McKitrick: Toronto smog models exaggerate health issues – where are the bodies?

They say steroids kill. Millions of users and no body count.
They say that there’s lethal levels of mercury in tuna but then how do tuna reach adulthood if there’s so much mercury contamination?
They tried to link the MMR vaccine to autism, but there were no demonstrable cases to count.
They tried to link DDT to cancer, but there were no bodies there too.
They’re now going around saying vaccines are not green because they use trace amounts of mercury during the manufacturing process. Trace amounts that couldn’t kill an insect is still too much for these crazy people.
They have what can only be called post-industrial paranoia and delusions of pre-industrial utopias.

If you have never lived in Shanghai or Hong Kong maybe you will believe this story. I developed a chronic cough that did not leave until I left the area after 5 years, who knows what will happen in 10 years.
Denying the health effects of smog is crossing the line of believability. We should remember that medical science has denied the health effects of asbestos, lead, tobacco and other toxic chemicals in the past.
As for this particular article or study, I would only caution that the absence of evidence is not proof, or disproof. Models can not be trusted. They seem to be assuming that hospital admissions are a good proxy for long term damage due to chronic exposure to air pollution. That guy who develops lung cancer at 50 and is admitted to a hospital on a clean air day after growing up in the polluted 70’s might have something to say.
“We found that regions with higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP) tend to have higher hospital admission rates, depending on the model specification, which may indicate that those regions have more hospital services”
Perhaps higher GDP regions have heavier air pollution than rural clean air regions. Just a thought.

Tomorrow everyone in Toronto could eat lead-paint chips and inhale asbestos without causing a rise in the day’s hospital admissions. But if they kept doing it, admissions might eventually go up.

Please excuse my ignornace guys but, i was looking at the Climate Widget and i cant work out the following things.
1. Since the whole accurancy of raw data and “adjusted” data is in question and the actual methods for this “averaging’ is in question, what is the real comparison between CO2 and Temp.? Is that the $64 question?
2. Would it be an idea to put another line on the widget to demostrate contary Temp opinion?
3. Is CO2 measurement an accurate process?, considering some areas are high CO2 and some low. Or is this another case of “adjustments ” on a global scale?
While i am very pro-energy effeciency, i am now starting to understand the reasons behind this whole thing.
Money will be made by many, new bureaucracies will feed like ticks on a puppys blood, civil rights will go down the toilet, yet the world will not be any more energy effecient in the long run.

Is something strange starting to happen in science?
Is science perhaps having it’s Road to Damascus moment where the scales fall from it’s eyes and the long standing shibboleths of the environmental movement are finally starting to be examined with a much more jaundiced and skeptical eye?
I am seeing articles emerging everywhere, even in the MSM, where long standing and seemingly unchallengeable shibboleths that were adopted and grossly hyped by the environmental movement and it’s running dogs in science and the media are finally being challenged as the science “climate” changes and scientific skepticism again starts to become fashionable.
And all due to the dogged persistence of a tiny group of well qualified amateurs and a few scientists who were prepared to stand by their beliefs in the power of the basic science principles and in doing so to challenge the overwhelming power and influence of the global warming claque until it finally cracked and all the world can now see just how rotten and corruptly mercenary the core science, political and financial power that sustains the global warming belief, really is.
And now long established beliefs in an increasing number of disciplines are being questioned and dissected and are being torn apart as the underlying basis for those beliefs are found to be faulty and / or corrupted to serve the interests of a particular science group and mercenary and political interests.

OT: VOLCANIC eruption on Iceland just after midnight!

“But the data showed no evidence of changing health effects at the pollution levels observed in Canada over recent decades.”
The findings contradict hundreds of studies that have connected urban air pollution levels and respiratory health problems.
Can anyone tell me of one environmental/safety organisation that has disbanded itself because things were clean/safe enough? Just keep milking the cash cow.

