Nah, what happens is that he does not have the capacity of identifying good sources.
And that is not fucked up it seems for FX, so never mind that the emails were misrepresented and never showed anything that discredited the science, we should think of the starving people… never mind that the droughts that will be more intense in a warmer world will cause more starvation in the future.
Uh… What? “The effort to deceive”? Deceive who about what? As has been pointed out very, very many times, there have been independent investigations into this “scandal”. They all turned up the same clean bill of health.
The desire to cause trouble for anyone who asks for data? Uh… no. Not anyone. McIntyre specifically, and others of his ilk for whom data, good or bad, is ammunition to be used against their research, their careers, and their public personas, regardless of how intellectually dishonest it is to treat it as such. See my office analogy; this man is a serious douche.
Lastly, citation needed on that last point.
Refer to my post to Brazil84. It is offensively stupid of you to fall for this crap. Again: where are the quotes, n context, that are so fucking damning? Or are you just taking the out-of-context ones that shite-sites like The Daily Mail or Fox News are peddling and going from there?
You know what, I’m just gonna quote from a Mother Jones article posted earlier in the thread:
“Indeed, McIntyre has made goading scientists—particularly Mann—close to a full-time job.”
““If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone,” CRU head Phil Jones wrote to Mann in February 2005. He believed that if McIntyre found an error, no matter how minor, the skeptics would have a field day.”
“In 2008, he sought raw data and email correspondence from Benjamin Santer, a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Santer refused, arguing that the data were already publicly available. In a letter to a fellow scientist he vented that the time-consuming request was part of “a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from research.” He called McIntyre “the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science,” continuing, “We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an ‘audit’ by Steven [sic] McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.””
So yeah… I honestly don’t blame them. This shit takes time that should shouldn’t have to take, the info was apparently already public, every slightest mistake (for example, just the recognization that NASA data was off by 1/6th of a degree) would lead to conservatives jumping up and down like wildcats over their newly-deceased meal, and you are severely underestimating the time it took to deal with this bozo.
It’s hilarious, really: if they decide to spend time on this bullshit, then they have very little time for research to get their jobs done. If they don’t, they’re branded as corrupt, and accused of manipulating data. Sad…
No it doesn’t. If you make $100 on one side and the other guy makes only $50, do you think either of them wants to lose that money? Or the potential to earn it?
You can’t say that one side is corrupt because they stand to lose billions and not hold the other side to the same standard when they stand to gain only millions (actually billions, too, but why quibble?).
One side can’t claim that the other side is only disagreeing because of the money while they themselves benefit financially from their message being deemed correct. I’m saying that you have to then focus on the message, not the financial motivation.
There is a difference between “time it took to deal with McIntyre” and “time it would have taken to simply give him what he wants.”
Please either show me the Freedom of Information requests made by McIntyre which are analogous to asking for childhood photos, etc. or admit that no such requests were made.
If I can document to you that McIntyre was denied information by warmist researchers which was NOT already available, will you concede that you have lost the argument?
Are you seriously claiming that the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work is sometimes a legitimate reason for a scientific researcher to suppress or destroy information?
The Gobbledygooker 2.0 translation:
“we are cowards”
As pointed before, they are not ignoring me but ignoring the science and the evidence.
I see the 84 one is reaching for the yes / no simple answer tactic to then ignore the overall context.
And yes, McIntire is a bozo, he presented what he thought were great arguments to the British Parliament on why Phil Jones and other needed to be punished only to get Parliament to give him what amounted to be a middle finger:
Yes, and these people had to do both. Again, lemme pull the creationism analogy: you don’t just have to show creatards like Hovind the data. That’s not going to help; they don’t care about the data. If you give them your data and facts, then you’re also going to be stuck with the burden of showing the general public that the creationist’s brutally dishonest
You missed the point entirely (that he has no fucking business requesting so much crap in the first place), but fine: I don’t have proof of it happening and will retract this point.
What, you mean admit that ClimateGate is a real issue that we should care about? Because one supervisor got his facts slightly wrong? Because these men were unwilling to give data to a person who has basically turned antagonizing them into a job? Thank you very kindly for missing the fucking point.
You know, I hate to break it to you, but there’s a difference between “the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work” and “the desire to prevent a cretinous douchebag from spreading confusion and misinformation to discredit an entire field of research”. OF COURSE it’d be bad if they destroyed information to avoid real scrutiny. But guess what: a total of 6 independent investigations (according to wikipedia) confirmed that they did not do this. And even if they had… Well, McIntyre is a douche.
