Climategate Professor Considered Suicide

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.”

I can guarantee those GreenPeace nutjobs are threatening this man. They look for the opposition and make a mockery of them. Really distastefull.

www.timesonline.co.uk...




Mod Edit: Extended external source tags to include all external content.

[edit on 2/7/2010 by AshleyD]

reply to post by SuperSlovak


I hope he stays alive for his granddaughter.

Tall poppies are always cut down, or at least many people try to do so.

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.

Suicide, really?, How, by stepping outside into the snow?

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.

Yeah, sure.

Greenpeace nutjobs...

lol

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.

Excuse me but I don't think you undestand what this is all about... Greenpeace people would not be the ones doing this to Jones.... Jones was not in opposition to Greenpeace, after all he lied, and used legal, and illegal ways to back the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) SCAM.

Phil Jones is one of the scammers who was caught, because of the leaked emails appart from other facts, where he and other AGW die-hard scientists were making up data and rigging data, and programs to claim CO2 is the cause for Climate Change...

This man called for discrediting any scientist who dared publish any research against AGW, and he discussed legal, and illegal ways to keep people in the dark, and to keep the original raw data, and programs from being disclosed to the public. He also joked about people not finding out that in the UK there is a FOIA so they could keep the AGW scam going...

Meanwhile I don't hope for his death, I do hope this man never, ever gets a job as a climatologist, or any job in science, or job with any sort of power. the same goes for the other scammers which includes Michael Mann, and many others....

He should have been fired, and the only job he should hold is working for a Wendy's, or for Office Depot as a sales associate....

He would be a good salesman since he likes to lie a lot....

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.

"Brave enough to stick their necks out".... I think you might might understand who this man is....

This man was part of the AGW SCAM to keep people in the dark and to indoctrinate them into believing in it by posting false information, rigged data, and programs. He discussed ways to discredit real scientists who dared publish any research that refutes the AGW SCAM. He even joked about changing the "peer-review process" if necessary to keep out any scientist who even just doubts the AGW SCAM, and to keep them from being able to publish in any scientific journal...

This man is an evil sob.... Sorry, just because he has a family, and a grand-daughter it doesn't make him a good man....

I don't hope for his death, but i hope he loses his job, and never holds a job in science, or any job with any sort of power.

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.

People should not lose sight of the fact that it was their taxes that paid for this guy's priveleged academic lifestyle and grants. He is every bit as guilty of fraud as the MP's who fiddled their expenses and robbed us all and should be facing jail time, not whining about how hard done by he is.

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.

Poppycock. The only real issue beyond the fantasies of the real nutjobs was not expressing full accordance with Freedom of Information requirements when bombarded with inane requests.

Can't say I blame him, given the fact that these same people have been throwing round specious claims of fraud at him and other climate scientists for over a decade.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Originally posted by melatonin
... not expressing full accordance with Freedom of Information requirements when bombarded with inane requests.

Can't say I blame him...

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?

[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.

I find their failure to routinely respond to FOI requests from opponents thoroughly unacceptable. Their suggestion to delete information is even worse. They can deem it harassment all they want, but FOI laws weren't written to give them such cover or authority. It's not about their 'convenience'.

Frankly, the unacceptable behavior of these scientists has done more to hurt their 'cause' than anything their opponents were able to drum up prior to the scandal.

Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety.

You would think 'smart' people would have that figured out.

Appearing to hide the 'truth' in a scientific context can only ever end poorly. Good luck repairing the damage. If AGW is real, it will likely take decades more to convince anyone of it.

:shk:

[edit on 7-2-2010 by loam]

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?

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.

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.

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.

climateaudit.org...

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.

The issue is that CRU have repeatedly responded to such requests by telling the requestee(s) that much of the data is already freely available, some is not originally sourced from them and cannot be released due to agreements with external sources that make $$$ from the data, and others that the data is also not from them and requests need to go to the original source (i.e., external academic data).

Indeed, the CRU and Hadley have been trying to change prior agreements with private Met Offices etc.

Given all that, they should release whatever data they can. But the issue is that they are not compelled to in such circumstances (check the FoI laws here). Furthermore, when such climate research institutions do release the majority of the data and code, nothing changes - just more mountain-like mole-hills.

