It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.
Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.
The incident has taken a severe toll on his health. He has lost more than a stone in weight and disclosed he is on beta-blockers and using sleeping pills. He said the support of his family, and especially the love of his five-year-old granddaughter, had helped him to shake off suicidal thoughts: “I wanted to see her grow up.”
He remains at risk, still receiving death threats from around the world including two in the past week: “I was shocked. People said I should go and kill myself. They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world.”
Originally posted by SuperSlovak
I can guarantee those GreenPeace nutjobs are threatening this man. They look for the opposition and make a mockery of them. Really distastefull.
Originally posted by SuperSlovak
.............
I can guarantee those GreenPeace nutjobs are threatening this man. They look for the opposition and make a mockery of them. Really distastefull.
Originally posted by kawacat
..................
If someone is brave enough to stick their neck out, I say they are brave enough to live without threats to their wellbeing.
People should salute people who stand out, not try and put them down.
Originally posted by Britguy
I have some rope he can borrow!
Being a cynical old bugger, this looks like a feeble attempt at sympathy for what is, after all, someone who commited fraud and acted dishonestly.
Originally posted by melatonin
... not expressing full accordance with Freedom of Information requirements when bombarded with inane requests.
Can't say I blame him...
[He] now accepts that he did not treat Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for the data as seriously as he should have done. Jones believes that the unit was maliciously targeted with multiple FoI requests by climate change sceptics determined to disrupt its work.
Last week Graham Smith, the deputy information commissioner, ruled that by failing to release requested data Jones and his colleagues breached FoI regulations.
Originally posted by loam
I have to strongly disagree there. How is disclosing information in accordance with law, and making it fully available for inspection, ever 'inane' or inappropriate?
Steve McIntyre
Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Reply
I suggest that interested readers can participate by choosing 5 countries and sending the following FOI request to david.palmer at uea.ac.uk:
Dear Mr Palmer,
I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]
1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements;
2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization;
3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that “prevents further transmission to non-academics”.
4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement,
I am requesting this information for the purposes of academic research.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
yourname
If you do so, please post up a copy of your letter so that we can keep track of requested countries.
If AGW is real, it will likely take decades more to convince anyone of it.
Originally posted by melatonin
Jeez. Glass-houses, people, stones. I'm sure one day all scientists will live up to your Jesus-like requirements. Forgive them the odd fig-tree, though, eh?
[edit on 7-2-2010 by melatonin]
Originally posted by melatonin
When the requests are considered vexatious and have been responded to numerous times in the past? Moreover, when the requests are refused in accordance with the law.
The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act – an offence which is punishable by an unlimited fine.
...
Stolen emails revealed how the university's Climatic Research Unit tried to block requests for raw data and other figures, and implied that senior university staff had played a role in the refusal of the requests.
...
In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007.
He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics.
...
Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said in a statement: "The emails reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation.
Link.
Originally posted by melatonin
I'm not sure you follow this issue sufficiently, Loam. If you did you would know what the likes of Jones and the CRU have had to put up with over the years.
...
Such requests are pure time-wasting issues. In this particular case, they received over 50 in less than a week. They are meant to be doing science not phaffing around, lubing and bending over for a bunch of wackos. They are scientists. If the funding agencies provide cash for staff to respond to these wackos, then all's good.
Originally posted by melatonin
So a scientist is currently the target of a witch-hunt because he said things in private he shouldn't while under constant attack by a bunch of cranks?
Lets get to work on that pyre.
Originally posted by melatonin
Jeez. Glass-houses, people, stones. I'm sure one day all scientists will live up to your Jesus-like requirements. Forgive them the odd fig-tree, though, eh?
Originally posted by melatonin
If AGW is real, it will likely take decades more to convince anyone of it.
To be honest, I'd rather the days when scientists could just do science rather than worry about offending the sensibilities of ideologically-motivated cranks and high-horse jockeys, along with convincing the masses in the face of their own wishful-thinking and rampant obscuring denialism.
When we have that pyre built and you've fried the messenger-victim, get it ready for those who really need it.
Originally posted by loam
Yet, such refusals were apparently not done in accordance with such law:
I have no doubt that some such requests may be frivolous. But it is also clear to me that in an effort to defend against such tactics, they threw the baby out with the bath water. Suggesting one should delete emails or assess the 'position' of the requester is utterly unacceptable to me.
It may not be fair, but you can now see the consequence of his inability to stay above the fray.
I'm disappointed that is what you think I require. I would have assumed based on my posting history you would know me better.
