theweatheroutlook

Remove ads from site

Northern Sky
28 March 2011 13:18:58


 


Under common law I think that you will find that a breach of confidentiality imposes an obligation on the person disclosing data to take all necessary steps to remedy the breach.


If the information was obtained illegally then it was obtained illegally - you cannot get around that basic point.


Anyway, this is about what is right and what is wrong.  The data was obtained illegally.  I suggest respectfully that anyone with an ounce of decency would know it was wrong to use.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


That's fair enough but all this fuss about the e-mails doesn't alter my opinion that the peer review process is not beyond criticism. I haven't read the e-mails but I think there is a tendency by some to become so defensive of the consensus that anything that appears critical is dismissed without consideration. All things should be subject to objective questioning. Is that so bad?

Solar Cycles
28 March 2011 13:32:55

This all debate about the contents of the e-mails sums up the attitude of the warmers camp. Not one single one of them is prepared to debate the actual content. What a narrow minded bunch of individuals you all are, this is why the vast majority of the general public hold climate scientists in contempt. Another debate shut down by those who  do not wist to engage, but would rather preach from their pedestals! 

Devonian
28 March 2011 13:42:22



 


Under common law I think that you will find that a breach of confidentiality imposes an obligation on the person disclosing data to take all necessary steps to remedy the breach.


If the information was obtained illegally then it was obtained illegally - you cannot get around that basic point.


Anyway, this is about what is right and what is wrong.  The data was obtained illegally.  I suggest respectfully that anyone with an ounce of decency would know it was wrong to use.


Originally Posted by: Northern Sky 


That's fair enough but all this fuss about the e-mails doesn't alter my opinion that the peer review process is not beyond criticism. I haven't read the e-mails but I think there is a tendency by some to become so defensive of the consensus that anything that appears critical is dismissed without consideration. All things should be subject to objective questioning. Is that so bad?


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


No it isn't, I'm all for objectivity. But, again, no one has answered my question about what the reaction here would be to our PM's here being stolen, paraded about, misinterpreted and picked over. I doubt anyone would defend that!

DBH
28 March 2011 15:13:02

This all debate about the contents of the e-mails sums up the attitude of the warmers camp. Not one single one of them is prepared to debate the actual content. What a narrow minded bunch of individuals you all are, this is why the vast majority of the general public hold climate scientists in contempt. Another debate shut down by those who  do not wist to engage, but would rather preach from their pedestals! 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 



Ha Ha Ha.

1)Make an assertion. (preferably one where to contradict it requires proving a negative)


2)Repeat until no-one replies (and don't accept any contrary points made (or insist that someone has missed or misunderstood the point) then repeat the original point)


3)Claim victory / chalk up another point


Internet forum debating FTW.


Of course, these comments could be considered belittling, or patronising, or offensive, but the stuck record always deserves ridicule in this sort of situation. It may be unfair to single the quoted post out, (there are many examples on both sides to choose from in this thread) but hey, I’m only human and as biased and prejudiced as the man on the Clapham omnibus…


The substantive point is that irrespective of the rights of wrongs of the act of publishing someone’s private emails and irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the views/ content of the emails (and if you have not, I would recommend the links that Stu posted which suggest your assertion is not as right as you may think) by publishing them, any chance of any “wrongs” in the emails being corrected has gone. The Kangaroo Court of public opinion prevents it.


Added to this, it is highly presumptuous to demand that people interpret correspondence and to speak on behalf of experts or scientists that they have never corresponded with let alone met. If I were to disappear under a bus, some of my colleagues may understand the content of some of my emails, a couple may even understand the context of some of my emails but if all of them were taken at face value, I doubt they would make that much sense.
Gandalf The White
28 March 2011 15:38:43


This all debate about the contents of the e-mails sums up the attitude of the warmers camp. Not one single one of them is prepared to debate the actual content. What a narrow minded bunch of individuals you all are, this is why the vast majority of the general public hold climate scientists in contempt. Another debate shut down by those who  do not wist to engage, but would rather preach from their pedestals! 


