Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Desertphile
Jan 10, 2015, 7:14:11 PM1/10/15
to
Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
Published on Jan 9, 2015
Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
Speaker:
Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
--
America Treason Party "Logic:" one cold day proves global warming isn't happening, but 10 million
people finally affording health care insurance shows the Affordable Care Act isn't working.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
Published on Jan 9, 2015
Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
Speaker:
Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
--
America Treason Party "Logic:" one cold day proves global warming isn't happening, but 10 million
people finally affording health care insurance shows the Affordable Care Act isn't working.
Tunderbar
Jan 10, 2015, 7:57:44 PM1/10/15
to
LOL.
gordo
Jan 10, 2015, 8:36:01 PM1/10/15
to
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:21 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
>
>Published on Jan 9, 2015
>
>Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
>story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
>industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
>thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
>out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
>colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
>
>Speaker:
>Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
>The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
>
>This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
Here is the record of the slime ball,Steven J. Milloy,the worthless
<Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
>
>Published on Jan 9, 2015
>
>Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
>story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
>industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
>thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
>out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
>colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
>
>Speaker:
>Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
>The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
>
>This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
smear master.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
george152
Jan 10, 2015, 10:40:07 PM1/10/15
to
gordo
Jan 11, 2015, 2:29:28 AM1/11/15
to
be damned. There is no home . Why are they hiding who they are George?
Now trot off .
Paul Aubrin
Jan 11, 2015, 2:35:46 AM1/11/15
to
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:21 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
>
> Published on Jan 9, 2015
>
> Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
> story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
> industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
> thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
> out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me,
> my colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
> Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
>
> Published on Jan 9, 2015
>
> Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
> story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
> industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
> thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
> out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me,
> my colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
really feel the heat.
The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read, one
day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time for him
to be honest and unreserved.
gordo
Jan 11, 2015, 3:50:13 AM1/11/15
to
this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
continue with attacks on a scientists private emails that were stolen
makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 11, 2015, 5:59:59 AM1/11/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>really feel the heat.
>>The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>for him to be honest and unreserved.
>
> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
> this newsgroup .
The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
>>This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>really feel the heat.
>>The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>for him to be honest and unreserved.
>
> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
> this newsgroup .
the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
By the way, why were those emails so confidential that they decided to
erase them when they learned that they could be publicly requested to
divulge them in the case of a FOIA?
> I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails that were stolen
> makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
email, unless you explicitly mention it in the subject.
gordo
Jan 11, 2015, 12:47:44 PM1/11/15
to
Wally W.
Jan 11, 2015, 12:48:31 PM1/11/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
"private" in the sense you may be implying.
>that were stolen
>makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 11, 2015, 1:05:09 PM1/11/15
to
On 1/11/2015 2:59 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
>>> This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>> really feel the heat.
>>> The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>> one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>> for him to be honest and unreserved.
>>
>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>> this newsgroup .
>
> The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
> the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
>
> By the way, why were those emails so confidential that they decided to
> erase them when they learned that they could be publicly requested to
> divulge them in the case of a FOIA?
The content must have been very embarrassing, maybe even criminally
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
>>> This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>> really feel the heat.
>>> The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>> one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>> for him to be honest and unreserved.
>>
>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>> this newsgroup .
>
> The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
> the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
>
> By the way, why were those emails so confidential that they decided to
> erase them when they learned that they could be publicly requested to
> divulge them in the case of a FOIA?
implicating.
>> I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails that were stolen
>> makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
>
> If you send an email from your enterprise server, it is not a personal
> email, unless you explicitly mention it in the subject.
days (extremely difficult to intercept) but messages themselves are
usually stored unencrypted on servers, which can either be hacked or
copied by inside whistleblowers. The best policy is to assume you will
get hacked and just not send sensitive information by email, or encrypt
the actual content.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 11, 2015, 1:16:08 PM1/11/15
to
to the climate alarm movement. The best thing about having access to
the actual emails is the public can make up its own mind. You can see
the impact of Climategate in Google Trends, public interest in global
warming crashed after December 2009:
http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=climate%20change%2C%20global%20warming%2C%20climategate&cmpt=q&tz=
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 11, 2015, 1:16:43 PM1/11/15
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 11, 2015, 1:21:37 PM1/11/15
to
On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:16:08 AM UTC-8, Chom Noamsky wrote:" Climategate was probably the single most damaging event to ever happen to the climate alarm movement."
Na, but the avoidance of facts is the single most glaring weakness with your denialist movement, and the very fact you made the statement above shows how highly you value illogical arguments.
Na, but the avoidance of facts is the single most glaring weakness with your denialist movement, and the very fact you made the statement above shows how highly you value illogical arguments.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 11, 2015, 2:40:42 PM1/11/15
to
truncated facts. We, the sceptics, were worried, but changed our mind and
started to look at the facts by ourselves, not through the prism of self-
designated thinking masters.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 11, 2015, 2:43:55 PM1/11/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:05:01 -0800, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>> If you send an email from your enterprise server, it is not a personal
>> email, unless you explicitly mention it in the subject.
>
> Email transport goes mostly over secure protocols like TLS/SSL these
> days (extremely difficult to intercept) but messages themselves are
> usually stored unencrypted on servers, which can either be hacked or
> copied by inside whistleblowers. The best policy is to assume you will
> get hacked and just not send sensitive information by email, or encrypt
> the actual content.
Many emails are forwarded one way or another. You never know who,
>> If you send an email from your enterprise server, it is not a personal
>> email, unless you explicitly mention it in the subject.
