Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

From Climategate to Denialgate

1235711

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    karma_ wrote: »

    Gleick deserves a medal.

    The man himself does not appear to feel that way.
    Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name
    I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Criminal behaviour? I would say it's just a good piece of journalism on his part, doing the likes of your esteemed Megan McArdles work for her in fact. In fact were you not on here linking an article by her only a few pages ago that was a staunch defence of good journalism? and indeed you yourself had this to say -
    Those who are defending the "story" are also, as McArdle points out, defending journalism that is based on faked sources — something that would be entirely unacceptable if it came from their political opponents, but that is apparently defensible when it comes from their "own side."

    And you have the temerity to laud someone else as a hypocrite.

    With this new information, we get a better picture of just what happened, Gleick receives anonymous information in document form. He then in good journalistic practice confirms the authenticity of said documents and arranges to have them published. The man deserves a Pulitzer, and old Megan herself would be proud.

    Again though, we see the argument shifted away from the fact the HI and those like them are attempting to use spin to cast doubt on good science, (which in reality is the real story here) and onto the old ad hominem attack on Gleick himself, which is ironic given your keenness to admonish others for doing so in other debates on the board.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RichieC wrote: »
    We're likely to see such faux outrage from the same folks who lauded the email hacking of the climate scientists back in 2009.

    That was justified under public interest, this apparently is not - the difference eludes me, I admit, particularly when the hacking was a genuine crime, whereas I don't think "obtaining documents by deception" is on the statute books, despite the noises from HI.

    That would probably be why the hacking generated a police response, and this has not. As such, describing it as "theft" or "criminal" seems perilously close to defamatory.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    That's entirely correct - Gleick's actions don't alter the facts. Indeed, they could perfectly well be described as what used to be called "investigative journalism", which is what you have to do when secretive organisations don't want to reveal what they're doing in public.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Ethics? Now that is real delicious irony, I can only assume you missed the first 8 pages in the thread.

    I also want to point out, I'm not part of teh climate lobby, I'm just someone who values science over ideology, a testament you yourself cannot make.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    karma_ wrote: »
    With this new information, we get a better picture of just what happened, Gleick receives anonymous information in document form. He then in good journalistic practice confirms the authenticity of said documents and arranges to have them published. The man deserves a Pulitzer

    And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Duiske wrote: »
    And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

    Disapproving of Gleick's actions, and of the Heartland Institute's alleged policies (as set out in these documents) needn't be mutually exclusive.

    But he's a fool for making the statement he did. He chose to resort to deceit to obtain this information; he should've stood over his actions, no matter how obdurate that would've appeared.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Rear guard action? Perhaps you have not noticed but on this thread you most certainly are in the minority, in fact had this been a real debate on the issue, your argument would have been laughed out of the hall on page 3.

    Also, how did you read Gleicks statement and take from it the depiction of a man on his knees grovelling toward the HI?
    Duiske wrote: »
    And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

    Once the papers were published, the story became more than the mere acquisition of the documents, it highlighted the immoral and bankrupt practices of these think tanks.

    People would like to talk about that, however for all their talk of liberty, libertarians would rather see it locked back into it's pandoras box, and instead concentrate on ad hominem attacks, deflection, rejecting reason, logic and participating gleefully in downright anti-science all the while spouting nonsense about ethics! Enough to nauseate anyone that is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    so let's see.

    No big deal ---> fake
    > unethical theft of documents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Duiske wrote:
    And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

    The smoke machine is now at full spin, somewhere north of ad hominem and still accelerating. Gleick's actions are irrelevant to the revealed facts about HI, whatever bearing they may have on his future career.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Whataboutery at it's finest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.

    No, that's just what HI would like the story to be about. It's a non-story compared to what HI are up to, and that won't either go away or be forgotten, I'm afraid, despite HI's "feisty" attitude.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Has there ever been a decent debate on this here?

    I've seen some stuff on the internet, but most of the denial side seemed quite evasive.
    A bit like trying to pick up a greased piglet with rubber gloves on a hot day.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Why would he go and do such a silly thing when he already has the full weight of logic, reason, and science on his side? And the overwhelmingly incontrovertible Scientific Consensus?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Has there ever been a decent debate on this here?

    I've seen some stuff on the internet, but most of the denial side seemed quite evasive.
    A bit like trying to pick up a greased piglet with rubber gloves on a hot day.:)

    They often accuse defenders of climate science of having an "eco religion" and not for a moment seeing the irony of their position.

    Permabear and co make no secret of their ideology, one which practically demands of them to be climate deniers. After all, it's not an issue that a 100% laissez faire market could ever tackle.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Valmont wrote: »
    Why would he go and do such a silly thing when he already has the full weight of logic, reason, and science on his side? And the overwhelmingly incontrovertible Scientific Consensus?

    To expose a nefarious agenda.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Valmont wrote: »
    Why would he go and do such a silly thing when he already has the full weight of logic, reason, and science on his side? And the overwhelmingly incontrovertible Scientific Consensus?

    You mean why would he try to show the lengths others are going to to try and obscure that logic, reason and scientific consensus ?

    Wow, thats a real puzzler. :rolleyes:

    Granted it wasnt the cleverest thing to have done but it should be quite obvious why he done it. I'm not condoning his actions. But lets not lose the run of ourselves completely and proclaim it proof for the opposing argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    From the same news media that breathlessly covered the Climate gate scandal. hell I don't remember too much effort being put into the ethical dimensions of illegally hacking the email server.

    Is our discussions agenda here being set by the coverage that it receives from a bought and payed for main stream media?

    thankfully it is not.

    The means by which the information was gathered makes no dent on the information that was gathered.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.



    Curiosity got the better of me, and I just had to know if you were consistant. I thought to myself, surely if in this instance you would rather avoid the issue of HI's practices and concentrate on how the documents were obtained, then in the climate-gate case you would equally be more than willing to discuss the actual hacking of teh emails.

    I was not to be disappointed, in fact it was indeed yourself who started the thread and had this to say:
    The New York Times and other major newspapers reported today that hackers have broken into computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and released a batch of confidential files onto the Internet—including over a thousand emails exchanged among some of the world's most prominent climatologists. The documents, which appear to be genuine, suggest that researchers have knowingly exaggerated and manipulated global warming data, that they have privately admitted flaws in their public claims, and that they have colluded to destroy potentially embarrassing or discrediting information. Global warming skeptics have pounced on the revelations, claiming that they expose "scientific research" on specific climatological questions to be nothing more than tendentious, one-sided advocacy.

    Reactions?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055746390


    So even though you acknowledge the emails were hacked from the beginning this was apparently secondary to the emails contents. Now, what was it you were you saying about hypocrisy earlier?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    As I suspected!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Keep sidestepping. I haven't had this much fun watching someone dodging the issue and squirming since the famous Howard v Paxman interview.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    There you go again, you obfuscate the issue here, contrary to your climate gate thread, when you wanted to discuss the content of the release, this time around you are willing to discuss anything but. If that isn't the definition of hyprocisy what is?

    Not only is it hypocritical, it's deeply immoral, especially when we consider what is at stake in this debate . A Debate that is utterly pointless and just wastes scientists time, because they know it's happening but they have to deal with this absolute moronic exercise in futility every two minutes.

    Climate change sceptics know absolutely nothing, they are unwilling to research to prove anything but at the same time throw money at think tanks who attempt to sew doubt and could judgement. If that's not bad enough they then attempt to lecture the rest of us about ethics. Spare me.


Advertisement