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 


At the risk fo repeating myself...


The end does not justify the means.


If you cannot get to grips with the concept that the information was stolen and therefore put in the public domain illegally then really I cannot help you.


Your excuse for a comment is woeful.  There is nothing to debate - the information was obtained illegally, the theft was at the behest of the denier/sceptic brigade and, as I have said, just demonstrates the lengths to which they will go to try to prevent progress on tackling climate change.


If you cannot see this then it is you that have the problem.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


polarwind
28 March 2011 16:36:28







 And neither am I, but these emails are in the public domain and as such are a different matter to that which you suggest. Being in the public domain, for whatever reason, they demonstrate shortcomings which I believe were the subject of apologies from one or more of those involved and these emails are now very much of public interest.


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


So, if your or my PM's were stolen and made public that would be just fine? Sorry, I just can get my head around such thinking.


People obtained scientist's stolen emails, they then put twisted and malicious interpretations to them. If some did that here with PM's that person would be permanently banned and there would be unanimous outrage!


Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Give it a rest Dev, your blinkered views are getting more tiresome by the day. You can bleat on all you want about the rights and wrongs of how these e-mails came ito the public domain. But it's the content within them that is the issue, and that my friend shows up how the science is being manipulated to suite the theory. 


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Translation: theft of personal corrspondences is acceptable (and those who protest at such conduct 'bleating') if it can be twisted to find what I want to read. You really are close to a very dodgy rubicon.


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

"Bleating" Translation: Repetition of correspondents position regarding ethics (and upto a point is reasonable) - but isn't reasonable when repeated (hundreds of times probably) in reply to points that are raised using the information in the emails and with which the poster cannot find an answer and so wishes to avoid answering.


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


So, you'd have no problem if someone 'got hold' of (stole) the private emails of people like A. Watts and S. McIntyre? Indeed why don't they, as a gesture of good will, release all their emails? After all, they've nothing to hide - right?


You see where this goes? It's about creating an atmosphere of suspicion. It could be done with Watts and McIntyr but they're, I suspect, rather more clever about covering their tracks than scientists - Watts and McIntyre being political activists and all that.


But, lets not aviod this, please provide an answer as to why Watts and McIntyre keep their emails private. Just what DO they have to hide???


Polarwind wrote:

What we are discussing is nothing to do with Watts or McIntyre. The ethics question is a seperate issue. The emails did clearly demonstrate that non consensus papers were not published. I'm sure that some sceptics are indeed out to do some of what you say, but, let us not play the same game, because science is all we've got. And science needs honesty because without that, it will be no better than religion.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
Solar Cycles
28 March 2011 16:43:58



This all debate about the contents of the e-mails sums up the attitude of the warmers camp. Not one single one of them is prepared to debate the actual content. What a narrow minded bunch of individuals you all are, this is why the vast majority of the general public hold climate scientists in contempt. Another debate shut down by those who  do not wist to engage, but would rather preach from their pedestals! 


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


At the risk fo repeating myself...


The end does not justify the means.


If you cannot get to grips with the concept that the information was stolen and therefore put in the public domain illegally then really I cannot help you.


Your excuse for a comment is woeful.  There is nothing to debate - the information was obtained illegally, the theft was at the behest of the denier/sceptic brigade and, as I have said, just demonstrates the lengths to which they will go to try to prevent progress on tackling climate change.


If you cannot see this then it is you that have the problem.


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

So if we say a leading Politician had his e-mails hacked, and within those e-mails were serious claims of manipulation, lies and fraud, you are saying it's not up for debate. 

polarwind
28 March 2011 16:55:39





"Bleating" Translation: Repetition of correspondents position regarding ethics (and upto a point is reasonable) - but isn't reasonable when repeated (hundreds of times probably) in reply to points that are raised using the information in the emails and with which the poster cannot find an answer and so wishes to avoid answering.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


But if the information was obtained illegally then the logic that it shouldn't be considered is irrefutable.  If you tried your line in a court of law you would be laughed out.