>
> Email transport goes mostly over secure protocols like TLS/SSL these
> days (extremely difficult to intercept) but messages themselves are
> usually stored unencrypted on servers, which can either be hacked or
> copied by inside whistleblowers. The best policy is to assume you will
> get hacked and just not send sensitive information by email, or encrypt
> the actual content.
finally, will receive a copy of your email.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 11, 2015, 2:48:21 PM1/11/15
to
Paul Aubrin
Jan 11, 2015, 2:50:57 PM1/11/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:50:31 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>>continue with attacks on a scientists private emails
>
> Emails written while someone is being paid to perform work are not
> "private" in the sense you may be implying.
The climategate email were certainly not private, they were sent by
>>Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>>continue with attacks on a scientists private emails
>
> Emails written while someone is being paid to perform work are not
> "private" in the sense you may be implying.
employees by the email servers of their enterprises.
>>that were stolen makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
> Oh, look ... another ad hom from gordo ... yawn.
their revelation was a shock for the scientific community.
george152
Jan 11, 2015, 3:34:27 PM1/11/15
to
Chom Noamsky
Jan 11, 2015, 3:35:55 PM1/11/15
to
the involved scientists. One of the most damaging revelations was that
cliques of scientists will conspire to suppress contradictory research
by corrupting the peer review process.
gordo
Jan 11, 2015, 4:15:36 PM1/11/15
to
gordo
Jan 11, 2015, 4:21:55 PM1/11/15
to
investigated and we find that
Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for
Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s
until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian
think tank the Cato Institute.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
"In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker, a journalist who specializes in
science, medicine and environmental topics, reported in The New
Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments
from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that
NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil
[4]. A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of
Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should
have been disclosed."
Chom Noamsky
Jan 11, 2015, 4:43:54 PM1/11/15
to
Chom Noamsky
Jan 11, 2015, 4:52:45 PM1/11/15
to
On 1/11/2015 1:21 PM, gordo wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2015 19:50:56 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:50:31 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>>> this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>>>> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails
>>>
>>> Emails written while someone is being paid to perform work are not
>>> "private" in the sense you may be implying.
>>
>> The climategate email were certainly not private, they were sent by
>> employees by the email servers of their enterprises.
>>
>>>> that were stolen makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
>>> Oh, look ... another ad hom from gordo ... yawn.
>>
>> Gordo is well aware that, even if most of those emails were not illegal,
>> their revelation was a shock for the scientific community.
>
> Sorry. You are not getting another investigation.
No need for another investigation, the court of public opinion already
> On 11 Jan 2015 19:50:56 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:50:31 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>>> this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>>>> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails
>>>
>>> Emails written while someone is being paid to perform work are not
>>> "private" in the sense you may be implying.
>>
>> The climategate email were certainly not private, they were sent by
>> employees by the email servers of their enterprises.
>>
>>>> that were stolen makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
>>> Oh, look ... another ad hom from gordo ... yawn.
>>
>> Gordo is well aware that, even if most of those emails were not illegal,
>> their revelation was a shock for the scientific community.
>
> Sorry. You are not getting another investigation.
made up its mind. The damage to AGW alarmism has been brutal.
gordo
Jan 12, 2015, 1:40:09 AM1/12/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:35:47 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
wrote:
>On 1/11/2015 11:50 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:50:31 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>>> this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>>>> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails
>>>
>>> Emails written while someone is being paid to perform work are not
>>> "private" in the sense you may be implying.
>>
>> The climategate email were certainly not private, they were sent by
>> employees by the email servers of their enterprises.
>>
>>>> that were stolen makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
>>> Oh, look ... another ad hom from gordo ... yawn.
>>
>> Gordo is well aware that, even if most of those emails were not illegal,
>> their revelation was a shock for the scientific community.a
lordy lordy lordy we now heard that acidification is not taking place.
You are being laughed at.
wrote:
>On 1/11/2015 11:50 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:50:31 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>>> this newsgroup . I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>>>> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails
>>>
>>> Emails written while someone is being paid to perform work are not
>>> "private" in the sense you may be implying.
>>
>> The climategate email were certainly not private, they were sent by
>> employees by the email servers of their enterprises.
>>
>>>> that were stolen makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
>>> Oh, look ... another ad hom from gordo ... yawn.
>>
>> Gordo is well aware that, even if most of those emails were not illegal,
>
>The emails raised serious doubts about the impartiality and sincerity of
>the involved scientists. One of the most damaging revelations was that
>cliques of scientists will conspire to suppress contradictory research
>by corrupting the peer review process.
We know , there is no global warming, the glaciers are not melting and
>The emails raised serious doubts about the impartiality and sincerity of
>the involved scientists. One of the most damaging revelations was that
>cliques of scientists will conspire to suppress contradictory research
>by corrupting the peer review process.
lordy lordy lordy we now heard that acidification is not taking place.
You are being laughed at.
gordo
Jan 12, 2015, 1:44:57 AM1/12/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:43:48 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
wrote:
Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
wrote:
not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
Luther Eisenhart
Jan 12, 2015, 1:51:01 AM1/12/15
to
"Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:54b257ad$0$2104$426a...@news.free.fr...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
>>>This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>>really feel the heat.
>>>The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>>one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>>for him to be honest and unreserved.
>>
>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>> this newsgroup .
>
> The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
> the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
Use carrier pigeons instead? Or at least in Manhattan a hand written note
>
>>>This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>>really feel the heat.
>>>The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>>one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>>for him to be honest and unreserved.
>>
>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>> this newsgroup .
>
> The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
> the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
carried by a courier on his bike or rather an army thereof.