“More than 50,000 people are dying prematurely in the UK every year, and thousands more suffer serious illness because of man-made air pollution, according to a parliamentary report published tomorrow. The UK now faces the threat of £300m in fines after it failed to meet legally binding EU targets to reduce pollution to safe levels.
Air pollution is cutting life expectancy by as many as nine years in the worst-affected city areas. On average, Britons die eight months too soon because of dirty air.”
——–
Such a comedy, and all because the EU wants more money by forcing Britain to pay fines. Life expectancy has shot up over the last century, yet these studies find that “…Britons die eight months too soon….”
So they have some kind of crystal ball which can stare into parallel dimensions to see how long a person would have lived in the EU utopia?????

Pingo (00:19:47) :
“Now the pollution doesn’t seem to matter perhaps I can have a few extra minutes in bed and walk that way again!”
I don’t think so you should read carefully:
“Nobody is trying to argue that air pollution is good for you: this is either just noise in the data, or it might be an effect from “averting” behaviour, where people who are susceptible to lung problems stay indoors on days with bad air quality.”
If it smells bad or makes you cough it’s better to avoid it.

I forgot to add that “Free Trade” took effect and just about decimated Toronto’s manufacturing that left.

I notice in passing that they don’t include CO2 among the pollutants in their grid. Quite right too, but tell that to the EPA.
Having lived through the pea-soupers of the English West Midlands in the 1950’s, my idea of smog is not quite the same as what they seem to referring to here. I imagine that if I visited China I would once more run into my old “friend” the pea-souper. What they’re referring to here seems to be more what I would call pollution haze that tends to hang over big cities, especially in the Summer. We often see that when driving into Paris which lies in a hollow and does not get much wind. It often stinks too.
One of my pet mad ideas would link be to link it to a boundary layer (or Coanda) effect that would cause stagnant air to cling to the large surface area afforded by tall buildings close together. But then I’m no scientist – nor statistician: and statistics which are the main concern of this article (yawn).
But speaking of China, it might be an idea to do a comparative study of a Western city like Toronto with say, Shang Hai or Beijing, looking at all aspects including chemical composition of the smog as well as its effects on the population.

They should go back to Victorian times and see how health was suffering compared to now. Michael Crichton put it best when he said activists jump on things such as smog and decarbonisation that have been improving for decades, centuries even, and then claim that their activism made things better. They do it to take credit for things they have not achieved and to swell their membership and coffers while expanding political influence.

McCitrick doesn’t “deny” a possible health effect of air pollution. What he does find astonishing though are the alleged effects in Toronto: “In 2004 Toronto Public Health claimed that 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations occur each year in Toronto alone, due to air pollution.”
These are incredibly high numbers. The city has 2.5 Million inhabitants. So that’s on the order of 30K naturally occuring deaths per year given Canadas high life expectancy. So what they’re saying is more than 5% of all deaths are caused by outdoor pollution.
The immediate conclusion would be that there must be a huge aluminium smeltering operation without any filters right in the middle of Toronto.

Ref – Dodgy Geezer (03:28:59) :
@pft “..Denying the health effects of smog is crossing the line of believability….”
Umm…pft, are you saying that one should BELIEVE, rather than examine the data?
______________________________
Two excellent points! The truth can get complicated. It is also very time consuming for each of us to examine ALL the data and make our own determinations. I dare say, as the Brits like to say, life would be a might boreing if we had to examine ALL the data for everything, every day.
Perhaps the “truth” for the moment goes something like this:
SMOG causes breathing problems and can be the “cause” of eventual death, AND McKitrick says in a new peer reviewed study that the models and claims about Toronto SMOG don’t add up.

