# I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 20, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347 "2009-11-20T22:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/121 "2009-11-22T22:47:51Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I asked for the data and the station list. Not for emails. Not for financial reports. Not for stuff that isn’t required. Not for stuff that is legally private. Temperature data and a list of the stations. Period. But early: > [@intention](#): > > Meanwhile, as you might imagine, I’ve had a few other things to do, including trying to analyze the hacked CRU emails as they impact my FOIA request, and discussing their implications with other people who were involved. Sure, these emails illegally obtained will change things.. not. By their nature they are already useless if they are brought in court, and IIRC it would not be a good idea to refer to them in any future FOIA requests. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/122 "2009-11-22T23:51:50Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > You might be shocked by this, but scientists don’t typically have chauffeurs and bevys of secretaries and stuff. That sort of excess is usually reserved for the captains of industry, whilst scientists run lean organizations where they actually do end up looking at much of their fan mail. > We could tell because they published their crap in shitty journals that don’t take peer review seriously. Heck, we could _read_ the articles and decide if they make any sense, or not. Of course, when I say ‘we’ I am referring only to the subset of the population that posesses a general scientific literacy. Those of you who thought freshmen chemistry was the hardest course _ever_ are just plain SOL. Hmm, so they answer all their own mail? And all the phones? I imagine they take out the trash as well. That is a BS excuse. I grew up with scientists, lots and lots of scientists. I know a crap load of scientists now. They all have secretaries though they might share one between two or three scientists. Plus, sharing data is part of the FUCKING JOB DESCRIPTION. I think you are missing my point about the second issue. The point is that honest scientists publish all their data. Period. If the data disagrees with their hypothesis they publish it. If it agrees with the hypothesis, they publish it. They DO NOT massage the data to get what they want. They DO NOT hide the data from other scientists or the public. What is going on with the AGW crowd is closer to religion. The scientists collect data and interpret the data for the lowly masses without ever letting the lowly masses (or other scientists) find out what the data actually shows. They work in secret then make pronouncements that the rest of the world is supposed to take on faith. That ain’t science, it is a fucking religion. Slee ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/123 "2009-11-22T23:59:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > I asked for the data and the station list. Not for emails. Not for financial reports. Not for stuff that isn’t required. Not for stuff that is legally private. Temperature data and a list of the stations. Period. But early: [QUOTE=intention] Meanwhile, as you might imagine, I’ve had a few other things to do, including trying to analyze the hacked CRU emails as they impact my FOIA request, and discussing their implications with other people who were involved. [/QUOTE] Sure, these emails illegally obtained will change things.. not. By their nature they are already useless if they are brought in court, and IIRC it would not be a good idea to refer to them in any future FOIA requests.. [/QUOTE] I must be missing something here. In the first quote I say what I asked for in my FOIA request. You seem to think that first quote is contradicted by the second quote about what I’ve been doing since the emails were released, but I sure don’t see it. Will the emails change things? They already have. Will they be useful in court? Clearly you haven’t thought this all the way through, as the emails themselves are now subject to both subpoena and FOIA requests … and I understand that the first FOIA request for the emails has already been filed. Not by me, I should add. Given this information, however, I definitely plan to refile my original FOIA request, using the emails to show that I was not given a hearing on the merits of my original request. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/124 "2009-11-23T00:19:20Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] You might be shocked by this, but scientists don’t typically have chauffeurs and bevys of secretaries and stuff. That sort of excess is usually reserved for the captains of industry, whilst scientists run lean organizations where they actually do end up looking at much of their fan mail. [/quote] Actually, yeah, many professors (in the UK sense) do have secretaries, in my experience. Further, nearly all academics, whatever rank, have “secretaries”: we just call them PhD students, the perfect people for writing FAQs and answering mindless queries about data. Further still, most universities have dedicated staff for answering FOIA requests, and looking through the UEA CRU website, I note the unit has at least one administrative assistant attached, and even a part time librarian, never mind the