> By the way, why were those emails so confidential that they decided to
> erase them when they learned that they could be publicly requested to
> divulge them in the case of a FOIA?
>> I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to
>> continue with attacks on a scientists private emails that were stolen
>> makes you the grand master of hypocrisy.
>
> If you send an email from your enterprise server, it is not a personal
> email, unless you explicitly mention it in the subject.
get fired more expeditiously?
I think that a curse directed against potential hackers might be vastly more
effective.
You should definitely apply for a job in IT security at any number of large
companies and institutions, with all your other talents (physics, languages)
you will become one of their most precious assets.
Personal /private emails from work? Do you own a smart phone?
gordo
Jan 12, 2015, 2:00:02 AM1/12/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:52:35 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
wrote:
Bullshit. COP 20 has just concluded in Lima. You must have been asleep
and missed it. Oh you were still concentrating on Agenda 21 from 20
years ago. The stolen emails are old news,the hockey stick graph is
still real and Dr Mann has helped dump one of his persecutors who is
*titter* now engaged in oyster farming.
wrote:
and missed it. Oh you were still concentrating on Agenda 21 from 20
years ago. The stolen emails are old news,the hockey stick graph is
still real and Dr Mann has helped dump one of his persecutors who is
*titter* now engaged in oyster farming.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 12, 2015, 2:19:27 AM1/12/15
to
character. Claiming to be a Nobel laureate earns him buffoon status all
by itself.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 12, 2015, 2:29:39 AM1/12/15
to
Little Ice Age. It's also quite likely that humans have some impact,
although evidence is mounting that climate sensitivity is much lower
than previously believed. Only time will tell because the climate
models aren't worth a shit. No cause for alarm, save your breath to
cool your broth, old timer.
gordo
Jan 12, 2015, 1:04:43 PM1/12/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:19:19 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
Nobody shredded his work and investigations revealed he did nothing
wrong. Why do you lie?
wrong. Why do you lie?
Chom Noamsky
Jan 12, 2015, 6:26:48 PM1/12/15
to
and form opinions about Mann and his work independent from any formal
investigation. This enables people to compare notes and make up their
own minds whether the investigations were superficial whitewashes or
not. The court of public opinion is where the major damage has been
done and there's nothing alarmists can do about it.
gordo
Jan 12, 2015, 11:57:53 PM1/12/15
to
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:26:34 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
You are living in the past. It is too bad that your denial relies upon
bullshit from years ago.
bullshit from years ago.
Wally W.
Jan 13, 2015, 8:35:32 AM1/13/15
to
Chom Noamsky
Jan 13, 2015, 10:37:38 AM1/13/15
to
agenda and motivation -- one needs to go back all the way to the '60s
for full scope. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Mickey Langan
Jan 13, 2015, 10:41:38 AM1/13/15
to
"denial"?
--
Mickey
Give me a young man in whom there is something of the old,
and an old man with something of the young. -- Cicero
gordo
Jan 13, 2015, 1:45:23 PM1/13/15
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 13, 2015, 1:47:55 PM1/13/15
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 13, 2015, 1:50:54 PM1/13/15
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 13, 2015, 1:51:36 PM1/13/15
to
Paul Aubrin
Jan 17, 2015, 1:57:57 PM1/17/15
to
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:44:55 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>> Skeptic? You are a denier. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
>>
>>So is evidence of God (according to Muslims, Jews and Christians).
>
> Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
> not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
Michael Mann was not a target of climategate emails. He appears in them
>>> Skeptic? You are a denier. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
>>
>>So is evidence of God (according to Muslims, Jews and Christians).
>
> Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
> not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
incidentally.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 17, 2015, 2:06:36 PM1/17/15
to
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:04:40 -0800, gordo wrote:
> Nobody shredded his work and investigations revealed he did nothing
> wrong.
> Why do you lie?
His work was based on inappropriate mathematical techniques, he relied on
> Nobody shredded his work and investigations revealed he did nothing
> wrong.
> Why do you lie?
invalid proxies. In his iconic graph, he relied on the now famous "Mike's
nature trick" to hide the decline. He rejected the requests of scientists
who wanted his data and his computer code to reproduce his work.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 17, 2015, 2:53:00 PM1/17/15
to
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 01:43:01 -0500, Luther Eisenhart wrote:
> "Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:54b257ad$0$2104$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>>>really feel the heat.
>>>>The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>>>one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>>>for him to be honest and unreserved.
>>>
>>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>> this newsgroup .
>>
>> The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
>> the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
>
> Use carrier pigeons instead? Or at least in Manhattan a hand written
> note carried by a courier on his bike or rather an army thereof.
I just remind you of some obvious IT security rule. For your data
> "Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:54b257ad$0$2104$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:50:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
>>>>really feel the heat.
>>>>The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read,
>>>>one day, by everyone, even if it is a private email. Maybe it is time
>>>>for him to be honest and unreserved.
>>>
>>> Stop being silly Paul. You have posted some of the stupidest things in
>>> this newsgroup .
>>
>> The rule on emails is applied by every IT security conscious person in
>> the world. If it is confidential, don't send it by email.
>
> Use carrier pigeons instead? Or at least in Manhattan a hand written
> note carried by a courier on his bike or rather an army thereof.
confidentiality needs, ask a specialist.
>> By the way, why were those emails so confidential that they decided to
>> erase them when they learned that they could be publicly requested to
>> divulge them in the case of a FOIA?
>
> In order to harass you, a la McIntyre?
it is the base of the scientific method.
