Climategate Meets the Law - We want Gore

[MontagK505]

A pathetic attempt by a minority party Senetar to politicise the non-issue dubbed "climategate". Al Gore was the spokesperson for a movie. Bringing him before Congress is nothing more than a political move. On side note, Gore is at no risk of loosing his Nobel prize.

I agree, having congress investigate the producer of a fictional movie does seem a waste of time.
If congress thinks goverment funds were obtained under false pretenses then they should sue them in court. (if they have actual evidence)

 

[leftysergeant]

If congress thinks goverment funds were obtained under false pretenses then they should sue them in court. (if they have actual evidence)

That's just the problem. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this has occurred, thus, not the slightest reasonm to even send anyone a FOIA request or subpoena.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I have read them. Where's the evidence of wrong-doing?

In the judgement of people that matter.

And how do you justify the use of hacked information? You want to know why hacked infoprmation is useless and hackers should be regarded as criminals when they try to use it to damage someone?

I don't really care

It's because once you have hacked a system, you can alter stuff to your wishes, thus creating fraudulent evidence.

Damn! I thought you were being rhetorical.
But are you saying that the emails are fraudulent now?

(Well, that, plus the fact that it is illegal to hack a system even if you just want to see if there is some porn you want on someone's hard drive.)

It's not illegal if it's whistleblowing.

At any rate, why keep crying over spilt milk - they are out there now and the whole world knows about them. Squawking "not fair" like an infant will not make them go away.

That's just the problem. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this has occurred, thus, not the slightest reasonm to even send anyone a FOIA request or subpoena.

In your balanced legally trained opinion?

Your opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has one, they are a bit like arse-holes.
The only opinions that really matter in this are the 'experts' that will be involved in the investigation.
You and I are not them.

 

[leftysergeant]

In the judgement of people that matter.

People who think that this crap is evidence are too stupid to matter.

Damn! I thought you were being rhetorical.
But are you saying that the emails are fraudulent now?

No. I am saying that because the stupid sack of crap who presented them as evidence destroyed their evidenciary value, and if you cannot see why this is so, you have reasoning skill utterly inadequate for this discussion.

It's not illegal if it's whistleblowing.

It isn't whistle blowing. It is hacking and sabotage.

At any rate, why keep crying over spilt milk - they are out there now and the whole world knows about them. Squawking "not fair" like an infant will not make them go away.

What is out there is proof of the stupidity of AGW deniers who think that this illegal crap justifies their orgasmic state.

In your balanced legally trained opinion?

It's called "rationality." Try some some time.

The only opinions that really matter in this are the 'experts' that will be involved in the investigation.

Anybody who thinks that there is a reason to investigate anything other than who was the scumbag who hacked the system is not an expert. I know that you are far less an expert than I if you think otherwise.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Hehe, my my, angry aren't we.

Let's hope they find the hackers/whistleblowers and give them the tickertape welcomes and medals that they richly deserve. They could go on a world tour and would be cheered by millions and millions.
Let us also hope that charges are laid against those that have broken the laws under FOI, fraud, property by deception and whatever else potentially might come from these investigations.

Then you might continue your own personal attacks against yourself, your priest-scientists, and players as well as your own gullibility for swallowing their - what was the delicate word you like to use? Crap - yes, crap.

In the meantime, you might want to have another look at what those "deniers" at the Institute of Physics think about the emails and the so called 'science' of climate change.

I am now withdrawing from this discussion until - at least - you settle down.

I will leave the last word to you.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is no evidence without context. Even some twoofers know that.

This is not the work of a whistleblower, but of a hacker. A whistleblower is someone who was actually on hand to see a crime committed. The idiot who released that data was obviously not party to any of the actions under discussion.

 

[Cuddles]

As an aside, I would like to ask anyone here who has some credentials in physics and engineering whether they have ever heard of the "Institute of Physics." They describe themselves in their brief as a "scientific charity with 36000 members."

That ain't a lot of people, folks. Can somebody show me that they are any more authoritative than AE911 or Bentham?

They have not, in their shrieking comments to Parliment, presented anmy real evidence of wrong doing or impropriety on the part of the hacking victims. They cherry-pick like twoofers, as far as I can see.

The IoP is the main, and pretty much the only, professional body for physicists in the UK, and I think it is the only organisation that can grant chartership (equivalent to being a chartered engineer, only for physicists). It's similar to something like the Royal College of Surgeons. If you were hoping to find it's a semi-woo non-entity, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Pretty much every physics lab and university physics department will have membership, as well as a lot of physicists individually.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The IoP is the main, and pretty much the only, professional body for physicists in the UK, and I think it is the only organisation that can grant chartership (equivalent to being a chartered engineer, only for physicists). It's similar to something like the Royal College of Surgeons. If you were hoping to find it's a semi-woo non-entity, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Pretty much every physics lab and university physics department will have membership, as well as a lot of physicists individually.

They sound really really dodgy Cuddles.

I reckon that paper will give others courage to speak out too and not just in the investigation.