probable dedicated department that the hosting university provides, for doing exactly that. These scientists are working in a very public facing branch of science that is implicitly being used as an excuse to propose massive social policy changes in nearly every industrialised country; their data set is one of the four used for IPCC summaries of the field. It is entirely reasonable for members of the public, malefactor or not, to request simple data like a list of stations used to compile a dataset be divulged. It isn’t an unreasonable inconvenience (and if it is, like I said, find another job: an academic isn’t a research machine, there’s at least some expectation they justify their work to the general public (and this is required to obtain EPSRC funding, for instance, in the UK)): make a FAQ, as is standard in just about every other field, post it on a public website, and point people there. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/125 "2009-11-23T00:34:14Z")
> [@intention](#): > > That’s not “a couple of scientists”. That’s their stars, the first two people on their list. If I have more citations on climate science than their top two people have combined, it doesn’t say much for their list… So two isn’t two? > [@](#): > > …And yes, I know this is hard for your ego to take, but I found (and still find) Climategate much more interesting than discussing your rantings and Kimstu’s bogus list … so sue me. Rather a shame, that, since the post in question goes on for some considerable length, with a great deal more substantiation. A lot more. All of which you blithely ignore due to your consuming interest in this topic. Or, so you claim. But, nonetheless, you do engage in such discussion, as witness the “hockey schtick” conversation above, you do continue to defend your ah, thesis. You are only selective in what evidence you choose to engage, and which you fly from. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/126 "2009-11-23T00:37:46Z")
[QUOTE=squink] You might be shocked by this, but scientists don’t typically have chauffeurs and bevys of secretaries and stuff. That sort of excess is usually reserved for the captains of industry, whilst scientists run lean organizations where they actually do end up looking at much of their fan mail. [/QUOTE] Right, and they wear white coats and glasses and pen protectors and are surrounded by lab equipment in a small basement office where they work by themselves without a secretary or an assistant or a graduate student to help them … As Sleestak points out, "They all have secretaries though they might share one between two or three scientists. Plus, sharing data is part of the FUCKING JOB DESCRIPTION. " From the emails: [QUOTE=Ben Santer] I’ll be in my office tomorrow and Monday and Tuesday of next week. After Tuesday the best way of getting in touch with me is by contacting PCMDI’s secretary, Harriet Moxley (925-422-7638). [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dr. Niklaus E. Zimmermann] Research Unit Head Land Use Dynamics Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zuercherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland phone: +41 (0)44-739-2337, fax: +41 (0)44-739-2215 Secretary: +41 (0)44-739-2579, Sibylle.Hauser@wsl.ch [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JOHN P. HOLDREN] ``` ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARVARD UNIVERSITY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138 phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963 email: john_holdren@harvard.edu assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ksg.harvard.edu, 617 495-1498 ``` [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Stefan Rahmstorf] To reach me directly please use: [rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de](mailto:rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de) (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ranier Zahn] Quite frankly, from my few conversations I had with the programme managers and their assistants I have come to the conclusion that they are helpful in providing assistance with logistics and proposal structuring, yet on a managerial front they are not up to speed with what I would perceive professionalism in handling their tasks. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Keith Briffa] Do have a look and trim , cross reference as needed. The nightmare with these references [not FOIA related] continues also and I will have to get someone to help out here - incidentally our secretary has gone absent for a month . [/QUOTE] The poor man’s secretary has gone absent, but no worries, he’ll find someone to help him. Probably a graduate student: [QUOTE=Keith Briffa] After this trip I and my post-graduate student will be working in the Polar Urals [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Michael Mann] Numerous people have coded up our method independently, including Ed Zorita, w/ whom I believe your group has a close collaboration, and my graduate student Zhang has successfully coded this up independently in Matlab (its a short script, which didn’t take Zhang long to write anyway). I’m copying this message to Zhang, so that he can provide you with his matlab version of the code if you are interested. [/QUOTE] These are not destitute scientists working in a basement lab. These are the rock stars of climate