>>> I have seen some of them almost every day. For you to continue with
>>> attacks on a scientists private emails that were stolen makes you the
>>> grand master of hypocrisy.
>>
>> If you send an email from your enterprise server, it is not a personal
>> email, unless you explicitly mention it in the subject.
>
> Explicitly mention it in the subject that the mail is private in order
> to get fired more expeditiously?
are entitled to make a reasonable use of your phone, your mails and your
web access for some private needs.
http://www.colorado.edu/avcit/sites/default/files/attached-files/
resources.pdf
Quote
"While some personal use of IT resources is permitted, such personal use
must never interfere with academic, research, or administrative needs"
> I think that a curse directed against potential hackers might be vastly
> more effective.
potential threats.
> You should definitely apply for a job in IT security at any number of
> large companies and institutions, with all your other talents (physics,
> languages)
> you will become one of their most precious assets.
> Personal /private emails from work? Do you own a smart phone?
allow to send emails. Nowadays it would be different.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 17, 2015, 3:00:59 PM1/17/15
to
determined to tweak their findings to promote what they called their
"cause" (political aims).
"Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause."
"I would be most grateful if you would send a note of support for the
proposed Tyndall Centre should the three Research Councils involved
(NERC,
EPSRC, LSRC) agree to fund it. By doing this you will help our cause
enormously. I can assure you that we will make the results of our efforts
available to you and your colleagues. We would do this anyway, but your
positive support would give us greater joy in doing so."
Paul Aubrin
Jan 17, 2015, 3:03:21 PM1/17/15
to
melting. But all this already occurred during the Roman Period, and then
the Middle Age, with no adverse consequence (quite the opposite,
actually).
gordo
Jan 17, 2015, 11:40:40 PM1/17/15
to
are off to the middle ages. We started with how real evil people
hacked and stole private science emails and then tried to upset the
COP meeting in Copenhagen. In spite of this the member countries set a
limit on CO2 emissions.
You see Paul CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the problem and thank
gods for brave scientists like Dr. Mann who tries to defend science.
What the hell are you trying to defend?
gordo
Jan 17, 2015, 11:49:56 PM1/17/15
to
still is.
gordo
Jan 17, 2015, 11:59:01 PM1/17/15
to
and millions of dollars that it was found the scientists did nothing
wrong. Let it go Paul. You and the real bastards that tried to fool
you lost. Now they are trying to argue that 2014 was not the warmest
global temperature since records have been taken. Wow what a victory
that would be. The planet is heating up period. We know why and we
know what to do about it. Is there a reason you want to continue to
live in La La land?
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 12:08:14 AM1/18/15
to
think on the basis of what you posted we should have another
investigation? I think as an investigator snoop you lost a long time
ago. How much mileage for denial of AGW can we get from what you
posted Paul? None. The horse is dead, you beat it to death and now
you are being laughed at.
R Kym Horsell
Jan 18, 2015, 12:09:24 AM1/18/15
to
gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Expect the lies to ramp up in volume as they start to loose
their effectiveness in the mainstream media. Oil PR 101.
It will be great grist for the sociologists in 20-50 years' time.
Presuming there are still sociologists.
--
Most of the time, the [Mauna Loa] observatory experiences "baseline"
conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific
Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually
gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part
per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use
to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year
graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
-- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
their effectiveness in the mainstream media. Oil PR 101.
It will be great grist for the sociologists in 20-50 years' time.
Presuming there are still sociologists.
--
Most of the time, the [Mauna Loa] observatory experiences "baseline"
conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific
Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually
gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part
per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use
to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year
graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
-- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 12:32:42 AM1/18/15
to
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:40:36 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>There has certainly been some global-warming. Glaciers are certainly
>>melting. But all this already occurred during the Roman Period, and then
>>the Middle Age, with no adverse consequence (quite the opposite,
>>actually).
>
> Well,well, well. Acidification turns into the Roman Period and now we
> are off to the middle ages. We started with how real evil people hacked
> and stole private science emails and then tried to upset the COP meeting
> in Copenhagen. In spite of this the member countries set a limit on CO2
> emissions.
Well, well, well, this thread was about Michael Mann's emails, but you
>>There has certainly been some global-warming. Glaciers are certainly
>>melting. But all this already occurred during the Roman Period, and then
>>the Middle Age, with no adverse consequence (quite the opposite,
>>actually).
>
> Well,well, well. Acidification turns into the Roman Period and now we
> are off to the middle ages. We started with how real evil people hacked
> and stole private science emails and then tried to upset the COP meeting
> in Copenhagen. In spite of this the member countries set a limit on CO2
> emissions.
tried one of those straw man fallacies. So no, no one denies that
temperatures climbed since the little ice age, and there is a strong
evidence that they were warmer several times in the past. Ancient Romans
and Greeks ate fishes and shells.
> You see Paul CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the problem and thank gods
> for brave scientists like Dr. Mann who tries to defend science. What the
> hell are you trying to defend?
same models have been proved unable to correctly forecast temperature
trends. The proof from those models has been invalidated at the 95%
level. CO2 is not a problem, just the opposite, energy is a solution. It
drives people out of poverty.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 2:06:22 AM1/18/15
to
detailed explanation can be found here:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-
retrospective.pdf
Quote:
"There are two key parts to the hockey stick-making machine. The first is
the principal components (PC) step, and the second is the least squares
(LS) fitting step.
[...]
Mann’s PC step was programmed incorrectly and created two weird effects in
how it handled data. First, if the underlying data set was mostly random
noise, but there was one hockey stick-shaped series in the group, the
flawed PC step would isolate it out, generate a hockey stick composite and
call it the dominant pattern, even if it was just a minor background
fluctuation."
