But early:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
The poor man’s secretary has gone absent, but no worries, he’ll find someone to help him. Probably a graduate student:
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 …
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hey, big shock, everyone has their own priorities. Not only that, but we pay no fucking attention to your priorities. Live with it.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps when we have disposed of the crucial issues, like the availability of secretarial staff for scientists…
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.
**Most **of them, and even you had to admit that, stop misleading people.
Here you are misleading by omitting that even if that is so, virtually all current climate researchers tell us that you are wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?