pft, You seem to be missing what the study really says;
pft – “If you have never lived in Shanghai or Hong Kong maybe you will believe this story. I developed a chronic cough that did not leave until I left the area after 5 years, who knows what will happen in 10 years.”
study – “Nobody is trying to argue that air pollution is good for you: this is either just noise in the data, or it might be an effect from “averting” behaviour, where people who are susceptible to lung problems stay indoors on days with bad air quality.” AND, “Very few studies over the past decade have controlled for socioeconomic covariates (including smoking), fewer still have looked at long data panels back to the 1970s and fewer still have dealt with model uncertainty. Those that have addressed one or more of these issues typically find the effect of air pollution shrinks or disappears outright. Thus our results are actually quite consistent with the relevant group of previous studies. The popular idea that current ambient air pollution has a powerful effect on lung health might look like it is based on a large empirical foundation, but on closer inspection the pile contains a lot of weak results.”
Study – “The estimates are derived by taking correlations in the epidemiological literature between observed pollution levels and health indicators, like hospital admission rates, and then extrapolating across populations to estimate how many deaths and illness diagnoses can, in theory, be attributed to pollution.
My manufacturing engineering group is not allowed to use linear or surface response mathematical models for extrapolation of any type (far too risky), only interpolation within actually measured factor levels.
Points are: Hong Kong ain’t Toronto. And, if you are going to use statisitical modeling as the foundation of your “scientific-study”, you better slice all reliable, publically available data in all possible combinations and permutations before publishing, or guys like Mckitrick you going to show you as a fool.

Al Gore’s Holy Hologram: “They have what can only be called post-industrial paranoia and delusions of pre-industrial utopias.”
I heard a suggestion on the radio that the rise in allergies could be a result of the lack of dirt in our present lives. The theory is that the body’s immune system expects a certain level of activity, and in the absence of any pathogens to fight, it ups the sensitivity in a kind of self-correcting control.
The problem therefore with removing all the dirt in our lives, is that in the absence of infection, the immune system automatically increases its sensitivity expecting a “normal” level of infection and in doing so can have its sensitivity turned up so high that it no longer just attacks pathogens, but ends up attacking perfectly benign substances we come into contact with.
Whether or not that is true, I personally think society can have a similar auto-immune type disease. Our level of anxiety was designed for a life where there were literally wolves at the door, where every stranger could and would steal, rape, abduct, so we are naturally designed for a high risk environment.
Take away all that risk, put us in a cosy middle-class life-style, with nothing more to worry about than whether the world could heat a fraction of a degree, or whether a small amount of smoke from a car might be bad (our ancestors lived in huts full of wood-smoke) and because we are naturally designed to be anxious – because risk was the ordinary way of things until recently – in a world without real risks, we transfer our anxiety to items of minuscule risk but deal with them as if they were real risks like the cave-man wolf at the door.
When there is a pack of wolves coming down to your cave to pick off the odd homo-erectus, the precautionary approach worked to select those who were precautionary. These days, the precautionary approach is the symptom of a community sickness of a society whose sensitivity to risk has been hyper stimulated trying to make sense of an environment which is largely risk free.

The EPA rules kill. The EPA is a killer.
We can research deaths in car accidents. We can look up the weights of the cars from Manufacturing records. We can plot the EPA fuel mileage stats.
We can see there are 40,000 more killed by reason of driving lighter more fuel efficient cars as opposed to lower death rates from accidents in heavier cars.
The EPA gives deadly advice.
This is not some coincidental claim by me.

The major issue in air pollution health research is: which types of particles are harmful?
Older studies examined effects of only a few types of particles, ignoring emissions from vehicles (!).
New studies which include many types of particles, including those from vehicles such as black carbon from diesel engines, almost always find statistical associations with black carbon, but few associations with other types of tiny particles.
Toxicology studies confirm that diesel emissions and black carbon cause a number of effects in animals, people, and lung cells which variously lead to atherosclerosis and to hospital admissions for cardiovascular and all cause mortality.
Studies which examine effects of other types of small particles, in studies which also include black carbon, generally find no or few statistical associations with these other pollutants, which include sulfates and secondary carbonaceous aerosols and airborne dust particles (which are marked by silicon), the largest components of particulates in the air on days with high pollution levels (in the US). One exception is tiny nickel particles, which are biologically very active, but there are very few places with high levels of nickel in ambient air.
I would avoid living near major roads or walking extensively near them, or spending much time near off road diesel equipment. Unless you live near a particular industrial source such as a steel mill or a nickel smelter, I don’t think any other source of small particles in the air causes much harm.

