Comments on: To Release or Not to Release

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:16:38 +0000

Julian: “The comparison seems so facially ludicrous that I can’t believe anyone making it gave the matter five seconds thought.”

IOW, the Volokh Conspiracy bloggers.

By: alkali

alkali — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:02:10 +0000

Erratum: insert “however” after the comma

By: alkali

alkali — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:01:49 +0000

I don’t disagree, I thought the comparison that was being drawn was with the NYT’s publication of the Pentagon Papers.

By: TD

TD — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:39:05 +0000

But… but… it’s the “MSM”! You know, the “MSM”! It’s dreaded and stuff!

The “MSM” doesn’t matter anymore, because we have this Army Of Davids™ now and everything, so please just overlook the fact that we obsess so much about it. That doesn’t mean we actually think it matters. Newspapers are dying because they have a lot of liberal bias, you know, not because the Internet has destroyed the ad-revenue model, it’s liberal bias and liberal bias, and blogs do all the real reporting now and don’t you dare say I’m wearing pajamas you buggy whip dinosaur because you can’t put the genie back in the bottle or is it the toothpaste in the tube and LIBERAL BIAS!!11! BUGGY WHIPS

I wonder what the New York Times has to say about the climate scandal.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:18:57 +0000

So, that’s all well and good, but it’s not what this post was about. If you want to focus on some aspect of the story you think is more important, though, I’m told Blogspot accounts are free.

By: Dom

Dom — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:52:31 +0000

Because that’s not the larger question. A fraud was perpetrated by people who were getting rich from government grants. The recent posts from George Monbiot has it about right, including this:

“The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.”

“… grasping reality …” From someone who once claimed he is from the reality based community. BTW, there is a petition in England for a full government enquiry.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:30:56 +0000

Fine. Any information with genuine news value should be reported. Probably those emails should even be published in full. I have no idea why you imagine this is relevant to the larger question of whether the whole 200 MB cache needs to be published.

By: Dom

Dom — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:48:38 +0000

And the story keeps snow-balling. Now code hacked from CRU shows that the famous Hockey Stick was based, at least in part, on tampered data. And New Zealand is reporting that it’s climate records, used by IPCC, have been distorted to show warming. See http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

By: Dom

Dom — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:42:46 +0000

I don’t especially care about what the NYT reports. My concern is your belief that 90% of the emails is irrelevant information. Why does that matter?

If you look at the emails you find that the scientists were demanding that journals not print articles by certain climatologists, such as Patrick Michaels. Then they claimed that their opponents were on such weak ground that can not publish anything? Or consider their attempts to evade FOI requests, while telling everyone that their science was transparent.

Obviously, email is going to mention such things as birthdays, etc. And NSA files will not have such filler. Hardly important.