This is just the pursuit of pure denialism. They are not interested in furthering science. If you think otherwise, more fool you.

So far the strongest criticism of Jones is that he said things in private emails he shouldn't (delete emails etc, I might delete data rather than give it to certain people), which are not indicative of respect of FoI laws. However, anyone who knows how university email systems work knows those deleted emails don't disappear, and he never actually deleted data.

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.



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?

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.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

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]

Hrmm, bad analogy there! If scientists only had Jesus like requirements it would be quite easy to publish! (Ol faith vs reason, evidence, scientific method thingo)

Dear ATS friends,

It is my personal feeling that we should not ostracize the scientific community for the aspirations of the elites.

Most probably what would have happened is that he would not know the real purpose for which data is being used or data is misinterpreted or he would have communicated correctly but suppressed at the top.

I empathize with the scientist and his family and as a human being I detest any kind of death threat etc being done.

This is not to take away the fact that it may have caused genocide of the world's population.

Remember to ascend we have to spread LOVE .Hatred and other -ve tendencies will keep us in the 3rd consciousness plane which is exactly what they want .It would be playing into their hands.

I hope the central message of spreading LOVE is take in the correct spirit and context and we all together can ascend to the 5th plane of consciousness

We do not want destruction of the planet for the 4th time do we?

reply to post 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.

Yet, such refusals were apparently not done in accordance with such 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.

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.

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.

It may not be fair, but you can now see the consequence of his inability to stay above the fray.

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?

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.

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.

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.

If we are destined to substantial misery because of our collective stupidity, then so be it. But understand this. Proponents and opponents alike should share in the blame. Together they have firmly secured us upon our present course-- wherever that may lead.

Originally posted by loam
Yet, such refusals were apparently not done in accordance with such law:

The comments by the ICO dude are directly related to Jones' position - the fact he said he would delete emails. He was meant to have acted as to prevent intentional disclosure - which is against the spirit of the FoI law.

You're not telling me anything I don't know.

Holland was specifically after private emails relating to IPCC business. Jones said to delete AR4-related emails. There's a simple way around this issue, because obviously private & confidential discussion between scientists is no longer an option via university systems.

If I was a climate scientist, sadly the delusions of some here are as usual way off the mark, I wouldn't bow down to these anti-science cranks either.

Their job is science, not bowing to the personal whims of fantasists.

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.

Fair enough. But as noted, the emails don't disappear even if deleted. Data is generally held for long-periods by university information services and backed up well. As we know, not always very securely.

It may not be fair, but you can now see the consequence of his inability to stay above the fray.

Not at all. If people want to be diverted by a bunch of cranks and wackos tweeting their hypnotic pied-pipes, that's their business.

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.

Well, tbh, Loam, I was pretty surprised by this and your post in the other thread. It's not a surprise to me that scientists are human - they say and do silly things, they have emotions, and get defensive when repeatedly attacked by eejits.

The issue of transparency has already been covered. Much of the data is readily available, some is not - no fault of CRU or Hadley. Which is why most requests have been repeatedly rejected.

This is nothing to do with honest science, and I'm surprised you're taking that line. 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'.

If the government wants that, they can bleedin' well fund monkeys to be ordered around by these clowns.

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?

Scientists are scientists. The point of science, AFAIC, is to gain knowledge and understanding of nature. People listen or don't. Their choice. Indeed, we have the biggest experiment ever under way - as a merciless empiricist, I'll go which ever way the masses want.

Public policy is another issue. Of course some have worried, but that's a far cry from being personally terrorised by industry-funded cranks and mental midgets.

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.

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.

A bunch of emails get stolen. The anti-science forces spend a month or so misrepresenting scientists and their words, essentially calling them frauds (which is nothing new, the same people have been doing it for over a decade). Then we have another few weeks of the same anti-science hordes picking at an obscure secondary part of the IPCC report - an area that is very poorly studied. They find a few minor errors. It snows in winter, we're suddenly 'cooling' in the warmest january for a long time coming out of the second warmest year on record.