science. They have department secretaries, they have assistants, they have programme managers, their programme managers have assistants, they have graduate students. Meanwhile, since 1990 Phil Jones has been the recipient of $6,160,173.98 in funding, which you seem to think is certainly not enough to hire a secretary … And the main point, as Sleestak says, still remains. Sharing data is part of their job description. You want to know how to avoid FOIA requests for your taxpayer-funded data? Release the data when the paper is published. Want to know how to avoid FOIA requests for emails containing your IPCC reviewer comments, which by IPCC rules are required to be made public? Make them public as required. That way, you don’t even need a secretary … Some of you want me to feel sorry for scientists because their secrecy and evasion means they need assistance to field legitimate scientific questions? Sorry … ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/127 "2009-11-23T00:38:49Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > The point is that honest scientists publish all their data. Period. No they fuckin don’t. Period. Every researcher has stuff in their lab books that’ll _never_ see the light of day. Hell, I’ve had entire projects turn out to be based on an artifact caused by a contaminent in certain chemical preparations. I’ve published when a contaminent induced artifact turns out to be _interesting_, and **not** when it just turns out to be a biologically irrelevant experiment wrecker. Scientists _choose_ what they want to try to publish. If they’re good choosers, their stuff might make it into a decent journal, if not, it’ll be rejected or show up in the ‘journal of failed attempts at making buffers.’ No one with a lick of sense bothers to read the later publication. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/128 "2009-11-23T00:47:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So two isn’t two? > > Rather a shame, that, since the post in question goes on for some considerable length, with a great deal more substantiation. A lot more. All of which you blithely ignore due to your consuming interest in this topic. Or, so you claim. > > But, nonetheless, you do engage in such discussion, as witness the “hockey schtick” conversation above, you do continue to defend your ah, thesis. You are only selective in what evidence you choose to engage, and which you fly from. Have patience, Grasshopper … in the interim, you were the one that claimed the 700 list was bogus because some people on it weren’t climate scientists, whereas you have no problem with the fact that on Kimstu’s list that you are touting, the two that they say have the greatest claim to being climate scientists aren’t climate scientists at all. Like everyone here, I write where and when I choose to write. Sorry, but your childish accusations, slimy insinuations, and pathetic attempts at harassment to get your way have placed you rather low on that list. When I’m done with more important things, I may get to your other posts on the other thread. Don’t hold your breath, you are making it less likely rather than more likely that it will be soon. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/129 "2009-11-23T00:48:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Right, and they wear white coats and glasses and pen protectors and are surrounded by lab equipment in a small basement office where they work by themselves without a secretary or an assistant or a graduate student to help them … So you have loads of time to pursue the crucial issue of the amount of secretarial staff/grad students available to scientists, yet somehow cannot find the time to answer substantive criticisms of your opinions? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/130 "2009-11-23T00:50:14Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [QUOTE=Sleestak] > The point is that honest scientists publish all their data. Period. No they fuckin don’t. Period. Every researcher has stuff in their lab books that’ll _never_ see the light of day. Hell, I’ve had entire projects turn out to be based on an artifact caused by a contaminent in certain chemical preparations. I’ve published when a contaminent induced artifact turns out to be _interesting_, and **not** when it just turns out to be a biologically irrelevant experiment wrecker. Scientists _choose_ what they want to try to publish. If they’re good choosers, their stuff might make it into a decent journal, if not, it’ll be rejected or show up in the ‘journal of failed attempts at making buffers.’ No one with a lick of sense bothers to read the later publication. [/QUOTE] You misunderstand the point, perhaps deliberately. Sleestak obviously means that scientists choose what to publish in the journals, but when they do publish, they reveal the data upon which their conclusions are based. Period. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/131 "2009-11-23T00:51:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So you have loads of time to pursue the crucial issue of the amount of secretarial staff/grad students available to scientists, yet somehow cannot find the time to answer substantive criticisms of your opinions? Hey, big shock, everyone has their own priorities. Not only that, but we pay no fucking attention to your priorities. Live with it. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/132 "2009-11-23T01:10:00Z")