Hospitals kill. Hospital patients have much higher death rate than people that are not in the hospital. This has been confirmed bu tracking identical twins.
Obesity is life shortening. However very few break it down. Many obese people that exercise more do better in for example recovery after a surgery. The lack of exercise is detrimental and can be behind obesity.
Medical research is far superior to climate research. Climate research had pressumed only one variable and that is CO2. Medical research uses longitudinal studies and blind control groups.
I suspect no one wants to claim India and China life expectancy rates are climbing but the 75% of the Indians and Chinese still use coal, stover, wood and charcoal in open fires in their homes for heating and cooking.

A much more interesting study region for effects of air pollution on population health under different conditions through two decades (1990-2010) would be the Brown Coal Region near Most in North Bohemia (Czech Republic), esp. around the plant concentrations in Litvinov (the Old Hermann Goering Works, still run to produce petrol from sulfur-rich coal!). Here the smoking habit continues in the population free of social controls typical in North America, the actual air pollution in Late Warsaw Pact times was actually much higher than anything seen recently (post WW2) in the West, and effective constraints post-1990 on actual regional pollution (not CO2) much more effective. Thermal inversions from the Ore Mountains (Krushne Horze “dead tree zone” ) also amplify the regional impact and make relations between specific emmisions and population effects quite direct.

I suggest that this is another case where the government believes in the Linear No Threshold (LNT) law without proof. There is increasing evidence that hormesis exists for many things. Just because something is bad for you at high doses doesn’t mean it is bad for you, in a measurable way, at low doses.
This appears to be true for Radon and most remarkably for radiation exposure shown by Chen. Here the cancer death rate of many thousands of people was reduced to only 3% of the general population!
See Figure 1 in http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

If these environMENTALists are so worried about pollution in cities on the OTHER side of the world, why don’t you all go and tax volcanoes and worry about them too? Nature is NOT weak, fragile and tender and in danger from a harmeless gas that human monkeys say both provides life for the planet and destsorys it at the same time. Insanity I say, pure insanity.
Voters have real consensus, not lab coat consultants called “scientists” by the church of environMENATLism.

Interesting paper Dr. McKitrick et al. As with seemingly all reviewed science announcements these days, when one looks closely at the methods supposedly good enough for some reviewers rubber stamp, one finds dubious work and speculative results prepared by some advocacy group.
Anyone else see the CTV piece this am about the endangered bunny? They ran a story in which they show a woman purported to be a scientist but give no name or affiliation. They frequently refer to “scientific” studies but never mention by whom or for what group.
So much of what we are told is sound science turns out to be papers so full of errors that they couldn’t even be relied upon to line the bottom of your birdcage!

Funny thing… McKitrick’s demonstrated correlations (that repiratory health is linked to socioecnomic status and smoking) pass statistical tests for correlation (not just putting two graphs up and saying, “[yup looks like they both move in the same direction]”) because in Economics any theory claiming correlation HAS to pass this test.
CO2 and temperature do not pass the first level test to prove (real) correlation, which is a requirement before causation can be established. There is, it sounds like at least, a professional econometrician (VS) around making comments about it on various blogs.
Anthony,
A guest post from VS would be really, really cool!

Jan Pompe (03:55:34) :
Pingo (00:19:47) :
“Now the pollution doesn’t seem to matter perhaps I can have a few extra minutes in bed and walk that way again!”
I don’t think so you should read carefully:
“Nobody is trying to argue that air pollution is good for you: this is either just noise in the data, or it might be an effect from “averting” behaviour, where people who are susceptible to lung problems stay indoors on days with bad air quality.”
If it smells bad or makes you cough it’s better to avoid it.
=====
Some posters seem to be saying air pollution doesn’t hurt you much, if at all.
GASP……CHOKE…… WHEEZ….. COUGH !

