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
Quiggin’s leap of faith on Steve may explain his belief in catastrophe; that and the teat of gov’t funding.
“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.”
Should have cut to:
“Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the facts”
I know where I’ve seen this guy before !
He’s Captain Haddock out of Tin Tin !!!
s/guild/guilt
Monday, post-DST timechange. Double whammy.
I’m not sure exactly what bit of this would be libellous, he doesn’t actually accuse McIntyre of very much substantive.
His blog;
http://johnquiggin.com/
This guy is a bit behind the main herd, he’s only at stage 2
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/24/josh-4.html
The higher up the Ivory tower these good professors go, the less oxygen is available for them to breath, the more delusional and paranoid their personalities become and the more we get to laugh at theses morons.
Ya ya ya . . I know it is not PC to laugh at mentally handicapped people, but these guys have a bad case of self-inflicted wound syndrome and it is funny to watch them come apart at the seems, to make fools of themselves.
Or maybe he is auditioning for the Comedy Network?
Makes sense actually. You see, there is no true evidence of AGW, yet he still believes it as fact. And there is no evidence of his accusation, but he believes it as fact.
Dr. Quinn looks a lot like some backwoods survivalist in that photo. All you need is a flannel shirt and an ax to make it complete.
Duck Xing, thanks for the background on Dr Quiggin. Frankly. I am more dismayed than before now that I knowing how eminent he is in Australia.
In fact, your description of the man is a big shock. What shocks me is that he is so lacking in common sense. He apparently either does not know enough science to understand McIntyre’s criticisms or does not care enough to read what McIntyre has published.
If he publishes a written statement calling someone a criminal for his scientific research, he should at least study the published papers. I have. And I know enough about principal components analysis to believe what McIntryre claims. So did Prof Wegman. Resume here: http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.resume2.pdfl
Simon H: If Oz’s libel laws are like the UK’s, it is the defendant who has to prove his case (ie Quiggin would have to prove his accusation is true) — I believe that in the US it is the Plaintiff who has to prove his case.
Sounds to me as if he has a kangaroo loose in the upper paddock. He seems to think that what he’s saying makes sense when even a cursory analysis reveals it as contradictory dross. The idea that SMcI’s legitimate requests for the information could be construed as art and part of any subsequent crime is peurile. He ignores completely the right to access principle that was obstructed by the CRU, and that there is a reasonable case for categorising the hacking or leaking of the FOI covered material in such circumstances as highly moral and legal – regardless of the conclusion any establishment investigation might reach. His summing up in the 2nd paragraph of his earlier confused assertions is just as unclear. What is clear is that here we have one more University professor whose mind is a bit messy and whose conception of morality is decidely suspect. And any scientific, economic or political views or research published by this guy are probably worthless – if the above paragraphs are any guide.
Comments on his blog about the very article we are discussing here;
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/12/climategatethe-smoking-gun/#comments
@ur momisugly Ben (07:49:00) : Because Mann worked at the U of Virginia from 1999-2005, the ongoing Penn State review by a committee of scientists, is not likely to cover Mann’s “Hockey Stick” related problems, the ethics of Mann’s editorial actions with the UN IPCC’s 2001 report or the breach of scientific method procedures, due to Mann’s multi-year refusal to release his data for standard scientific review.”
Yes, but could they (or would they) contact UVa or UMass?
Those making comments would do well to read the reasoning behind the assertion, left out by Anthony for reasons of space:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/12/climategatethe-smoking-gun/#more-8331
And the newspaper report that lead to his assertion;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacker-police-investigation
The face of Reason
Environmental organizations joining the new propaganda effort:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/face-of-reason.html
At this stage, who cares, I say good on him. The real robbery would have been if we were saddled with taxes on bases of the false representation of data.
I’m confused.
UEA were putting a file together as pe FOIA to be handed over in response to Steve McIntyre’s request and before they had chance to just hand it over, perhaps Steve stole it? Why wouldn’t he have just waited for them to hand it over – he seems to have waited a saintly long time for it in the first place.
I do hope this guy is axed for trying to defend the indefensible.
Evo1
The “acceptance” stage is not far away now…
the pro-agw have been through the other stages of the Extended Kübler-Ross Grief Cycle: Shock, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Testing,
Looks to me like Quiggin performed a clever “trick” by splicing fiction onto fact ….