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 2:21:57 AM1/18/15
to
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:58:57 -0800, gordo wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2015 18:57:56 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:44:55 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>> Skeptic? You are a denier. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>>So is evidence of God (according to Muslims, Jews and Christians).
>>>
>>> Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
>>> not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
>>
>>Michael Mann was not a target of climategate emails. He appears in them
>>incidentally.
>
> The incidental part of the history is that after many investigations and
> millions of dollars that it was found the scientists did nothing wrong.
He did nothing actionable in the court of justice.
> On 17 Jan 2015 18:57:56 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:44:55 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>> Skeptic? You are a denier. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>>So is evidence of God (according to Muslims, Jews and Christians).
>>>
>>> Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
>>> not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
>>
>>Michael Mann was not a target of climategate emails. He appears in them
>>incidentally.
>
> The incidental part of the history is that after many investigations and
> millions of dollars that it was found the scientists did nothing wrong.
> Let it go Paul. You and the real bastards that tried to fool you lost.
evidence that the /team/ knew perfectly what they were doing when the hid
the decline, they graphted instrumental temps at the end of proxy graphs,
and used Mike's Nature trick.
No friendly investigation commission can return those facts to obscurity.
date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
from: Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>
subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
to: ???@virginia.edu
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm
trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should
make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black - Christian doesn't
make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve
separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and
legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 2:32:21 AM1/18/15
to
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:08:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>Personally, I was shocked to discover that some of those scientists were
>>determined to tweak their findings to promote what they called their
>>"cause" (political aims).
>>
>>"Mike, Rob,
>>Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause."
>>
>>"I would be most grateful if you would send a note of support for the
>> proposed Tyndall Centre should the three Research Councils involved
>>(NERC,
>> EPSRC, LSRC) agree to fund it. By doing this you will help our cause
>> enormously. I can assure you that we will make the results of our
>> efforts available to you and your colleagues. We would do this anyway,
>> but your positive support would give us greater joy in doing so."
>
> So you have some private correspondence between scientists. Did you
> think on the basis of what you posted we should have another
> investigation?
In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
>>Personally, I was shocked to discover that some of those scientists were
>>determined to tweak their findings to promote what they called their
>>"cause" (political aims).
>>
>>"Mike, Rob,
>>Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause."
>>
>>"I would be most grateful if you would send a note of support for the
>> proposed Tyndall Centre should the three Research Councils involved
>>(NERC,
>> EPSRC, LSRC) agree to fund it. By doing this you will help our cause
>> enormously. I can assure you that we will make the results of our
>> efforts available to you and your colleagues. We would do this anyway,
>> but your positive support would give us greater joy in doing so."
>
> So you have some private correspondence between scientists. Did you
> think on the basis of what you posted we should have another
> investigation?
politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates for
a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when the
models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
So they promoted their non-validated hypothesis to the level of a
scientific truth in order to forward their "cause". Maybe they had
excuses then, they supposed they were right. Those excuses don't hold any
more for you /now/.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 18, 2015, 2:45:02 AM1/18/15
to
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 11:32:21 PM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:08:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
> >>Personally, I was shocked to discover that some of those scientists were
> >>determined to tweak their findings to promote what they called their
> >>"cause" (political aims).
> >>
> >>"Mike, Rob,
> >>Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause."
> >>
> >>"I would be most grateful if you would send a note of support for the
> >> proposed Tyndall Centre should the three Research Councils involved
> >>(NERC,
> >> EPSRC, LSRC) agree to fund it. By doing this you will help our cause
> >> enormously. I can assure you that we will make the results of our
> >> efforts available to you and your colleagues. We would do this anyway,
> >> but your positive support would give us greater joy in doing so."
> >
> > So you have some private correspondence between scientists. Did you
> > think on the basis of what you posted we should have another
> > investigation?
>
> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
> those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates for
> a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when the
> models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they have some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts declaring truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than you giving yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is funny
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:08:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
> >>Personally, I was shocked to discover that some of those scientists were
> >>determined to tweak their findings to promote what they called their
> >>"cause" (political aims).
> >>
> >>"Mike, Rob,
> >>Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause."
> >>
> >>"I would be most grateful if you would send a note of support for the
> >> proposed Tyndall Centre should the three Research Councils involved
> >>(NERC,
> >> EPSRC, LSRC) agree to fund it. By doing this you will help our cause
> >> enormously. I can assure you that we will make the results of our
> >> efforts available to you and your colleagues. We would do this anyway,
> >> but your positive support would give us greater joy in doing so."
> >
> > So you have some private correspondence between scientists. Did you
> > think on the basis of what you posted we should have another
> > investigation?
>
> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
> those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates for
> a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when the
> models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 4:25:44 AM1/18/15
to
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:45:00 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
>> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
>> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
>> those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates
>> for a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when
>> the models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
>
> Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill
> argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your
> avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they have
> some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts declaring
> truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than you giving
> yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is funny
There is no mountain, nor mole hill here, but elements of appreciation.
>> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
>> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
>> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
>> those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates
>> for a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when
>> the models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
>
> Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill
> argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your
> avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they have
> some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts declaring
> truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than you giving
> yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is funny
Those persons promoted their political activists' views, based on their
suppositions as scientists. The predictions based on those views
(hypothesis), represented by their models, are been shown unfit to
forecast temperature trends by a factor of 2 or 3 (200%-300% error). The
climategate emails are a invaluable insight into their political mindset.