All I ask for is honest science and transparency. If you think those principles are too damned tough for scientists to follow, then you're as much to blame for where we are today on these issues.
Here, you are just complaining water is wet. Scientists have always had to worry about offending the sensibilities of prevailing belief. But beyond that, you are also being somewhat unrealistic. The entire purpose of science is to influence policy and guide action. Otherwise, what exactly is the point behind science?
Personally, I'm sick of the whole damned thing. I have no ideological commitment to the outcome of the issue. All I've ever wanted was some truth on the matter.
Proponents and opponents alike should share in the blame.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by loam
Yet, such refusals were apparently not done in accordance with such law:
...
You're not telling me anything I don't know.
Originally posted by melatonin
...when the requests are refused in accordance with the law.
I'm not sure you follow this issue sufficiently, Loam.
Originally posted by melatonin
...emails don't disappear even if deleted...
Originally posted by melatonin
This is about a group of cranks harrassing scientists. They should not have to bow to the whims of every crank and nutcase, even self-appointed 'auditors'.
Originally posted by melatonin
If the government wants that, they can bleedin' well fund monkeys to be ordered around by these clowns.
Originally posted by melatonin
Scientists are scientists. The point of science, AFAIC, is to gain knowledge and understanding of nature. People listen or don't. Their choice.
Originally posted by melatonin
I've sadly been reading your posts recently, Loam. Nothing has changed. You just seem to currently be a willing victim of the denialists smoke and mirrors.
Originally posted by melatonin
So the worst is what? Phil Jones was so irritated in private emails he threatened to delete emails and even told others to do so - even though such emails don't disappear, they sit on back-up servers. And some dufus confused 2350 for 2035 in a claim about melting glaciers.
Whoopee-fracking-doo.
Originally posted by melatonin
Reality will catch up on every one of the myopic fools.
Originally posted by melatonin
You appear to think that this is a 'battle' between two groups of honourable foes. It's not. You are expecting the science side to be squeaky clean and error-free whilst we have a bunch of industry-funded cranks and wackos using every trick in the book - from stealing private emails to openly and explicitly misrepresenting scientists.
Originally posted by melatonin
When I see you being a slight bit peeved that a supposed journalist is explicitly and repeatedly misrepresenting scientists leading to the brain-dead regurgitating such claims, rather than overlook it and pile on in some fit of despair or wherever you're head's at, I'll take it you're back down to earth.
Originally posted by loam
Yet, in your previous post, you all but expressly stated that such FOI denials were appropriate
I merely pointed out that an official determination had been made that some such rejections were not in accordance with law.
I'm confused by your desire to make this point. So what? Do you think it ameliorates the fact that it was nonetheless encouraged that people delete emails???
It always amazes me when people start sounding like the very thing they oppose.
I thought peer review actually required self-appointed 'auditors'.
It seems to me, THAT is the precise problem we have now.
Well that seems romantic enough, but unfortunately it's not very true.
The point of most science is to make money...or attain power.
Plain. Simple.
That has likely been true since before man first discovered fire.
Oh, I can see the smoke and mirrors easily enough. In fact, the point I seem to be making, in comparison to yours, is that I happen to see MORE of them than you do.
Being vigilant against error or deceit is not being a victim.
:shk:
You may be right, but I hope you are wrong.
I feel reasonably certain not all AGW opponents are "industry-funded cranks and wackos using every trick in the book."
I don't support misrepresentations made by anyone. Is that 'peeved' enough for you?
melatonin, I'm a pretty honest guy who only ever wants to get to the truth. If you look at my posts over all of these long years, I think I have been fairly consistent on at least that much.
You can criticize and scorn me all you wish. While I find it disappointing and unpersuasive, I'm quite sure we will both survive.
I think you are a smart poster with amazing insight, knowledge and intelligence. But I think you're wrong on several points here.
Originally posted by melatonin
Hence why I am surprised you seem to have more issue with the victims of a campaign of harassment than those who would do anything to topple a few heads and blow smoke for nothing more than political gain.
Originally posted by loam
Because of their 'silly' (your term) reactions, I no longer trust that I'm dealing with honest brokers on either side of the argument.
Originally posted by melatonin
In time, we could perhaps clone your goodself, install tall stables and all will be good.
Originally posted by melatonin
It's obviously a case of somewhere between duck and not-duck.
Originally posted by loam
Nice.
Did that make you feel better?
I'm still trying to figure it all out. I'm not exactly sure how I will go about doing that, but I'm quite certain I wont be assisted by those who feel the need to address my confusion in the same manner they would "industry-funded cranks and wackos using every trick in the book."
Good day.