I got to thinking about elucidator’s question about why I am posting here rather than on the other thread. I realized that the answer is that this thread is on a topical subject. The issues of the CRU hacking are a current issue, one where people are actively discussing and forming their opinion on a current event. I would like people to see that there are legitimate problems that are revealed by the emails. To do that, I need to do it now, before the revisionist history takes hold and everyone decides “Oh, it’s nothing, that’s just how all scientists act and talk” and the like. It is not how all scientists act and talk, that’s bullshit. The emails reveal a pervasive pattern of deceptive actions among a close-knit group containing some of the most well-known and influential climate scientists. This is of great detriment to the climate discussion, to the majority of climate scientists, who are honest and ethical, and to science in general. The other thread, while it contains important issues, is not something which is critical or topicl at this instant. As a result, I am more focused on posting here, and **elucidator** can suck on it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/133 "2009-11-23T01:39:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Given this information, however, I definitely plan to refile my original FOIA request, using the emails to show that I was not given a hearing on the merits of my original request. Well, I strongly suspect that it is unlikely that you can succeed now, if the emails were not part of your original inquiry, pushing to get the info based on those illegally obtained emails will not be seen as kosher by the courts or by mediators. Just ask Boehner what he would do when his rights are violated. > **[Jim McDermott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDermott)** > > James Adelbert McDermott (born December 28, 1936) is an American politician and psychiatrist who was the U.S. representative for Washington's 7th congressional district from 1989 to 2017. He is a member of the Democratic Party. The 7th district includes most of Seattle, Vashon Island, Tukwila, Burien, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway, and Edmonds. > He served on the House Ways and Means Committee and was a member of the House Progressive Caucus. He was formerly ... > [@](#): > > The illegal recording was made by a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who overheard a conversation between Rep. Gingrich and top Republicans on their police scanner inside their car. After listening to the conversation for several minutes they decided to record it, at first for posterity’s sake and after listening further decided that it might be important for the Ethics Committee to hear.[6] It was at that time that they delivered the tape to McDermott, the senior Democrat on the committee at that time, and who was in town for a swearing-in ceremony. **(No action was taken by the Ethics Committee against Gingrich, Boehner or other participants in the recorded conversation.)** > > Shortly afterward, McDermott leaked the tape to several media outlets, including the New York Times. Rep. John Boehner, who was part of the Gingrich conversation, sued McDermott for illegally leaking the tape; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan concluded that McDermott was behind the leak and ordered him to pay Boehner for “willful and knowing misconduct” that “rises to the level of malice”. Even though I dislike Newt, illegally obtained information (the only exception is when officers of the law are involved) is tossed out by the courts and other organizations, you should be aware that completely innocent climate researchers (even granting any imagined guilt here) are bound to be tarred by the actions of the jerks that you are conspicuously not condemning. It is really unethical IMHO to reduce oneself to supporting the theft with your bound to be ineffective actions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/134 "2009-11-23T01:42:26Z")
Perhaps when we have disposed of the crucial issues, like the availability of secretarial staff for scientists… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/135 "2009-11-23T01:43:19Z")
> [@intention](#): > > You misunderstand the point, perhaps deliberately. I see, I’m out to get him. Yes, that’s it! There’s no point in talking to you if you’re going to cop that sort of attitude. I’ve little doubt the Hadley people ran into similar when the Republicans decided they didn’t like where climate science was heading; very unpleasant, and not worth encouraging. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/136 "2009-11-23T01:44:26Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Have patience, Grasshopper … in the interim, you were the one that claimed the 700 list was bogus because some people on it weren’t climate scientists, \*\*Most \*\*of them, and even you had to admit that, stop misleading people. > [@intention](#): > > whereas you have no problem with the fact that on Kimstu’s list that you are touting, the two that they say have the greatest claim to being climate scientists aren’t climate scientists at all. Here you are misleading by omitting that even if that is so, virtually all current climate researchers tell us that you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/137 "2009-11-23T02:02:54Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I see, I’m out to get him. > Yes, that’s it! > There’s no point in talking to you if you’re going to cop that sort of attitude. > I’ve little doubt the Hadley people ran into similar when the Republicans decided they didn’t like where climate science was heading; very unpleasant, and not worth encouraging. My apologies, but his statement so obviously had the meaning that I found in it that I had to include the possibility that you were deliberately misunderstanding his statement. After all, nobody thinks that that a scientist has the obligation to publish every piece of data that he touches in his lifetime, which was the interpretation you put on it. However, as you say the error was inadvertent, you have my sincere apologies for the unwarranted slur. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/138 "2009-11-23T02:09:45Z")
See, here’s the thing, and its kind of a Doper esthetic. There’s a rather nasty rhetorical trick which you employed, which is to challenge your opponent to Googleslog and ferret out information to suit your demands. “Well, show me a list of left-handed third basemen who were _not_ Episcoplian!” Legal, but stinky. Shows a weakness of character, a desire to “win” an argument more compelling than the desire to clarify an argument. **Kimstu** took up the challenge, and in my estimation, did a solid, workmanlike job. Not as good a job as I might have done, but then I’m lazy and easily…ooh, shiny! Where was I? Right, right, workmanlike, solid, definitely worthy of the effort. Which we recognize was almost certainly tedious. But its an effort that honors us, gives us face, you included. It makes the statement of trust that the poster believes the effort is not in vain, puts enough trust in us Dopers to make such an effort, assured of a fair hearing, or at least a loud one. You made demands and your demands were honored. The probability that **Lil’ Kimstu** thinks you’re stuffed with whale dreck doesn’t enter into it, the effort was made in an entirely honorable and straightforward fashion. Your response disdains such honor, and your purported reasons wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny of a retarded chihuahua. (We didn’t all just fall off a **Vinyl Turnip** truck, you know, we’ve seen weasels before, we know their habits, we’ve stepped into their spoor…) No. its not a Big Hairy Ass Deal, certainly not illegal, just as certainly not against any Board rules. Its an esthetic, as I said. And an insight into character, in this instance, unflattering. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/139 "2009-11-23T02:11:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > Given this information, however, I definitely plan to refile my original FOIA request, using the emails to show that I was not given a hearing on the merits of my original request. Well, I strongly suspect that it is unlikely that you can succeed now, if the emails were not part of your original inquiry, pushing to get the info based on those illegally obtained emails will not be seen as kosher by the courts or by mediators. Just ask Boehner what he would do when his rights are violated. [/QUOTE] **GIGObuster** , you may well be right, I may not succeed, but I’ll give it a shot. I don’t intent to make the emails a formal part of my actual FOIA request. Instead, I intend to use them to shame the FOIA people at the University into giving me an honest hearing. Although the emails were illegally obtained, as far as I know they are the actual emails, and they show that the University FOI people participated in a coverup. I’ll let you guys know how it turns out. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/140 "2009-11-23T02:21:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > Have patience, Grasshopper … in the interim, you were the one that claimed the 700 list was bogus because some people on it weren’t climate scientists, Most of them, and even you had to admit that, stop misleading people. [/QUOTE] We don’t know if “most of them are”. All we have is the citation that makes that claim. The citation you are referring to claimed that there are only 40 actual honest-to-god legitimate climate scientists on the 700 list, and one of the 40 actual climate scientists is me. So are you saying we should accept that citation as gospel? [QUOTE=GIGObuster] > [@intention](#): > > whereas you have no problem with the fact that on Kimstu’s list that you are touting, the two that they say have the greatest claim to being climate scientists aren’t climate scientists at all. Here you are misleading by omitting that even if that is so, virtually all current climate researchers tell us that you are wrong. [/QUOTE] Oh, please. Does anyone on this list, including myself, not know that most climate scientists think I’m wrong? Do I have to append a disclaimer to everything I write here saying “but most scientists think I’m wrong”, as though that wasn’t general knowledge? You are way underestimating the intelligence of the Dopers. All I said was that the top two people, the biggest stars on Kimstu’s ballyhoo’d list of “climate scientists” who believe in AGW, weren’t climate scientists at all. How does that require a disclaimer? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=8)