"I have here some evidence I stole to try to support my case."


Let me know when you want to try that line and I'll come and watch for amusement value.



Originally Posted by: polarwind 


If the information is in the public domain, I think you will find that the law takes a different view of things.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Under common law I think that you will find that a breach of confidentiality imposes an obligation on the person disclosing data to take all necessary steps to remedy the breach.


If the information was obtained illegally then it was obtained illegally - you cannot get around that basic point.


Anyway, this is about what is right and what is wrong.  The data was obtained illegally.  I suggest respectfully that anyone with an ounce of decency would know it was wrong to use.


Originally Posted by: polarwind 

No, Gandalf, this is not about what is right or wrong, that can be discussed elsewhere. What this is about, is science and sorting out truths that can be useful to mankind through being able to better predict things. That purpose is not served by preventing the publication of alternative or non mainstream science. And, I do accept the point TomC made a long while ago, that some system is needed to sort the wheat from the chaff.


But, there are imo, too many vested interests for the peer review system as now practiced to do this fairly. We need something better. And I don't know the answer - just ideas.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
polarwind
28 March 2011 17:26:19



You are one hundred percent wrong Gandalf, I got the point about the ethics. But we are not now disscussing the ethics.


When you say "I don't care what the emails said", ..........that says it all, well I thought so, but then you said "I wouldn't be daft enough to take things out of context"  - what arrogance.


Your views are fixed, your conviction is total and above all, apart from the arrogance, it demonstrates your disregard for seeking the truth.


 


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Repeat after me...


The end does not justify the means.


You can wriggle all you like.  You are using illegally obtained information.  It is wrong and you should know it is wrong and no amount of clever words or attempted justifications are going to alter that fact.


The hacking was done to order by sceptics/deniers for the specific purpose of deflecting attention away from the climate change conference.  It was deliberate, it was calculated and I think it was offensive.  It tells us all we need to know about the sheer desperation of the fossil fuel and deranged right wingers to try to stop action being taken to reduce GHGs.


Anyone daft enough to be sucked into this farce deserves no respect.  Sorry, you are completely and utterly in the wrong on this point for all of the reasons I have stated.


I don't suppose 'arrogance' extends to your attitude about law breaking?


Originally Posted by: polarwind 

"Sorry, you are completely and utterly in the wrong on this point...." More arrogance Gandalf - I'm disappointed.


It really doesn't matter what I think about the rights and wrongs of the emails being leaked. I don't like the idea of the CIA reading my emails, but, I can't do anything about it. And, I can't do anything about the fact that the emails were leaked illegally. What, I can do, is deal with the contents of those emails where they show that peoples research work is being deliberately denied or prevented from being published for no other reason than their research being non consensus. That, most clearly is totally wrong and unjust. With your proclaimed sense of lawfulness and fairness, you no doubt support me on this point?


I have very little time for the fossil fuel industry and their unrelenting rush for profits at the expense of the world enviromental system. And I have no time for the extreme right-wingers you mention. Most political ideals are workable, but every single one of them depends on the politicians. In other words - people. As Archbishop Tutu said, "There's nothing wrong with religion, only thr religious.


Let's deal with science in a way that is clearly honest and trustworthy. It's all we have that stands between us and the religious fanatics.


 

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
Gandalf The White
28 March 2011 17:31:41


 


Let's deal with science in a way that is clearly honest and trustworthy. It's all we have that stands between us and the religious fanatics.


 


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


Perfect.  So remind me where the contents of stolen emails fits in, with various interpretations, misinterpretations and allegations derived therefrom?


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


polarwind
28 March 2011 17:50:30



 


Let's deal with science in a way that is clearly honest and trustworthy. It's all we have that stands between us and the religious fanatics.


 


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Perfect.  So remind me where the contents of stolen emails fits in, with various interpretations, misinterpretations and allegations derived therefrom?



Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I read the emails relating to peer view research publication, Devonion didn't, so he says, but he still said much  the same thing as you say here. Amazing that don't you think? 


