Hired? How do you know?
Even if they were hired, how are the mutually exclusive (hired vs conspirator)?
Volunteer goons then?
Maybe they get a tax break or counts towards their community service
Or maybe an inside job, one of those academic feuds which are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small. Or maybe it didn’t take all that much, I don’t know if there’s any reason for an academic journal type organization to pay for state of the art internet security. Lots of reason to have lots of internet interaction, of course, which makes the whole issue of security that much more troublesome. Citibank probably has that sort of security, McDonalds may as well, but a dull climatological journal? Why would they spend precious grant money?
Point being, might not be that much of a problem breaking their security, such as it were.
You just supported our argument. Of course scientists shouldn’t cite bigfoot articles because bigfoot was an obvious hoax for scientists who know anything about primates. The ‘evidence’ you would be expecting them to cite would be a guy in a monkey suit and footprints made by rubber ape feet. What kind of scientist would publish in a journal that lets crap like that slip in?
This article suggests an inside job, on the basis of evidence I leave to you to judge:
I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act application to CRU that got all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data that they built the global temperature record out of. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I made the FOIA application because I had sent the following to EAU with no response:
Receiving no reply, I filed the FOIA application. They stuffed me around with a bunch of bogus excuses, even after I had appealed the decision. Basically, they just tossed my request into the trash, and left me wondering why.
Now the emails reveal that there was no real reason, they just didn’t want to release the data. After my request, Jones convinced the University FOI official to simply blow off all of the FOI requests from anyone associated with Climate Audit. Since I post there regularly, I was automatically one of the evil people whose requests could just be thrown away.
From Phil Jones:
and
Block the FOIA requests from an entire group of people because you don’t like what they stand for … despicable, and probably illegal.
A couple years after that, soon after David Holland filed an FOIA request for the reviewers comments on the IPCC AR4, Phil Jones writes this to Michael Mann
Delete information that is the subject of an existing FOIA request? Definitely illegal.
Now I’d like all of you folks that are claiming that is just boys being boys, and thats how scientists act, and that there’s nothing there, to explain how blocking my honest, sincere, legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests, and blocking FOIA requests from everyone who posts at Climate Audit, is normal science at work. I can’t wait to hear you explain how deleting emails that are subject to an FOIA request is just part of a scientist’s job. Because it is not. It is a direct and dangerous attack on the scientific method itself.
Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists attack the work by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA requests and not releasing the data allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science, without ever once allowing it to be subjected to the normal replication that is an integral part of science.
So this is not just trivial gamesmanship. This is a dishonest attack on the heart of science, an attempt to keep people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct. I am astounded that people here are defending it. I know you don’t like me, but this is not about me. It is about sleazy, dishonest, and possibly criminal behaviour.
As Blake posted above, if Exxon were deleting emails that were subject to a FOIA request, or just shit-canning any FOIA requests from Greenpeace because they didn’t like what “Greenpeace was about” just as Phil Jones did because he doesn’t like what “CA is about”, you’d be screaming the walls down.
I invite you to have the honesty to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot.
Do you have a long haired white angora type cat on your lap as you type? Snatch a goldfish out of the fishbowl to feed it just before you press the button dropping Number Three into the sharkpond?
And how does your story square with the one above? And if it doesn’t, how is that story wrong, and yours right, given that you offer us only your sterling reputation for back up?
And don’t you have to be citizen of a country before you can make such legal information demands based on a taxpayer’s privilege?
Almost certainly illegal. If the letters confirm that they were ignoring proper FOIA requests then I would say that you have a decent court case against them.
Though at the same time, this has nothing to do with the veracity of their data.
Getting some confusion here, Freedom of Information Act wise, like which part of New York is East Anglia in?
Didn’t say it did … but one has to wonder why they are running scared, deleting emails and denying access to their data. Not exactly standard scientific procedure.
And in fact, you’ve put your finger squarely on the real problem. We can’t determine the veracity of their data, because they are denying access to it.
If you didn’t realize that anyone can file an FOIA request … you do now.
“How does my story square with which one above?”, I ask, petting my white angora and reaching for the button …
Hmmmm. I am sure you know by now how I feel about your debating style, intention, but regardless, I sincerely hope you win this one. If they were really ignoring FOIA requests and potentially destroying data I would say your analysis is spot on:
Good luck, I hope you get all the data and have a field day with it (I still think you’re wrong though).
Thank you, L. G., I appreciate your honesty and candor. We’ll see how this plays out.
Post #66
Post #66 cites an article saying that it wasn’t a hacker who posted the files, it was a whistleblower … not sure what that has to do with what I posted.
Nor am I. Nor am I sure why you think some action of yours is of central importance to these unseemly goings-on. The article gives considerable attention to this Climate Audit site, but its all about some fellow named McIntyre (mentioned previously, IIRC)
And lastly, you seem to have declared these people guilty. You launch a preemptive strike on people who are going to claim something like “boys will be boys”. Other than you, who has found them guilty?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, extravagant claims get no discount.
Now that isn’t true and you know it:
Offered without comment, none being necessary.