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 4:50:06 AM1/18/15
to
in science there is no proof? You are dismissed Paul. You can now get
out of the stupid chair and go hide under a rock. For your homework
you could take a free on line course on AGW offered by the best
universities in the world.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 7:53:00 AM1/18/15
to
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:50:02 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>> You see Paul CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the problem and thank
>>> gods for brave scientists like Dr. Mann who tries to defend science.
>>> What the hell are you trying to defend?
>>
>>Your proof that CO2 is a problem relied on simulations from models.
>>Those same models have been proved unable to correctly forecast
>>temperature trends. The proof from those models has been invalidated at
>>the 95% level. CO2 is not a problem, just the opposite, energy is a
>>solution. It drives people out of poverty.
>
> What proof that CO2 is a problem?How many times must you be told that in
> science there is no proof? You are dismissed Paul.
There can be proofs that some hypothesis are false: those which are
>>> You see Paul CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the problem and thank
>>> gods for brave scientists like Dr. Mann who tries to defend science.
>>> What the hell are you trying to defend?
>>
>>Your proof that CO2 is a problem relied on simulations from models.
>>Those same models have been proved unable to correctly forecast
>>temperature trends. The proof from those models has been invalidated at
>>the 95% level. CO2 is not a problem, just the opposite, energy is a
>>solution. It drives people out of poverty.
>
> What proof that CO2 is a problem?How many times must you be told that in
> science there is no proof? You are dismissed Paul.
unable to make valid forecasts.
The evidence that CO2 is a problem came from models. Since the time they
were used to make this prediction, 95% of those models proved to be
unable to forecast the future temperature trend. The suppositions made
using those model sets are invalidated by observations.
> You can now get out
> of the stupid chair and go hide under a rock. For your homework you
> could take a free on line course on AGW offered by the best universities
> in the world.
interesting. A course in AGW , which presupposes some human guilt, is
approximately as useful as a course in astrology.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 18, 2015, 9:19:54 AM1/18/15
to
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 1:25:44 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:45:00 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> >> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
> >> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
> >> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
> >> those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates
> >> for a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when
> >> the models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
> >
> > Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill
> > argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your
> > avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they have
> > some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts declaring
> > truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than you giving
> > yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is funny
>
> There is no mountain, nor mole hill here, but elements of appreciation.
.
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:45:00 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> >> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
> >> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
> >> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice of
> >> those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were advocates
> >> for a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was disproved when
> >> the models which exemplified them diverged from observation.
> >
> > Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill
> > argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your
> > avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they have
> > some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts declaring
> > truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than you giving
> > yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is funny
>
> There is no mountain, nor mole hill here, but elements of appreciation.
Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
Wally W.
Jan 18, 2015, 11:24:50 AM1/18/15
to
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 05:09:20 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell wrote:
>gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2015 19:06:35 GMT, Paul /D\ubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:04:40 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>>> Nobody shredded his work and investigations revealed he did nothing
>>>> wrong.
>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>His work was based on inappropriate mathematical techniques, he relied on
>>>invalid proxies. In his iconic graph, he relied on the now famous "Mike's
>>>nature trick" to hide the decline. He rejected the requests of scientists
>>>who wanted his data and his computer code to reproduce his work.
>> Why are you still lying? His data from 15 years ago was on line and
>> still is.
>
>Expect the lies to ramp up in volume as they start to loose
>their effectiveness in the mainstream media. Oil PR 101.
>It will be great grist for the sociologists in 20-50 years' time.
>Presuming there are still sociologists.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
>gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2015 19:06:35 GMT, Paul /D\ubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:04:40 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>>> Nobody shredded his work and investigations revealed he did nothing
>>>> wrong.
>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>His work was based on inappropriate mathematical techniques, he relied on
>>>invalid proxies. In his iconic graph, he relied on the now famous "Mike's
>>>nature trick" to hide the decline. He rejected the requests of scientists
>>>who wanted his data and his computer code to reproduce his work.
>> Why are you still lying? His data from 15 years ago was on line and
>> still is.
>
>Expect the lies to ramp up in volume as they start to loose
>their effectiveness in the mainstream media. Oil PR 101.
>It will be great grist for the sociologists in 20-50 years' time.
>Presuming there are still sociologists.
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
Wally W.
Jan 18, 2015, 11:36:37 AM1/18/15
to
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:58:57 -0800, gordo wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2015 18:57:56 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:44:55 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>> Skeptic? You are a denier. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>>So is evidence of God (according to Muslims, Jews and Christians).
>>>
>>> Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
>>> not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
>>
>>Michael Mann was not a target of climategate emails. He appears in them
>>incidentally.
>
>The incidental part of the history is that after many investigations
>and millions of dollars that it was found the scientists did nothing
>wrong.
Define "wrong."
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:44:55 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>> Skeptic? You are a denier. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>>So is evidence of God (according to Muslims, Jews and Christians).
>>>
>>> Take that up with them. Michael Mann and how he was targeted and did
>>> not lie down and play dead is the topic of the thread.
>>
>>Michael Mann was not a target of climategate emails. He appears in them
>>incidentally.
>
>The incidental part of the history is that after many investigations
>and millions of dollars that it was found the scientists did nothing
>wrong.
>Let it go Paul.
Why?
>You and the real bastards that tried to fool you lost.
>Now they are trying to argue that 2014 was not the warmest
>global temperature since records have been taken. Wow what a victory
>that would be.
Haven't you heard ... climatologists concern themselves with trends
over periods of at least thirty years.
On the other hand, politicians salivate over an 8-second sound bite.