With your views about not reading private emails, I presume you have not read these emails either?


And I again have no doubt that some of the emails have been misrepresented and misinterpreted, but the emails about preventing peer review publication were pretty clear.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
28 March 2011 18:01:24

And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion

North York Moors weather 
Devonian
28 March 2011 18:51:28


And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion


Originally Posted by: four 


Are you going to make your private messages here public and if not what have you to hide?

Devonian
28 March 2011 19:06:53




 


Let's deal with science in a way that is clearly honest and trustworthy. It's all we have that stands between us and the religious fanatics.


 


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


Perfect.  So remind me where the contents of stolen emails fits in, with various interpretations, misinterpretations and allegations derived therefrom?



Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

I read the emails relating to peer view research publication, Devonion didn't, so he says, but he still said much  the same thing as you say here. Amazing that don't you think?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 


I told you I haven't read the emails. I'm not interested in reading other people's private correspondence. I do read WUWT, Rabbet Run, Real Climate and the rest and there have been article about the emails in all those blogs. So, I'm aware of the story and allegations but I'm not interested in going through other people's private etc etc etc


With your views about not reading private emails, I presume you have not read these emails either?


And I again have no doubt that some of the emails have been misrepresented and misinterpreted, but the emails about preventing peer review publication were pretty clear.



No, they were misrepresented.

Solar Cycles
28 March 2011 19:21:26



And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Are you going to make your private messages here public and if not what have you to hide?


Originally Posted by: four 

What a load of nonsense your replies are. You evade all questions regarding the content by hiding behind whether it's right or wrong  too view hacked e-mails. Has I stated in my previous post if this was a politician who had his e-mails hacked, would you be making such a song and dance about it. Probably not, as they are paid by the taxpayer just like these so called scientists! 

Devonian
28 March 2011 19:35:29




And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 


Are you going to make your private messages here public and if not what have you to hide?


Originally Posted by: Devonian 

What a load of nonsense your replies are. You evade all questions regarding the content by hiding behind whether it's right or wrong as to view hacked e-mails.

Originally Posted by: four 


Too right I do. Why anyone would believe the words of self appointed climate police who find what they want to find in stolen emails beats me.


Has I stated in my previous post if this was a politician who had his e-mails hacked, would you be making such a song and dance about it. Probably not, as they are paid by the taxpayer just like these so called scientists! 



I'm consistent. If you were you'd, at the very least, demand people like Anthony Watts or Steven McIntyre make their emails public.

Solar Cycles
28 March 2011 19:39:02





And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Are you going to make your private messages here public and if not what have you to hide?


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

What a load of nonsense your replies are. You evade all questions regarding the content by hiding behind whether it's right or wrong as to view hacked e-mails.

Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Too right I do. Why anyone would believe the words of self appointed climate police who find what they want to find in stolen emails beats me.


Has I stated in my previous post if this was a politician who had his e-mails hacked, would you be making such a song and dance about it. Probably not, as they are paid by the taxpayer just like these so called scientists! 


Originally Posted by: four 


I'm consistent. If you were you'd, at the very least, demand people like Anthony Watts or Steven McIntyre make their emails public.


I can't really express my contempt for your posts, as it would result in a ban.  But I will say, your the most blinkered human being I've ever had the misfortune too come across. Good night! 

Ulric
28 March 2011 19:44:49

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. - Henri Poincaré
Solar Cycles
28 March 2011 19:50:15


Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.


Originally Posted by: Ulric 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Devonian
28 March 2011 19:53:41






And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 


Are you going to make your private messages here public and if not what have you to hide?


Originally Posted by: Devonian 

What a load of nonsense your replies are. You evade all questions regarding the content by hiding behind whether it's right or wrong as to view hacked e-mails.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 


Too right I do. Why anyone would believe the words of self appointed climate police who find what they want to find in stolen emails beats me.


Has I stated in my previous post if this was a politician who had his e-mails hacked, would you be making such a song and dance about it. Probably not, as they are paid by the taxpayer just like these so called scientists! 


