Posted on 11/21/2009 6:30:39 AM PST by maggief
Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Yes, they do, as one of the valid defenses against defamation is "truth." Canadian courts tend to be less accomodative of fishing expeditions than American courts, though.
Yes, my list of the offenses on another thread went:
1) Illegal resistance to FOIA requests
2) Tampering with scientific data to support CAGW
3) Probable destruction of data to prevent peer replication (or not) of results
4) Suppression of scientific data that contradicted their theories
5) Suppression of opposing scientific viewpoints in peer reviewed publications (then claiming that due to few peer reviewed papers being published the other side had no evidence)
6) Guidelines for brainwashing the gullible masses with their viewpoint
7) Probable money laundering
Several major players (including the creator of the “hockey stick” graph) are in big trouble.
Yes, they can. They have violated the FOIA on numerous occassions. If this information came from an internal “whistleblower” source, then they’re up a very “muddy” creek without a paddle.
Unless the statute of limitations pre-empts, all you'd need is an aggressive prosecutor.
None. The day the talking points go out, they will all lockstep it with whatever liberal spin they are instructed to give it.
“One important point: they could well be nailed without reference to any of those leaked E-mails.”
Many of those emails were to folks here in the States, which can now be requested under our own FOIA laws.
I don’t think the “hack” aspect will be significant going forward. It was the last, desperate, line of defense for CRU - and it’s crumbling.
FOIA certainly applies. But so do the basic tenets of science in the West.
When you put forward an important scientific hypothesis, such as AGW, then you need to make public the evidence on which it is based. This gives other scientists the opportunity to check the evidence and to check your math.
Refusal to make the evidence available undermines a scientist’s scientific credibility in the most basic way possible. It’s as if Galileo had said, “The earth moves,” but refused to supply any of the evidence on which he based that hypothesis.
The climate skeptics asked these climatologists, “Where’s your evidence.” And they replied, “Shut up! You’re not an accepted member of the Gang. No grants for you, and no academic tenure, and no chance to publish in any of the journals we control.”
The larger science community cannot be silent on this appearance of gross fraud by this small group.
bttt
Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers.
Quite. That might make it difficult to prosecute Jones for fraud.But as for scientific reputation, you can't squeeze toothpaste back into the tube.
BFL
BTTT
bttt
But, but, but the demcorap party and their Marxist funders were counting on all those carbon taxes to pay for all their past outlandish programs and usher in global government arranged by carbon outputs. ... What will the democrat do? Oh worries me ... whom will Harry, Nazi, and Barry send out to the press to proclaim fake but accurate? ... What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
Yes, the EU has been collecting carbon taxes for some time now ... wonder if the citizens in the EU can muster enough testicular fortitude to protest this with their elected representatives? ... They’ll prove themselves ahead of American voters if they can.
But as for scientific reputation, you can't squeeze toothpaste back into the tube
Bang-on!
I'm not one, but this point occurred to me after a mull-over:
If evidence obtained illegally by a private citizen is admissible, then a private citizen could beat a confession out of a suspect and the confession would be admissible. Evidence obtained by aggravated assualt is illegally-obtained evidence.
Were this legal, the police would have picked up on it a long time ago. All a police officer would have to show in court was that (s)he didn't suborn any such beating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.