It’s like the defenders of the Cause haven’t actually read any of the emails.
Why did they have to respond to McIntyre’s arguments? What rule, policy, or practice entails such a requirement?
Ok, thank you. My response to your analogy stands.
Sure. There is a big difference between failing to turn over information which is already available and failing to turn over information which is not already available. You are claiming that we are in the former situation. I disagree.
I’m not trying to nitpick you here – it seems like a critical, make-or-break distinction to me.
So let’s see if I understand your position:
You believe that the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work is a legitimate reason for a scientific researcher to suppress or withhold information if he anticipates that the scrutiny will be dishonest or otherwise unfair?
And all is quiet …
Well, while we await the inevitable climate debate, perhaps the actual content of the emails could be discussed. With a subject that is related to the above argument over FOIs and reluctant scientists.
From the Science article, the Phil Jones interview with Eli Kintisch
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5968/934/suppl/DC1
Of course you don’t want to talk about it. But the truth is, your actions, which were anything but hasty, were about hiding, deceiving and preventing other people from playing with “your data”, which is understandable. (and I am being nice here)
What is not understandable is the rabid believers who see this, and simply hand waves it away. (especially the part about “I will destroy it rather than share it”)
On that same interview, we see, in regards to the refusal to release data, the consequences.
What is so entertaining about that comment, is that the source of these requests, as well as why it happened, is all public.
You can simply read the efforts to get Phil and company to simply acknowledge which countries refused to share station data. Which illustrates some of the how and why of the conflict.
That the true believer still insists the emails mean nothing, that is amazing. Well, not really. The true believer probably can’t be bothered to actually read any emails. They just let the authorities think for them.
And…
Now you see why I do not put anyone on ignore, because people like FX end up looking like an idiot when the explanations and context and exonerations by the authorities are skipped.
Despite my prediction that the actual emails won’t be discussed itt, I am confident I can post excerpts, links to complicated analysis of dozens of emails (because they involve long conversations and complicated issues), pretty much anything, and my prediction will still hold.
After two years of watching true believers online, I know one thing for sure. The last thing they want to do is read or discuss the actual emails.
Idiots like Garbagebuster, (who will spin and shout and flood any and all topics} can go on forever about their views, but they never ever want the actual emails, much less the story behind them, to be discussed in depth.
Bwa Ha Ha! He don’t know me really well does he folks? 
In fact after so many discussions in the past I did read many of the emails, he is not even right about that bit also.
Suffice to say, all his “analysis” misses the investigations already made and the fact that when this was taking place the freedom of information office was siding more often than not with the scientists in declaring most of the requests to be frivolous in nature, the hack then took place as a desperate move by the deniers.
Again, GIGO, Budget, other sane people; thanks. I don’t really use the ignore function, I find it a bit easier to gloss over and tune out.
Fortunately, FX has demonstrated, probably to the entire board mostly through his nuclear blog, that he’s wholly forgettable. Brazil and OWP have pretty much dug their own heads in the sand for anyone following along. But it wouldn’t be visible or so clear if there weren’t cites and refutations for the clouded waters, so again thanks. I certainly don’t have the patience.
…
Oh, Uzi, the problem with the false equivalence is that the on one hand there is a vast economic incentive to lie and lie big (which has funded a political alignment, so a sub-motivation has developed to support the party line). On the other hand, there is an economic incentive–to keep your salary–by telling the truth and being as accurate as possible. Of course there are limited exceptions, but exceptions don’t really save a false equivalence.
There is yet another example of how the true believer is able to ignore anything that might cause them to think. They simply hand wave away anything that bothers them, and label people as “insane”, anything to avoid being uncomfortable.
I would bet money it’s too subtle a point for the true believer. So…
See? Only the people repeating the “right” message are sane. Everyone else, well, they must be crazy.
And the true believer actually can’t see what they are doing. It’s one reason the Cause seems like a religion.
Peculiar religion that had to convince the super majority of scientists with evidence after a process of 100 years of testing and discoveries.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Remember folks, the consensus before was that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, but that the man made one was not an issue or a problem, THAT consensus was the orthodoxy back in the day, real “Galileos” like Callendar and Plass encountered lots of criticism and got vindicated later by the evidence.
So, yeah, **denial of even the history of it **is grounds to declare FX insane.