Outstanding work !!
Good to see that it is peer reviewed.
Is it robust?????
More alarmist models need to be fixed !!!

same question me and Larry Wahl asked when Chico City Council discussed banning woodstoves – where’s the bodies? Scott Gruendl and Mark Lundberg tried to tell us they had death certificates, but ended up admitting it was just statistical information that had been extrapolated from somewhere.
You know, my family gave up our woodstoves to move into a smaller house – and now, I look out across the valley, and I see nothing but gunk. Well, it’s not my woodsmoke, I’ll tell you that. And, get aload of this – our PG&E bill actually went up, even though we moved out of an 1800 sq ft house into a brand new, insulated, 750 sq ft apartment. Go figure.
you have a good one Anthony, keep it up.
REPLY: Welcome, Juanita, on your first comment here. Yes I’m going to bring this one close to home. – Anthony

The visible component of smog is sub-micron sulfuric acid aerosol. Unlike gases, sub-micron particles are not trapped in the air ways and are absorbed in the lungs. Sulfuric acid aerosol is not a well measured pollutant and is not well controlled. People are constantly warned to reduce their outdoor activity on smog days. I don’t think the economists considered these factors in designing their study. They would both tend to bias the results.

OT but sad.
First we were told 10 years ago by the Independent about the virtual end of snow in the UK. Now the BBC reports:

“Fears harsh winter harmed UK wildlife
The organisation [British Waterways] is concerned frozen canals and lakes will have cut off the food supply to birds such as the heron and especially the kingfisher.
….
British Waterways says the harsh winter of 1962/1963 killed off between 80% and 90% of kingfishers.”

I hope that they can now appreciate that cold is deadlier than the slight warming the UK experienced.

NickB. (07:44:23) :
Funny thing… McKitrick’s demonstrated correlations (that repiratory health is linked to socioecnomic status and smoking) pass statistical tests for correlation (not just putting two graphs up and saying, “[yup looks like they both move in the same direction]“) because in Economics any theory claiming correlation HAS to pass this test.
CO2 and temperature do not pass the first level test to prove (real) correlation, which is a requirement before causation can be established. There is, it sounds like at least, a professional econometrician (VS) around making comments about it on various blogs.
====
I have noticed a lack of correlation between the temperature in my house and the temperature outside.

DirkH (04:50:37) :
McCitrick doesn’t “deny” a possible health effect of air pollution. What he does find astonishing though are the alleged effects in Toronto: “In 2004 Toronto Public Health claimed that 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations occur each year in Toronto alone, due to air pollution.”
These are incredibly high numbers. The city has 2.5 Million inhabitants. So that’s on the order of 30K naturally occuring deaths per year given Canadas high life expectancy. So what they’re saying is more than 5% of all deaths are caused by outdoor pollution….
======
I’m not sure that’s exactly what they are saying. The “1,700 premature deaths” due to air pollution suggests 1,700 would have lived longer if not for the pollution.

roger samson — On the wealth issue, obesity is the third biggest killer in North america, there just might be a link there with affluence.
Speaking of shibboleths.
This is yet another statistical lie. First they redefined “obese” to mean anything more than a few lbs over an ideal. Then it turns out that said ideal is based on BMI, which as far as I can tell is poorly done; e.g. women after child bearing age are *supposed* to put on weight naturally, usually around 10-20 lbs or so, and BMI is based on an ideal setup for age 25 with sliding scales that don’t work. What this means is that this woman who is perfectly healthy and whose body has added weight as commanded by nature is now flagged by the BMI scale as overweight and/or obese. If she goes into the hospital for anything (we all have to die os *something*) then of course her weight is then recorded and statistically misapplied to the wrong row or column, skewing data like crazy. Rinse/lather/repeat for everyone.
Next thing you know, some guy on a message board says something to the effect of an obesity crisis.
As per the earlier statistical abuse article, I for one am simply sick and tired of this sort of abuse. Rather than using information for understanding anything, it’s being (ab)used by insurance companies as an excuse for them to artificially raise rates or deny payment, for governments to impose all manner of taxes, and so on.
And this is only obesity. It’s the same problem EVERYWHERE.
I’m not the only one who’s sick and tired of it. Frankly everyone else is too, so how does this opposition to abuse get registered? Very simply. Statistics show that N Americans have trust issue with the science community, hence Judith Curry will suggest scientists need better communications, and statisticians everywhere will be convinced that Americans need more education and less food.

