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
Gad, Wren, denseness like yours is unnatural, that is, contrived. Jones was lying and got caught on it. Deal with it. We are.
======================
Leif,
My view is that in our short lives, it is time and value that are the most precious commodities.
Of all the commenter arguments, one must decide which have the merits to pursue, if any. It depends on the quality of the homework done by the presenters. Who is buying it?
Simple? Probably.
Judgement? Of course.
Appreicate your mental discipline, once again.
And I also wonder where the hell your stamina comes from.
John
“Wren:
If I was a resident of the UK I wouldn’t like pranksters causing a waste of my tax money.”
Well you’re not, and I am, and I like it a lot. When you compare a couple of thousand quid to the £8billion or so to be picked from the pockets of electricity consumers to pay for the absurd “Feed in Tariffs”, the phrase “drop in the ocean” comes to mind.
Before I got to Piratin’ aargh.
I was a bank manager, my very first Branch was QU.
On loan from a mate.
JQ from QU embarrassed, Queenslands University.
Good luck with that. That’s why she went down to mattresses.
Economists they can get, embarrassment they wont have.
Me I’m from QIT. Aaargh.
R. Gates,
“2010 on track to be the warmest on instrument record, just as the Met Office predicted.”
Absolutely brilliant. The Met Office have been making predictions of milder winters and hotter summers for years and have yet to be proven right. So when 2010 turns out to be warmer than 1998, you stand up and say “this is the warmest on instrument record, just as the Met predicted.”
You remind me of the people who believe in psychics when they get a prophecy right, but forget to check all those times when the psychic is wrong.
Vincent,
The point really was about an explanation from the AGW skeptics as to how 2010 could be warmer than the last big El Nino year (1998), despite the fact that we just went through the longest, deepest solar minimum in a century. I’ve still not heard a satisfactory answer. As far as the Met Office goes and their predictions, I agree, make enough of them and you’re bound to get it right, but this still doesn’t take away from the fact that the tropospheric temps are doing exactly what AGWT says they will be doing the remainder of this century…going up. The troposphere is “where the action is” in terms of the actual dynamics of GH gas action. It is where the radiation is being absorbed and re-emitted by the GH gases, and as they accumulate, the tropo temps will go up…solar minimum or not, and El Nino years will only accentuate this trend, so 2010 El Nino Year will be warmer than 1998 El Nino year, even though the El Nino is not as strong in 2010 because we have a now have thicker “blanket” of GH gases in the troposphere.
These facts will upset many AGW skeptics…but cognitive dissonance is always painful…
Quiggin down under looks like he is typecast as a sheep herder…
@Tom FP
“But I’ve often wondered whether it might have been a compilation of stuff they were planning to OMIT from such a disclosure?”
My view too – if this was the stuff they were prepared to disclose (!) what the hell were they hiding? The Harry-Read-me would be quite enough to wreck their plans on its own.
John Whitman (01:32:03) :
Wren (00:45:39) : =>Wren (15:14:30) :
”””Now, what problem do you have with that exactly?
====
If I was a resident of the UK I wouldn’t like pranksters causing a waste of my tax money.””””
Wren,
What are you talking about?
Do you understand the purpose & nature of FOIA/FOI laws?
And do you understand the scientific method?
Do you understand the essential necessary critical roll of skeptics in the long history of western civilization and science?
It is reality [nature] that is deciding the arguments, not beliefs in AGW theories.
John
======
The purpose of FOI laws is not to give politically motivated individuals and groups a tool to harass scientists.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the scientific method?
Who you call skeptics, I call nitpickers. Exactly what has McIntrye contributed to the advancement of science?
kim (05:57:22) :
Gad, Wren, denseness like yours is unnatural, that is, contrived. Jones was lying and got caught on it. Deal with it. We are.
==========
Well I know hardly anyone ever lies, so if Jones lied that makes him an exceptional person. What where his lies?
RichieP (04:59:43) :
@Wren (15:57:40) : “Why can’t people be truthful ?”
Yes, yes Wren, you do go on don’t you? How about: “hide the decline”; the attempts (presumably successful) to destroy the incriminating data; turning data upside down; the hockey stick; the ONE Yamal tree; etc; etc. – I too could go on, for a very long time about truthfulness. Most of us here know where the truth deficit lies (and lies and lies)……
=====
Innuendos and allegations based on suspicions aren’t truth.
Wren, you are deliberately and ingenuously being dense. Jones was lying, McIntyre and his Band of Merry Pranksters caught him out on it, and partly as a result of that the HadCru temperature database has been revealed to have been built of sand on sand. This knowledge is a big, big plus for science.
Now go sit in the corner; don’t come near me, I value my legs.
==============
R Gates @ur momisugly 07:08:07
You are yet another one being disingenuously dense. I asked you before to explain the Sun-Climate connection you use to support your point about the recent Minimum. So how about it? We’re all ears, since that connection is like ‘The Big Mystery’. Don’t keep us in suspense. Bonus; you’d get big gold prizes if you’d just explain it.
