’t know and will probably never know who actually stole or leaked the emails. That’s a question for the police. McIntyre’s responsibility, as I said, is moral”.
I’ve read Steve McIntyre on ClimateAudit say that getting involved in lawsuits for libel and/or slander is time consuming and expensive. So going by that I don’t think he’ll be bringing this to court.
I don’t think John Quiggin, or most people know it, but Steve McIntyre is a manmade global warming believer.
Perhaps what is even worse than this delusional weirdo defaming Steve M, is that we are all paying out the nose in taxes and tuition fees to have thousands and thousands of like minded lunatics, and in some cases people even much worse than Quiggin, teaching our kids, and having a large and supposedly authoritative say, in all of our societal policy debates!?
By allowing Indoctro-cation to masquerade as authentic Education, we’ve come to a situation where the lunatics themselves are in charge of, and are running all of the asylums. And we’re paying them very well to do so, while they eagerly pollute most of our policies, along with the minds of future generations…
Larry,
I take very strong objection to your statement that I “traffic in disinformation”. I have never presented one bit of information that was a lie, or in any way misleading. Just because I’m one of a few who believes that AGWT is likely correct, and the trends and data do not support your skeptical viewpoint is no reason to make such rude statements.
Of course, I won’t ask for an apology, as it would be pointless. And by the way, March tropospheric temps continue at 20 year record highs, and have for the entire month, especially check out 14,000, the heart of the troposphere, way way above the record highs, exactly in-line with AGWT:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Sorry this is not supporting the AGW skeptics viewpoint that somehow the recent solar minimum was going to bring about the “big chill”, but you have to call the data as you see it, and AGWT says quite clearly that the solar influneces on the climate is being trumped by the build-up of GH gases. 2010 on track to be the warmest on instrument record, just as the Met Office predicted…
how it happened
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188541
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188595
Is it vexacious?
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188620
Nope, CA readers know that they can be treated as one request
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188662
Last request
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188659
CTM weighs in.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-220633
Jones lies about our effort:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-222742
I love it when people get the history wrong. It allows us to tell the story over and over and over and over again.
you see this is what they dont get. By continuing to hide things, and then lie about hiding them, and then lie about those lies, they give us the change to tell the whole story over again.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (17:33:08) said
“As of today’s reading, the Arctic ice sea extent is about 1 million square kilometers beyond the mean for 2006-2007, and appears to be in an upward direction:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
If the sea ice continues to build, how will AGW sycophants account for it to their funding agencies? ”
_________
Now this is a perfect example of an AGW skeptic cherry picking data to support some preconceived notion. Why would want to compare the recent sea ice with a 2-year low period, as opposed to 20 years+ of data before that? This is just simple cherry picking. To be accurate and precise in seeing true trends you always want to look at the largest data set you have. Your graph above, yes, shows up upswing, but it still below a longer term average and hence, still in a negative anomaly state based on a more important longer term average.
These graphs are the best snapshots of the long term trends in the arctic:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png
And only those who really didn’t want to see what the true trends were, would call for looking at some much shorter trend. Bottom line: Despite the recent solar minimum, arctic sea ice has not into a positive anomaly state since 2004, and no amount of cherry picking of data will change that.
:
R Gates
what are you going to do when El Nino ends and temperatures take a precipitous drop as happened in 1999 after the 1998 El Nino?
The current 2009/2010 warming is from El Nino not co2. And the drop in temperature that come after El Nino dissipates is sure to come. That’s what the data shows us.
R Gates,
Thankyou for responding to my post regarding your lack of data and timelines, the links you provided were interesting but untill you actually provide figures to back up your assertions the links can only tell me what I already know.
I am still waiting for you to provide actual temperatures and timelines to back up your assertions however and the fact that you choose not back up your claims with actual evidence is disapointing but not unexpected.
The repeating of statements like “5th warmest” without giving figures is meaningless, likewise your bold assertions as to the future state of the arctic sea ice is meaningless unless you can back up your claims with actual figures and not links alone.
I challenge you to post the actual arctic average temperatures for this past winter period together with the 30yr mean, side by side so we can all see the differential.
Your use of cherry picked data and wild assumptions of future climate states does you no credit here, school children might be impressed with the “5th warmest in history” style of scaremongering but on this blog we much prefer assumptions to be backed up with actual data.
However I thank you for your response and look forward to a future post that gives a fuller and more detailed perspective.
This warmist smear BS has acquired a new name – Quigginry
mark (14:16:07) :
WHY not check out the CRU data for yourself? I made it available on my website, I know from my stats that lots of you go there, but I also know you dont actually look. What does this tell me?
http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data/
======
It looks like only sum of the CRU data. Anyway, I’m not sure people want to check it out, and run the risk of not having anything to complain about anymore.
Fighting back ? you lot have been fighting the truth all along ,but you have been busted ,so get your crap and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine ,in fact give yourselves some of your own global warming crap ,even if i did warm, big deal there is nothing you lot can do to change anything you might think your gods but your not ,the Nasa data is no good and found to be fake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiRK5by62KQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQfr7wRZsw There you are wafflers ,get into that ,you will love it ,Your mate PHIL and the Nasa data which you all used on ,Russian data no good either , The trouble is guys we know more about whats going on than you guys ,your all fakes and your busted end of story ,and read the emails that tell you how corrupt Aust data is before any more waffle thanks.Co2 follows warming by up to 800yrs there is no correlation whatsoever and you know it too.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (22:23:18) :
R Gates
what are you going to do when El Nino ends and temperatures take a precipitous drop as happened in 1999 after the 1998 El Nino?
The current 2009/2010 warming is from El Nino not co2. And the drop in temperature that come after El Nino dissipates is sure to come. That’s what the data shows us.
=====
Wishful thinking won’t make it happen. Remember, El Nino and La Nina come and go, and the globe keeps getting warmer and warmer.