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


I'm consistent. If you were you'd, at the very least, demand people like Anthony Watts or Steven McIntyre make their emails public.


Originally Posted by: four 

I can't really express my contempt for your posts, as it would result in a ban.  But I will say, your the most blinkered human being I've ever had the misfortune too come across. Good night! 



Well, if I'm blinkered because I wont go gleefully reading other people's emails looking for juicy bits I can misinterpret then I own up and do so proudly


I do describe those who want the McIntyre/Watts ganders to have the sauce of privacy but climate scientist goose not as hypocrites.

Solar Cycles
28 March 2011 19:57:11







And the ones about deleting data rather than let anyone else see it because they might draw the 'wrong' conclusion


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Are you going to make your private messages here public and if not what have you to hide?


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

What a load of nonsense your replies are. You evade all questions regarding the content by hiding behind whether it's right or wrong as to view hacked e-mails.

Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Too right I do. Why anyone would believe the words of self appointed climate police who find what they want to find in stolen emails beats me.


Has I stated in my previous post if this was a politician who had his e-mails hacked, would you be making such a song and dance about it. Probably not, as they are paid by the taxpayer just like these so called scientists! 


Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 


I'm consistent. If you were you'd, at the very least, demand people like Anthony Watts or Steven McIntyre make their emails public.


Originally Posted by: Devonian 

I can't really express my contempt for your posts, as it would result in a ban.  But I will say, your the most blinkered human being I've ever had the misfortune too come across. Good night! 


Originally Posted by: four 


Well, if I'm blinkered because I wont go gleefully reading other people's emails looking for juicy bits I can misinterpret then I own up and do so proudly


I do describe those who want the McIntyre/Watts ganders to have the sauce of privacy but climate scientist goose not as hypocrites.


Blah Blah Blah, Dev your as predictable ass you are blinkered. Goodnight and god bless! 

TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
28 March 2011 20:21:11




 


Let's deal with science in a way that is clearly honest and trustworthy. It's all we have that stands between us and the religious fanatics.


 


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


Perfect.  So remind me where the contents of stolen emails fits in, with various interpretations, misinterpretations and allegations derived therefrom?



Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

I read the emails relating to peer view research publication, Devonion didn't, so he says, but he still said much  the same thing as you say here. Amazing that don't you think? 


With your views about not reading private emails, I presume you have not read these emails either?


And I again have no doubt that some of the emails have been misrepresented and misinterpreted, but the emails about preventing peer review publication were pretty clear.


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


Well I did read them. I am certainly guilty of commenting that a paper should not have been published because its wrong and the reviewers should have picked this up. I have told students that. I have also shown a paper I am reviewing and thought as nonsense to a colleague. There was a controversy recently (I was not a reviewer) surrounding a paper published in Science stating that composition as not important to the cloud activation properties of aerosol only size matters. Nonsense !


This kind of controversy is very common in science. Nevertheless despite the odd bad paper sliping through and some good ones being rejected first time round, there is plenty of choice of journals, peer review does effectively protect scientific standards in all fields.

Jeff M
28 March 2011 21:05:50

Two questions:-


 


If you send a private message to a friend and use your respective company email systems to transmit/deliver the message, can the message be considered personal?


 


Can the message be the subject of a FOI request?

Devonian
28 March 2011 21:17:22


Two questions:-


 If you send a private message to a friend and use your respective company email systems to transmit/deliver the message, can the message be considered personal?

Originally Posted by: Jeff M 


I think the clue is your word 'private'.


 

Can the message be the subject of a FOI request?



Sure, by some of the nurks out there.

TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
28 March 2011 21:18:33


Two questions:-


 


If you send a private message to a friend and use your respective company email systems to transmit/deliver the message, can the message be considered personal?


 


Can the message be the subject of a FOI request?


Originally Posted by: Jeff M 


I am no expert on these matters but I receive many private emails that require non disclosure on my employers email system as part of my job.

Remove ads from site

Ads