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. If our aim is purely to play to the public gallery, then it will be a short-term problem. Reality will catch up on every one of the myopic fools.

However, I do tend to think science is more than performance art.

Proponents and opponents alike should share in the blame.

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, sociopaths, and wackos using every trick in the book - from stealing private emails to openly and explicitly misrepresenting scientists.

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 your head's at, I'll take it you're back down to earth.

Ciao.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

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.

Yet, in your previous post, you all but expressly stated that such FOI denials were appropriate:

Originally posted by melatonin
...when the requests are refused in accordance with the law.

I'm not sure you follow this issue sufficiently, Loam.

I merely pointed out that an official determination had been made that some such rejections were not in accordance with law.

Originally posted by melatonin
...emails don't disappear even if deleted...

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???

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'.

It always amazes me when people start sounding like the very thing they oppose.

I thought peer review actually required 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.

It seems to me, THAT is the precise problem we have now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:shk:

Originally posted by melatonin
Reality will catch up on every one of the myopic fools.

You may be right, but I hope you are wrong.

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.

I feel reasonably certain not all AGW opponents are "industry-funded cranks and wackos using every trick in the book."

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.

Roger that. Hope you will.

If it makes you feel better, I will do so.

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 terrific poster with amazing insight, knowledge and intelligence. But I think you're wrong on several points here.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
Yet, in your previous post, you all but expressly stated that such FOI denials were appropriate

And the vast majority are.

As I originally said, not expressing full accordance. He is merely being damned by his own words in stolen emails. Holland submits FoI for emails pertaining to IPCC business (which are actually not really university business), Jones makes statements about deleting emails relating to IPCC business.

Then you asked when are such requests ever 'inane'. I explained why they have been viewed that way - because the vast majority are, little more than vexatious time-wasting. A campaign of harassment and intimidation that climate scientists across the world have been exposed to.

I merely pointed out that an official determination had been made that some such rejections were not in accordance with law.

I'm not entirely sure this is an official pronouncement. It's a dude from the ICO saying stuff, but UEA were pretty surprised and knew nothing about them falling foul of any FoI requirement. Bit unusual for those being accused to find out in the newspapers.

I'm sure when UEA have finished their investigation we'll know more.

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???

There is no rule in a university that you can't delete emails, lol. Even the UEA FoI said he was still allowed to delete emails to save space in his mailbox.

They are only lost in the local drives. It's a pretty important point, and one that most people using such systems know very well.

It always amazes me when people start sounding like the very thing they oppose.

I thought peer review actually required self-appointed 'auditors'.

Like what? An ideologically motivated denier, crank and wacko? Shoot me.

Normally scientists are asked to peer-review due to their expertise in an area. You don't tend to get ideologically-motivated weathermen, retired engineers and ex-coal stats monkeys self-appointing themselves as McCarthy-like 'much-less-than-peer reviewers'.

It seems to me, THAT is the precise problem we have now.

Errm, yeah.

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.

In your opinion. I'm not sure that's what motivates scientists. Certainly doesn't motivate any I know of. But, yeah, academia is ideal for the money- and power-motivated...lol

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.

Glad you think you do.

:shk:

Again, must be a long-way down from up there, Loam. Be careful dude.

You may be right, but I hope you are wrong.

lol, we are about 10 years too late for decent action, we have a bunch of politicians who work in election cycles and have shown little drive for real action even in the best of times, and a populace who are know more about handbags and baseball stats than science.

Action will only get under way when the issue is staring us in the face. Later this year when we have the new warmest year on record the few who had their heads turned will be back where they were.

Cranks, nutjobs, and the ideologically-motivated wishful-thinkers will be where they always have been - in their bubbles.

You see, nothing has actually changed. The science is untouched and remains the same.

I feel reasonably certain not all AGW opponents are "industry-funded cranks and wackos using every trick in the book."

Funny. Add in ideologically-motivated, and I tend to think they are. You sort of have to be to overlook basic physics in such a blatant way and also actively deceive, deny, and delay.

I don't support misrepresentations made by anyone. Is that 'peeved' enough for you?

