It's not that the data was doctored; it's how the doctored data was discovered. This is all the AGW crowd has left to support their hocus-pocus. It's basically an admittance of wrong-doing, but with faux outrage over somebody circumventing their own stonewalling of a FOIA request. It's really quite pathetic for fake scientists who faked results to try and change governmental policy, and to extend their own tax-funded research, to then turn around and try to play the victim.
If the "science is settled", why are prominent pro-AGW scientists faking mission statements from skeptics? Also bluefrog, you may want to education yourself on the difference between a FOIA request for public information, and the private intellectual property of a private organization. Had somebody inserted their own fake information into the Hadley emails, I'd be with you, but that simply did not happen.
It's pretty clear that some scientists were stonewalling efforts to get data but that doesn't excuse someone from hacking to get them. The data was obtained unethically. You see a lot of AGW scientists decrying Gelick's actions. You see very few people from the other side of the argument decrying the hacker's actions. It's an interesting double standard.
Why would people be decrying a hacker exposing a conspiracy/cover-up that involves literally billions of tax-payer dollars being used to perpetuate a fraud? I'm guessing the only reason you're upset about it is because your "side" got exposed as being the ideological hacks that many suspected that they were prior to the release of the emails.
Look it up yourself. In the e-mails that were leaked among the most interesting were discussions among the scientists about how to continue stalling or defeating the pending open records requests that they refused to comply with. Just the fact that they wouldn't release ALL of their data is still stunning to this day. As for the hacking vs. the deception by Glieck. Glieck admitting to the deed, something that is possibly illegal (though a very low grade criminal offense if any). No one has provided any proof that Heartland was involved in the hacking of East Anglia computers. And they have denied any involvement all along. There are LOTS of hacking groups attacking various computers and there is no reason to think without evidence that Heartland was directly invovled. In articles about the history of climategate Heartland isn't even mentioned. So, again, you are trying to connect two things that aren't directly connected in an attempt to confuse or smear.
The AGW scammers' sites were hacked, or there was a whistleblower. If the former, it's a crime. If the latter, they reap what they sew.
Denny actually provided a nice link already in this thread. Actually ALL the data (and lots of other climate data) is available online I never said Heartland was behind the hacking. You are attempting to confuse or smear what I've said. The connection is not hard to make if you think about it (big hint: both of them have to do with climate change and unethically obtained emails).
No once again you are wrong. One is a think tank. there are lots of those. The other is a public repository of raw data. They are not the same. They are not the same. They are not the same.
I think we both agree that what Gleick did was wrong. I guess you're saying hacking a public repository is ethical. I would disagree with that. It amounts to saying that it's OK to lie and steal so long as you feel your intentions are good, and so long as you don't get caught. That's not a code of ethics, but a rationalization for throwing out ethics.
Yeah, but this is on the order of a gay republican being outed after years of championing anti-gay policies. and what's more interesting is to see who circles the wagons around him.
Since we're talking tactics... http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-ago/2012/02/28/gIQA4mriiR_story.html?hpid=z5 Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago At the height of the last ice age, Stanford says, mysterious Stone Age European people known as the Solutreans paddled along an ice cap jutting into the North Atlantic. They lived like Inuits, harvesting seals and seabirds. The Solutreans eventually spread across North America, Stanford says, hauling their distinctive blades with them and giving birth to the later Clovis culture, which emerged some 13,000 years ago. When Stanford proposed this “Solutrean hypothesis” in 1999, colleagues roundly rejected it. One prominent archaeologist suggested that Stanford was throwing his career away. ... Other experts remain unconvinced. “Anyone advancing a radically different hypothesis must be willing to take his licks from skeptics,” said Gary Haynes, an archaeologist at the University of Nevada-Reno.