The AGW ruse is a political scam that needs daily hype.
>The planet is heating up period.
>We know why and we know what to do about it.
Was your trip a few weeks ago consistent with what you say should be
done about it?
Wally W.
Jan 18, 2015, 11:40:59 AM1/18/15
to
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:40:36 -0800, gordo wrote:
>What the hell are you trying to defend?
training, climate "scientists," useful idiots, and religious-zealot
greenies.
Wally W.
Jan 18, 2015, 11:48:40 AM1/18/15
to
>Did you
>think on the basis of what you posted we should have another
>investigation?
Do you not draw the conclusion that something other than pure devotion
to science was in play?
>I think as an investigator snoop you lost a long time ago.
>How much mileage for denial of AGW can we get from what you
>posted Paul?
You should want validation for the claims that the sky is falling and
we're all gonna die. Lacking that, you spew ad homs and diversions.
>None. The horse is dead, you beat it to death and now
>you are being laughed at.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 12:53:24 PM1/18/15
to
activist that they are self annihilating.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 18, 2015, 1:45:31 PM1/18/15
to
Suddenly when I read some of the climategate documents, I realised that
some of those climate scientists were as serious as those supposed
dentists who promote new tooth paste in TV advertisements: pretentious
sales persons with a pseudo-scientific speech.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 18, 2015, 1:55:32 PM1/18/15
to
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 06:19:52 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 1:25:44 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:45:00 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
> >> >> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
> >> >> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice
> >> >> of those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were
> >> >> advocates for a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was
> >> >> disproved when the models which exemplified them diverged from
> >> >> observation.
> >> >
> >> > Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill
> >> > argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your
> >> > avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they
> >> > have some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts
> >> > declaring truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than
> >> > you giving yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is
> >> > funny
> >>
> >> There is no mountain, nor mole hill here, but elements of appreciation.
> > .
> >
> > Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can
> > effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
>
> You certainly have a political agenda, I have none.
Profiteers like you will advantageously utilize any argument, does not matter if its pure gossip or not, your agenda is simply greed.
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 06:19:52 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 1:25:44 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:45:00 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In the present instance, they were not acting as scientists, but as
> >> >> politicians devoted to their "cause". It is not a fault, but must be
> >> >> known by any person who takes political decision based on the advice
> >> >> of those persons. They were not neutral scientists, they were
> >> >> advocates for a political cause. Since then, their hypothesis was
> >> >> disproved when the models which exemplified them diverged from
> >> >> observation.
> >> >
> >> > Na, but it seems you think highly of your mountain out of a mole hill
> >> > argument. Im curious, do you apply the same, moral test, to your
> >> > avoidance of the facts? People like you often like to think they
> >> > have some sort of platform for your rants, but your previous posts
> >> > declaring truth was not needed in this group was nothing more than
> >> > you giving yourself a free pass for your own bs. Keep it up, this is
> >> > funny
> >>
> >> There is no mountain, nor mole hill here, but elements of appreciation.
> > .
> >
> > Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can
> > effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
>
> You certainly have a political agenda, I have none.
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 2:33:31 PM1/18/15
to
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 2:54:17 PM1/18/15
to
components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The
analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers
including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors
in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods
and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus
shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how
flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears
McKitrick is a shill and up until a short time ago was preaching all
about the pause that never was.
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 2:57:36 PM1/18/15
to
up and everyone knows it.
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 3:03:11 PM1/18/15
to
lost.
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 3:05:26 PM1/18/15
to
strangers over their private correspondence.
>
gordo
Jan 18, 2015, 3:09:00 PM1/18/15
to
the planet is heating up?
Wally W.
Jan 18, 2015, 3:26:22 PM1/18/15
to
>You are being laughed at.
comparabel to Dawlish?
>The planet is heating up
>and everyone knows it.
Except those who are immune to the "repetition makes it True" tactic.
Wally W.
Jan 18, 2015, 3:30:50 PM1/18/15
to
I haven't seen you post whether you paid carbon offsets for your
recent trip. Isn't that one of the "we know what to do about it"
actions?
You call for "action" against climate change. Was paying carbon
offsets one of your "actions" during your trip?
Chom Noamsky
Jan 18, 2015, 7:49:32 PM1/18/15
to
that you've wasted five years on that one.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 18, 2015, 11:28:27 PM1/18/15
to
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/reply.ammann.pdf
gordo
Jan 19, 2015, 4:45:24 AM1/19/15
to
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:28:24 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
wrote:
No You still get your science from unreliable sources. The 15 year
old attack against Dr. Mann is over. Payback time as he helped get rid
of a politician who now is trying to raise oysters. Dr Ball and a
couple of other creeps are now in the crosshairs. What a man, you have
to admire him.
wrote:
old attack against Dr. Mann is over. Payback time as he helped get rid
of a politician who now is trying to raise oysters. Dr Ball and a
couple of other creeps are now in the crosshairs. What a man, you have
to admire him.
Wally W.
Jan 19, 2015, 10:14:18 AM1/19/15
to
science-by-the-pound deli? How do you distinguish it from the mystery
meat in your fridge?
Some people acquire scientific awareness through study. Had I known
about the deli, chemistry classes could have been much easier.
>The 15 year old attack against Dr. Mann is over.
>Payback time as he helped get rid
>of a politician
>who now is trying to raise oysters. Dr Ball and a
>couple of other creeps are now in the crosshairs.
