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
Wren (10:44:28) :
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that McIntyre fans have a double standard.
Allegations of wrongdoing based on suspicions are OK if directed at Jones and man.
BASED ON SUSPICION?
They put it in writing, how much more evidence do you need?
Have you read all of the emails?
” R. de Haan (06:14:37) :
[…]
Today the Federal State of North Rhein Westfalen, the former center of the German “Wirtschaftswunder” announced a 95% reduction of CO2 by 20250.”
No need to panic yet for the inhabitants of Düsseldorf, home town of Kraftwerk (or re-arranging The Robots to be played on goatskin drums):
it is only a suggestion of a Climate protection law coming from “several environment protection groups”; a report in german:
http://www.derwesten.de/nachrichten/politik/Umweltverbaende-wollen-neue-Kohlekraftwerke-verhindern-id2741803.html
A C Osborn is the typical rank and file wamer.
Never able to grasp the width and depth of fraud throughout the entire AGW movement.
Instead choosing to view all of it as unsubstantiated suspicion by an anti-science crowd funded by big oil.
The battle is raging with the Lubchecnos and Quiggins so confused and unethical they think they have a shot at salvaging the cause.
In reality they are only piling up the dirt next to their career graves until it fall upon them.
It appears to be an excellent example of “Inspector Clouseau” reasoning. “And I suspect you because I have no reason to suspect you!”
Big Fail.
Where does one begin the reading lesson for this man:
“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.”
Really? Does this man not read the dates on things and the contents:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/
McIntyre requested data that had been sent to Webster. This request was
mad June 26th. CRU responded within their mandated 20 day window.
On July 24th Mcintyre wrote the blog post and explains CRUs Claim:
the data CANNOT be shared because of confidentiality agreements.
Our good professor must have read this blog, because he notes what followed:
“24 July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five countries whose data they wanted of the form:
I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]
(unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request)”
Now, read that. In front of him he has the request. It’s a request for confidentiality AGREEMENTS, not data. AGREEMENTS. And why agreements?
because the data was supposedly “confidential”
Reading Comprehension: F.
hey he is in Australia, Why dont you guys down under go write his bosses.
Check the employee guidelines. When did he blog? personal time or work time? Have fun
Can you imagine a world government with this kind of people in power?
Crooked timber has closed comments.
Hey, this is gunna be fun.
Isn’t it obvious? The real breaker-inner must have been Quiggin. He’s just accusing McIntyre to deflect suspicion away from himself.
Re: Simon H (07:42:16) :
…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).
—
Not in the UK. First prove defamation, which should be straightforward given Quiggin’s stated he has no evidence. Damages are then assessed once defamation is proven, and in the UK can be considerable, especially if Justice Eady is a sceptic. As for loss of income, Steve mentioned he’s doing some consultancy here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/08/pdac/
mining data can be extremely valuable and people working with that data need to be trustworthy and credible. Accusing someone of hacking or releasing data without authority could be very damaging. Read Climate Audit or the Hockey Stick Illusion and I think it’s easy to see Steve’s behaved with integrity and ethically throughout this long saga. The poor ethical standards are very much in the public doman post CRUTape, and are on the side of the self righteous.
Litigating this in the UK would seem a slam-dunk, especially with our current libel laws. Not litigating keeps the moral high ground, but these kinds of baseless personal attacks are damaging to careers and reputations. Litigation may not help move the CRU investigation along and may not discover much. Quiggins would need to prove his statements correct and he couldn’t necessarily rely on evidence from CRU or Norfolk Police.
Quiggens;
“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.”
re: Hu Duck Xing’s posting of Quiggin’s dossier:
I was rather shocked to realise that this is the Quiggin associated with anticipated utility; this is a very well-known contribution.
I think we’re seeing an example here of eminent (or at least prominent) insularity. It is fascinating to see the way he digs his heels in and doesn’t give an inch. No interest at all in looking at the situation in any way other than thru a received narrative. From the thrust of his remarks, he must still believe in the hockey stick.
NickB. (09:52:19) :
jack mosevich (05:57:48) :
Anyway he is only an economist. Economists’ forecasts are about as good as those from climate models.
Exactly! Real economists know their projections/forecasts are guesses.
——————————-
And the WHO and their forecasts of rampant pandemic swine flu spring to mind also. Level 6 my arse.
So, yes, they’re all ‘at it’.
W. Richards (12:06:11) : Hey, you are most probably right!, he is desperate, and by acussing McIntyre he attracts the attention of the police. He makes a good candidate for a whistleblower. 🙂
I hope Steve consults legal counsel on whether Professor Quiggin has committed an actionable libel/slander, and if counsel so advises, takes action. I would contribute to the legal fund to pursue it, tho hopefully pro bono representation might be forthcoming.
What a stunning lapse in judgement to write a libelous accusation like this. Then again, perhaps the AGW religion is producing it’s own brand of suicide bomber. A legalistic suicide bomber who straps a liable and slander vest on and blows himself up along with the good reputation of the victim.
As Teal’C would say, “Indeed.”
Note what Quiggin has written and posted on his website, for example:
John Quiggin is a member of William Connolley’s band of wikipedia thugs. This guy is an unhinged nut – a fact his photo makes abundantly clear.
Wren (10:30:46) :
The headline “McIntyre accused by University of Queensland Prof of CRU break in” belies what Professor Quiggin said.
“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…”
“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.”
Professor Quiggin is voicing his suspicion of McIntyre just as some voice their suspicion of Jones and Mann.
Perhaps he thinks what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
===============
Or maybe good for the Quiggin and to hell with goose and gander? I guess for some it all depends on how many column inches one can claim or how much air time comes one’s way.
Whether that is JQ’s objective I have no idea but what I have read so far seems to offer an odd interpretation if media exposure and opportunity was not the primary objective.
Notice Quiggin’s well-poisoning in the matter of Lindzen. Has he yet pointed out that Roy Spencer is an advocate of Intelligent Design?
No doubt he will, when he has a bone to pick with Spencer.
Mr McIntyre
Quiggin’s comments are libellous. Happy to discuss how we go after him under E
Simon H (07:42:16) :
Guys… take a step back a moment….
I think pursuing Quiggin at this time would be the wrong reaction from McIntyre. To pursue Quiggin and win would require McIntyre to prove damages. Quiggin shot his mouth off, and we have good reason to believe he’s wrong, but winning a libel case requires you to prove resulting personal damages.
Being attacked by a rabid economist in this manner can only *enhance* Mr. McIntyre’s reputation.
That is, if further enhancement of 24-carat gold were possible.
Steve Oregon (11:51:28) :
A C Osborn is the typical rank and file wamer.
Never able to grasp the width and depth of fraud throughout the entire AGW movement.
Steve, please carefully read what I wrote!!!!!!!!!
“They put it in writing, how much more evidence do you need?”
I am deeply offended at being called a “rank and file wamer”, I have never wamed in my life.
Or supported any AGW statements.
Kay (05:25:40) asked: “Wow. That just blows my mind. Do climate scientists have ANY sense of ethics whatsoever?”
Quiggin is not a climatologist.
Oh, I might as well mention that Quiggin featured in a blog post I wrote recently about the “reliable sources” in wikipedia:
http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/reliable-sources-in-the-world-of-wikipedia-wow/