=======================
Peter B (04:32:33) :
Wren,
As a UK taxpayer myself, I am far more concerned about (1) the non-work done by the likes of Phil Jones and Keith Briffa and (2) the implications for the British economy of the policies taken partly because of that non-work.
So actually, to have Jones and Briffa answering FOI requests is not a waste of money – in fact, it’s an investment, since it prevents them from causing the economic destruction as they’d otherwise be doing.
====
Like Professor Quiggin, you are making an allegation based on a suspicion. Many posters here think that would be grounds for Jones and Briffa to sue you for libel.
kim (08:05:58) :
Wren, you are deliberately and ingenuously being dense. Jones was lying, McIntyre and his Band of Merry Pranksters caught him out on it, and partly as a result of that the HadCru temperature database has been revealed to have been built of sand on sand. This knowledge is a big, big plus for science.
Now go sit in the corner; don’t come near me, I value my legs.
==============
What were Jones lies?
Wren, he was lying about the confidentiality agreements keeping him from releasing the data. Why are you seemingly completely unable to grasp this concept?
==============
Wren,
“Who you call skeptics, I call nitpickers. Exactly what has McIntrye contributed to the advancement of science?”
Eh, exposing the errors in Mann’s Hockey Stick?
Exposing the errors in Briffa’s Hockey Stick?
Holding science up to the honorable traditions of adversarial scepticism?
R. Gates,
” but this still doesn’t take away from the fact that the tropospheric temps are doing exactly what AGWT says they will be doing the remainder of this century…going up.”
Well, that’s not all AGWT says is it? The climate models predict a tropical midtroposphere hotspot that hasn’t been found. I’m not saying that proves or disproves anything, just that observations aren’t a one-way street for AGWT.
Anyway, as for going up, wasn’t it Phil Jones himself who ‘fessed up that there has been no statisically significant warming since 1995?
Not saying that proves anything, mind. Just pointing it out.
You two are La La Monkeys mindlessly repeating ‘The Big Lie’ in hopes that the repetition will be persuasive. You are propagandists of the worst sort. Your problem is that hoi polloi have caught on to ‘The Big Lie’ and you just expose yourself to ridicule. And anger, I’m sorry to say.
====================
Wren @ur momisugly 8:10:22
Hah, you’re getting carried away. Your comparison of Peter’s statement to that of Prof. Quiggin is ludicrous. However, I’m glad you agree that sad old Quiggin has been egregious.
============
I don’t think you realize it but your arguments have devolved into absurdities, Wren. You are actually very amusing.
===================
supercritical (02:32:06) :
Wren,
You say ‘If I was a resident of the UK I wouldn’t like pranksters causing a waste of my tax money’
I am a resident of the UK and with regard to my negative preferences for state spending, I’d rather UEA/CRU had obeyed the law in the first instance.
If a state-funded organisations refuse to comply with their legal obligations, there is a good tradition in the UK of populist engagement in ‘rough music’ or ‘uproar’; in other words to create a scandal and stink which effectively disrupts the operation of that organisation, in a peaceful manner, until it complies.
Anyway apologies for the lesson on basic civics, but I remain puzzled by your post. Perhaps you could explain why UEA/CRU’s decision not to obey the law was NOT the causation of the repeated flurry of FOI requests?
Also could you give us your view on the proposition that a single response, copied to each and all of those FOI requests, would have sufficed?
====
You don’t know for sure that UEC/CRU disobeyed the law.
Some think in the future all work subject to FOI law should be readily available for access. While I can see why such openness is advocated, I’m skeptical of whether it is, on-balance, a good idea. What is the downside? Would it inhibit scientists and reduce their productivity?
kim (08:12:05) :
Wren, he was lying about the confidentiality agreements keeping him from releasing the data. Why are you seemingly completely unable to grasp this concept?
==============
Well, there were confidentiality agreements, so these agreements were a reason he could use if he didn’t want to release the data, weren’t they?
REPLY: Your response is double stupid wrong Wren. Jones DID release the data, spurning such “agreements” when releasing it to “friendly” researchers such as Peter Webster. When McIntyre and others came calling, he hid behind the same “agreements”. His actions prevented replication, his actions were unlawful, his actions were unprofessional, his actions were arbitrary. Kim is right, you are being dense. I don’t know if you don’t have a clear understanding or if it is purposeful, however it is becoming tiring and you have hijacked the thread.
Thus, I’m declaring troll status for you. Commenters, don’t feed the troll. Moderators, snip as needed when this gets out of hand. Wren I suggest you take a time out from commenting to get a handle on the history. Then come back and comment. – Anthony
Vincent (08:12:27) :
Wren,
“Who you call skeptics, I call nitpickers. Exactly what has McIntrye contributed to the advancement of science?”
Eh, exposing the errors in Mann’s Hockey Stick?
Exposing the errors in Briffa’s Hockey Stick?
Holding science up to the honorable traditions of adversarial scepticism?
====
What advancements were made if no conclusions were changed?
Wren, you’ve got shut-eyed denial. AGW religion is the opiate of the masses.
================