David Suzuki (06:41:23) :
London Ontario has not had one single smog warning in over 2 years although the fear mongering local health unit and the fear mongering local media always like to issue plenty of smog alerts, just in case.
————————-
A few years ago (but since “Green” McGuinty became premier of Ontario) the levels of airborne particles and ozone etc. that had to be reached to constitute a smog day were lowered. Therefore, as pollution levels went down, so too did the levels necessary to trigger health alerts and to set in motion various measures created to help the vulnerable in the event of smog. Even with that, Toronto had, I believe, only two or three smog days last year, down from the usual 30+, due to the unusually cold summer.

Great article that exposes the level of quality of ‘statistically-based’ science (how on earth can a study that does NOT control for smoking and income be used to make inferences about pollution?). Omg. Really. Post-modern science I gather is alive and well.
As to pft – he is probably tired of reading the comments – but sure does reveal the strength of the template upon which he bases his beliefs. The results of the analysis are incomprehensible to him. They don’t fit his notion of what is ‘correct’ and ‘true’ (didn’t mention ddt and alar tho) – so are rejected out of hand.
My message to pft is – I admire you posting your beliefs here. Takes some nerve to expose yourself to criticism. Its admirable.
Some of the comments flamen ok. But I suggest – a deep breath, perhaps a glass of wine and carefully re-read and ponder what Prof Dr McKitrick is saying here. It really is enlightening.
Good luck to you. I hope this is a teachable moment. Really.

“Wren (09:45:33) :
DirkH (04:50:37) :
[…]
high life expectancy. So what they’re saying is more than 5% of all deaths are caused by outdoor pollution….
======
I’m not sure that’s exactly what they are saying. The “1,700 premature deaths” due to air pollution suggests 1,700 would have lived longer if not for the pollution.”
For me, “premature death” is definitely a description for dying, being dead afterwards, no more amongst us. My arithmetic was a quick estimate anyway… i would just say that Public Health authority sounds two magnitudes off.

[dude do you have anything constructive to add? ~ ctm]

Quit being so Angelic.
Look at this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/texas_academy_of_science_getti.php
Reply: People angry at someone that says killing 90% of humans would be a good thing? Go figure. Hadn’t heard of this till now. Next! ~ ctm.

So like how do I show how you people are attacking scientists with horrible and despicable emails If i cannot reference them?
Reply: We don’t like spewing venom here as you initially tried to do. Showing us that venom is spewed elsewhere is not relevant and in fact well known. Go check out realclimate, pharyngula, climateprogress, and open mind for lots of examples. I’m leaving for awhile. Someone else will be dealing with you. ~ ctm

Wren (09:17:37) : I have noticed a lack of correlation between the temperature in my house and the temperature outside.
Obviously someone else pays your electric bill if your thermostat is set at 65F year round. Our thermostat is set at 80 in summer and 50 in winter, correlating very closely to outside temps.

In case anyone is interested …..
The Obama USEPA has recently proposed to lower the ozone standard to somewhere between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm, relying heavily on epidemiology studies such as the ones Professor McKitrick has concerns about.
The data and studies the USEPA cite are the same ones the Bush USEPA used to lower the standard from 0.085 to 0.075 ppm. in 2008. Administrator Jackson has made it clear that she gives more weight to a small set of studies, that imo are rather statistically inconclusive.
The comment period on this proposal closes tomorrow, 3/22.
search for docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172 at regulations.gov
or for more information go to http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#jan10s

roger samson (04:58:12) :
On the wealth issue, obesity is the third biggest killer in North America,
Claims made by the health industry may be as outrageous as those made by the climate advocates.
And for much the same reason. It’s all about social change.

You don’t “attack” scientists.
Just find the web address and try to convince them of the errors of their ways.
Just keep changing the angle of your point.
I have 30 NASA e-mail addresses plus a huge e-mail of politicians and scientist that I periodically let them know that I am still around with different science that have been missed.
And NASA keeps sending me e-mail alerts on the competition openings in their research departments. As they are not allowed to talk science as it could interfere with the competition process.
(Definition: Have no clue what your talking about, so I have no answer.)
I have explained that I do not fall into their qualification for a government grant (which you have to have) to talk with one of them as then the government owns the work.