Climategate is bringing this science to its knees - one has to wonder what they (the IoP) know and where all this will end.

 

[leftysergeant]

The IoP is the main, and pretty much the only, professional body for physicists in the UK, and I think it is the only organisation that can grant chartership (equivalent to being a chartered engineer, only for physicists).

That still does not make them immune to mass hysteria, nor does it make them experts on forensics. They still have sod-all for evidence that there has been wrong-doing or sloppy science, based on the documents released.

Without context, you have no evidence.

 

[varwoche]

Your opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has one, they are a bit like arse-holes.
The only opinions that really matter in this are the 'experts' that will be involved in the investigation.
You and I are not them.

Oh the irony. It burns.

 

[Cuddles]

That still does not make them immune to mass hysteria, nor does it make them experts on forensics. They still have sod-all for evidence that there has been wrong-doing or sloppy science, based on the documents released.

Without context, you have no evidence.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted. You asked a question about the IoP, questioning their authority and size and comparing them to 9/11 truthers. The fact is that the IoP is easily the biggest and most authoritative authority in the UK with regards to physics. If there is something wrong with statements they have made, as I have no doubt there is from time to time, I'm afraid you're going to have to address the statements themselves rather than trying to dismiss the IoP in its entirety.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

You guys are SO CRAZY!!!!

First, you completely fetishize (I'm using this word these days) Al Gore into the embodiment of climate change science and seek to somehow undermine climate science by highlighting Gore's faults.

But then, not only do you do this, but then you undermine your own case against Gore by posting crap that makes it seem like your issue with Gore himself is based on irrational personal hatred.

Case in point:

"RAAAH !!! I HATE GORE SO MUCH I WANT TO SEE HIM RAPED IN JAIL! GGRRARAAAHHHHHHAATTTTTEEEHATEHATEHATE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH"

You guys R nuts.

 

[mhaze]

You guys are SO CRAZY!!!!.....You guys R nuts.

Look, you need to get with the program here. I know you want to.

 

[leftysergeant]

If there is something wrong with statements they have made, as I have no doubt there is from time to time, I'm afraid you're going to have to address the statements themselves rather than trying to dismiss the IoP in its entirety.

I take your point about their being an authoritative body.

I am just saying that they need to learn a little bit more about rules of evidence before they go off half-cocked.

They are acting like our Congress did when Breitbart and his criminal cabal went after ACORN with manufactured evidence.

There is no context for the evidence, thus it is not evidence.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I take your point about their being an authoritative body.

I am just saying that they need to learn a little bit more about rules of evidence before they go off half-cocked.

They are acting like our Congress did when Breitbart and his criminal cabal went after ACORN with manufactured evidence.

There is no context for the evidence, thus it is not evidence.

Rules of evidence? What the ? It's not a court of law. Furthermore, CRU has owned up to those emails being legit. What do you want the scientific community supposed to do? Ignore the fact that scientists are trying to circumvent the processes that help keep the scientific community scientific (i.e. independent verification)?

 

[leftysergeant]

Rules of evidence? What the ? It's not a court of law. Furthermore, CRU has owned up to those emails being legit.

So? Without context, what do they prove?

What do you want the scientific community supposed to do?

You might start by asking what the context was. Then, if you can find out who the hacker is, make his life hell.

Ignore the fact that scientists are trying to circumvent the processes that help keep the scientific community scientific (i.e. independent verification)?

We still have no proof that they were trying to avoid a legitimate request for information. Whaty they obviously did not want to do was stop what they were doing to kiss the ass of some vexatious twit AGW denier.

 

[leftysergeant]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So? Without context, what do they prove?

Without investigation what do they disprove?

You might start by asking what the context was. Then, if you can find out who the hacker is, make his life hell.

Irrelevant - millions of people think this stinks - someone had the balls to bring something into daylight. Well done them.

We still have no proof that they were trying to avoid a legitimate request for information.

Correct, but they now have prima facie evidence that they were trying to avoid providing information that FOI laws say they need to provide. It is now to be investigated.
I honestly don't see how you can understand that.

 

[leftysergeant]

Without investigation what do they disprove?

If they do not have a proper context, only an idiot would use the data in an investigation. The dirtbag who hacked the system (the most likely source) or the "whistle blower" (most likely a creature of the right wing's imagining) can tell us where he got the e-mails and what they related to or go to hell, with a stop-over in jail.

Irrelevant - millions of people think this stinks - someone had the balls to bring something into daylight. Well done them.

It is not outside the realm of probability that there are a few million shrieking monkeys thinking with their balls. Look how many people think that that little lunatic Breitbart is a serious investigative journalist.

Correct, but they now have prima facie evidence that they were trying to avoid providing information that FOI laws say they need to provide.

Cite what piece of evidence they were trying to conceal or just stop pretending that you have evidence.

It is now to be investigated.
I honestly don't see how you can understand that.

There is no probable cause under US laws. I don't know whether the UK would consider that crap admissible. Give me an example of what they did that suggests illegality, fraud or misconduct and your evidence of such.