He’ll be able to take credit for a new famous Australian phrase….
“That’s not a hockey stick…THIS is a Hockey Stick!”
Graphite (06:21:01) :
Theft is a tricky term under English law anyway – if you ’steal’ a car for ‘joy riding’ – it is not legally theft!!!
From here… http://www.sussex.police.uk/infocentre/text_version/content.asp?uid=449
“Theft – Definition of Theft
A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Reference: Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.
Last Updated: 25/7/2008″
By that definition, there was no theft.
No one intended to permanently deprive the owners of the data, rather the person intended to liberate it to the owners, the taxpayers. The person who had “primary moral responsibility for the crime” was Jones. McIntyre simply (and with due process) created the responsibility to comply with the law. Since there has been no compliance, the statute of limitations surely cannot have run its course.
John Quiggin and the Smoking Gun
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/12/climategatethe-smoking-gun/
John Quiggen has published a simply shocking whirlwind
of facts and revelations.
However, having read both his timeline for Climategate
and the released CRU emails/data set/program there
are logical fallacies in his exposition.
Last July the CRU/Met reasoned that raw reports of
station data/temps from outside Great Britain they’ve
used as CRUTEM data were subject to non-disclosure
or restrictive use agreements between Met Office/CRU
and some of the various 170-plus reporting weather
organizations.
Although the data sought might be covered by such
agreements, the agreements themselves must be
government documents, and as such it is fitting and
proper for them to be published upon FIOA requests
if they aren’t already available to the public.
To obtain copies of these simple agreements, some
participants in Climate Audit and other blogs sent in
a grand total of 62 FOIA requests
Symbols of fallacy::
Not one of the thousand plus emails
released, not a single set of data included, and no
purloined program, in whole or in part can be
considered responsive in the legal sense
to the Climate Audit readerships’ cut and paste
“spam” FOI campaign.
Also, despite these very specific FOIA requests, the
CRU/Met has failed to produce a single restrictive
use agreement with the numerous data supplying
organizations dated prior to November, 2009.
The leading CRU/Met actors have failed to proffer
such publically cited agreements at various investigative
sessions while they were under oath and even when
entering such agreements would have been of
considerable benefit and assistance to the investigators.
Thus John Quiggin’s conclusion:
is demonstrably false.
Dr. John may have found something smoking.
It appears he inhaled, deeply.
edit
Anthony, ctm, other:
Could you please add a note beneath my above
R.S.Brown (08:33:37) :
indicating that Mr. Quiggin has revised his “Smoking
Gun” article, and eliminated the logical link between
the FOI campaign and the creation of the foia.zip file.
He made a lot of modifications to the article after
slipping in some snide remarks about the quality of
Mr. McIntyre’s supporters, and sealing the thread from
additional comments.
See above: jaymam (21:42:40) :
/edit
No one actually did deprive, permanently or otherwise, anyone of any data.
At most, this was a transfer of IP.
The peculiar thing about Quiggin’s poorly-considered decoupage of events is that the FOIA requests were after DATA, and the FOIA.zip was (as far as I’m aware) primarily composed of emails.
Which is not the same thing as data. Quiggin, in a sober moment, may come to see his mistake.
JQ’s comment as he shut down comments on this story says a lot:
March 13th, 2010 at 09:06 | #35 Reply | Quote
I think we’ve seen enough to demonstrate the intellectual and moral quality of McIntyre’s supporters. I’m calling a halt here. Comments on this thread are closed.
It is pretty amazing and grossly inaccurate summary of 137 comments. We all know Mr. Pete, who is invariably polite and temperate, and his inclusion is sufficient to give lie to the comment.
Paul Hudson of the BBC got the CRU e-mails a month before everyone else.
By this guy’s logic that should make HIM the prime suspect.
“…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…”
Arguing (or, more accurately, ranting) from ignorance. Quigs is a leftist blogger, evidently hasn’t read the UEA emails, and is not primarily a physical scientist, based on lists of his publications.
A miasma of decay and desperation has settled over the CAGW movement. This smear indicates the level to which they’ve already sunk, and it’s going to get even worse. At some point, moral responsibility will be assigned, but not in the way that Mr. Quigs assumes.