RACookPE1978 (16:06:27) :
Henry (12:28:50) :
So like how do I show how you people are attacking scientists with horrible and despicable emails If i cannot reference them?
…—…—…
And when these “scientists” are attacking us with 1.3 trillion dollar schemes to steal our money … Are their own (saved and archived for FOIA) emails not despicable and even more horrible when leaked by a heroic whistle-blower?
================
Some shoppers whistle-blow merchandise into their pockets when they think no one is looking.

It’s a good way for the EU vampire to suck more money out of the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8578952.stm
My view of this matter is quite simple. No EU.

Wren (18:48:50) :
RACookPE1978 (16:06:27) :
Henry (12:28:50) :
“Are their own (saved and archived for FOIA) emails not despicable and even more horrible when leaked by a heroic whistle-blower?”
================
Some shoppers whistle-blow merchandise into their pockets when they think no one is looking.
When the store owner puts a sign on the merchandise saying “Free Samples” — it’s not shoplifting.
And when something is posted on an open server, that something is “free” — either to be read in place, or downloaded for future reading.

Bill Tuttle (03:51:18) :
Wren (18:48:50) :
RACookPE1978 (16:06:27) :
Henry (12:28:50) :
“Are their own (saved and archived for FOIA) emails not despicable and even more horrible when leaked by a heroic whistle-blower?”
================
Some shoppers whistle-blow merchandise into their pockets when they think no one is looking.
When the store owner puts a sign on the merchandise saying “Free Samples” — it’s not shoplifting.
And when something is posted on an open server, that something is “free” — either to be read in place, or downloaded for future reading.
====
Better tell the UK police to stop the investigation. Tell them whoever did it only covered his tracks because he’s shy.

Smokey (05:08:08) :
Wren (04:58:10),
Rather than incessantly trying to pin your lame misdirection on the hero who leaked proof of rampant corruption in the climate scare industry, why don’t you man up and admit that it could just as likely be an insider who was pushed around once too often by the arrogant incompetents running their scam?
The problem is not who leaked the emails. That’s just a diversion. The problem is the proof of corruption they contained.
==========
The problem for CRU foes is the lack of proof. However, lack of proof hasn’t kept them from making allegations based on suspicions.
As for the hacking, I do not know who did it or who likely did it, nor have I ever said I do know. My comments have been directed at those who seem to think they do know.

Wren (06:26:45) :
The problem is not who leaked the emails. That’s just a diversion. The problem is the proof of corruption they contained.
==========
The problem for CRU foes is the lack of proof. However, lack of proof hasn’t kept them from making allegations based on suspicions.
Lack of proof of what? Everyone at CRU admits they’re genuine, and the content is evidence that there was international collusion and the code is evidence that they were either incredibly inept as scientists *or* that they purposely “cooked” the data.
As for the hacking, I do not know who did it or who likely did it, nor have I ever said I do know. My comments have been directed at those who seem to think they do know.
It wasn’t a hacking. Information that’s on an open server, for the entire world to see and download, by definition *cannot* be hacked. The non-hacking is the reason the cops invented the new term of “removing without permission,” when, again by definition, if a server is *open*, anyone has permission to enter and browse, or enter and download.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am announcing that I have evolved from AGW sceptic to AGW cynic.

it seems “scientific evidence” is as susceptible to the whims of fashion or political expediency as almost everything else.
A story from the UK Parliament Environmental Protection Committee (or some such grandiose title) has said 55,000 deaths a year are caused by air pollution. But how can air pollution be pinpointed as a cause. Now I’m inviting accusations that I am an “air pollution denier” here but common sense tells us that of people living and working in a similar environment some will die early and some will live way past the average age for their generation and social group.
Nobody I hope would suggest air pollution is a good thing but similarloy while no sensible argument can be made that smoking is a good thing when all the other factors are considered it is rarely possible to pinpoint a single environmental / lifestyle factor as a cause of death.
We should perhaps try to see the comical side of the scientific conclusions as Ian Thorpe does in Live Forever Or Choose Life