Yet you jumped in size 13s first in the other thread, completely ignored my point and made some rather unrelated point for whatever reason. Here, you seem a bit despairing because a scientist dare get irritated in stolen emails due to being targeted by a bunch of anti-science crusaders.

Jones is not alone in his position on these people.

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.

I know. 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.

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.

I'm not actually scorning you, Loam. Trust me. As much as you might be disappointed that I call cranks cranks, wackos wackos, and deniers deniers or don't really want to help you string up Phil Jones, I'm sort of disappointed that you seem to have lost sight here. Jones was silly, he shouldn't have said what he did how he did.

As long as we know that scientists at universities cannot have private and confidential conversations via some routes, they'll just have to find a different route. As for data, honesty, and transparency - the vast majority of the data is out there and deniers can use it when they like. The CRU will keep trying to get the data they can't release opened up at source, and the deniers will continue to whine and deceive looking to obfuscate and blow smoke.

drboli.wordpress.com...

reply to post by melatonin

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.

I don't think that is a fair characterization. I have plenty problem with the latter. It's your description of the first group as victims I can't fully agree with.

Because of their 'silly' (your term) reactions, I no longer trust that I'm dealing with honest brokers on either side of the argument.

I'm not a climatologist. Nor am I a mind reader. Can you really fault me for being surprised and angry that the supposed 'good guys' act like the 'bad guys'?

The fact of the latter does not excuse the bad behavior of the former.

I'm sorry. That's how I'm built. Nothing will convince me otherwise. I don't do victimhood too well.

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.

Welcome to the real-world. It's the one where scientists are human - they can even express a multitude of emotion. In time, we could perhaps clone your goodself, install tall stables and all will be good.

If that leads you to make any real equivalence between the pursuit of anti-science and science, more fool you. It's obviously a case of somewhere between duck and not-duck.

Ciao.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Originally posted by melatonin
In time, we could perhaps clone your goodself, install tall stables and all will be good.

Nice.

Did that make you feel better?

Originally posted by melatonin
It's obviously a case of somewhere between duck and not-duck.

Perhaps.

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.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
Nice.

Did that make you feel better?

I do quite like the metaphor. Seems pretty fitting.

You seem to be wavering between scientists being money- and power-hungry beasts and some sort of Mother Theresa figures.

If the biggest issue here is that Phil Jones said something silly in a private email about inane FOI requests from obsessive eejits which is leading you to make any sort of equivalence, methinks you've lost it.

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.

Figure what out? There's little to figure out really. The likes of Phil Jones have been harassed and intimidated by people like McIntyre and the forces of ignorance in the US and elsewhere for years.

One thing that really irritates a scientist is people dishonestly misrepresenting their work. These people have been doing it for years and labelling them frauds blah blah. Therefore, it is easily understandable why such scientists would be pretty active in doing their best to not feed the morons so they can digest their data and regurgitate a pile of misrepresented BS. Moreover, lubing and bending over in the face of their intimidation in any way whatsoever.

Indeed, McIntyre just recently did this to Keith Briffa. Harasses him for years for a set of data. Briffa tells McIntyre that the data isn't his to give him, to see the original researchers. McIntyre whines and whines about hiding data, lack of openness.

Then a few months back he produces a dog's dinner of a 'scientific' blog analysis of the data he was seeking off Briffa. This leads to the labelling of Briffa as a fraud blah blah in all the normal media outlets of denier's tripe. Amazingly we also hear from the horses mouth that McIntyre had the data for years after following Briffa's suggestion, whilst simultaneously whining about Briffa not passing it over.

This is how it works - you even have the evidence of orchestrated campaigns to swamp a research department with vexatious FOI requests. Yet you are having real issues figuring something out because Phil Jones said something silly in an email, a comment which has absolutely no impact on years of science? lol

These deniers are purely playing a PR game. Hence the palaver over a few rather innocuous emails - mein gott, they show scientists to be human!

I can understand where these scientists are coming from. It's a pity it went that route but, as noted, they are human. They are victims of a campaign of distortion, harassment, and intimidation - a well-funded industry and ideologically-motivated one.

Take care, Loam. No worries here, you're entitled to hold whatever position you like on this. Dems your worries.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by melatonin]