>What a man, you have to admire him.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 12:00:17 PM1/19/15
to
When researchers discuss how not to do reconstructions they cite Mann's
work.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 12:15:34 PM1/19/15
to
public trust in climate research was destroyed by the Climategate
emails. Public polling support numbers have never recovered to the high
they held in 2007, back when AR4 was released. The scandal was pivotal
because the world got a peek into the level of corruption in the climate
research community.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 12:17:36 PM1/19/15
to
reason for existence.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 12:39:02 PM1/19/15
to
research community. Suspicions of bias and corruption were confirmed,
public trust in climate research was substantially eroded. Support for
"climate action" dropped significantly after and has never recovered.
To claim that Climategate wasn't highly damaging to the reputation of
the research community shows just how detached from reality alarmists
have become.
george152
Jan 19, 2015, 2:00:42 PM1/19/15
to
On 20/01/2015 6:15 a.m., Chom Noamsky wrote:
> Actually, it was a major victory for skeptics. A substantial amount of
> public trust in climate research was destroyed by the Climategate
> emails. Public polling support numbers have never recovered to the high
> they held in 2007, back when AR4 was released. The scandal was pivotal
> because the world got a peek into the level of corruption in the climate
> research community.
Up until the 'release' I just ignored the global warming claims.
> Actually, it was a major victory for skeptics. A substantial amount of
> public trust in climate research was destroyed by the Climategate
> emails. Public polling support numbers have never recovered to the high
> they held in 2007, back when AR4 was released. The scandal was pivotal
> because the world got a peek into the level of corruption in the climate
> research community.
After the 'release' I have maintained that no matter what they call it
global warming, climate change or whatever it is its a crock and like
all the other 'scientific' crocks will die a natural death when reality
doesn't match the claims
gordo
Jan 19, 2015, 2:35:52 PM1/19/15
to
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:00:10 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
You lie.
gordo
Jan 19, 2015, 2:38:50 PM1/19/15
to
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:15:25 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
wrote:
People who claim corruption are the same bastards who took private
emails and posted them out of context. It is over and done.
wrote:
emails and posted them out of context. It is over and done.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 3:26:29 PM1/19/15
to
acceptable in our society.
gordo
Jan 19, 2015, 4:48:33 PM1/19/15
to
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:26:26 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
There was no whisleblowing and 9 investigations on 2 continents found
that the scientists did nothing wrong.
that the scientists did nothing wrong.
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 8:03:42 PM1/19/15
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 19, 2015, 8:46:17 PM1/19/15
to
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=36352
Chom Noamsky
Jan 19, 2015, 9:58:09 PM1/19/15
to
protest in a fur coat. One can apparently be enraged about animal skin
apparel while at the same time wearing animal skin apparel. Just
substitute animal skins for fossil fuels and you are Bridget Bardot.
gordo
Jan 19, 2015, 11:06:42 PM1/19/15
to
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:03:39 -0800, Chom Noamsky <turd...@er.yummy>
>> that the scientists did nothing wrong.in
case of 9/11 it was carried out in the name of religion while the
stolen emails were done in the name of greed. Stolen emails are old
news and few people even know what you are talking about.
>
>
>
>The court of public opinion wasn't so friendly.
It can be compared to 9/11 where damage was done by radicals .In the
>The court of public opinion wasn't so friendly.
case of 9/11 it was carried out in the name of religion while the
stolen emails were done in the name of greed. Stolen emails are old
news and few people even know what you are talking about.
>
>
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 19, 2015, 11:10:43 PM1/19/15
to
Chom Noamsky
Jan 20, 2015, 12:02:29 AM1/20/15
to
Desertphile
Jan 22, 2015, 12:09:06 PM1/22/15
to
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:35:57 -0800, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:21 -0700, Desertphile
> <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
> >
> >Published on Jan 9, 2015
> >
> >Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
> >story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
> >industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
> >thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
> >out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
> >colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
> >
> >Speaker:
> >Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
> >The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
> >
> >This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
> Here is the record of the slime ball,Steven J. Milloy,the worthless
> smear master.
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
That brings up a good question: are there *ANY* scientists who believe
"climategate" happened?
--
America Treason Party "Logic:" one cold day proves global warming isn't happening, but 10 million
people finally affording health care insurance shows the Affordable Care Act isn't working.
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:21 -0700, Desertphile
> <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
> >
> >Published on Jan 9, 2015
> >
> >Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
> >story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
> >industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
> >thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
> >out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
> >colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
> >
> >Speaker:
> >Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
> >The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
> >
> >This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
> Here is the record of the slime ball,Steven J. Milloy,the worthless
> smear master.
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
That brings up a good question: are there *ANY* scientists who believe
"climategate" happened?
--
America Treason Party "Logic:" one cold day proves global warming isn't happening, but 10 million
people finally affording health care insurance shows the Affordable Care Act isn't working.
Desertphile
Jan 22, 2015, 12:10:04 PM1/22/15
to
On 11 Jan 2015 07:35:45 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:21 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
> >
> > Published on Jan 9, 2015
> >
> > Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
> > story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
> > industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
> > thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
> > out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
> > colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
> >
> > Speaker:
> > Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
> > The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
> >
> > This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
> This distinguished self proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize is starting to
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:21 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael E. Mann's Hacked Email Story
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaU1M-LA6Uw
> >
> > Published on Jan 9, 2015
> >
> > Penn State Meteorology Professor and Author Michael E. Mann tells the
> > story of waking up to find his email has been hacked by the fossil fuel
> > industry. "Various emails of mine have been cherry picked from the
> > thousands of stolen emails. Individual words and phrases have been taken
> > out of context to misrepresent the content of the emails to malign me, my
> > colleagues, and climate research itself," says Mann.
> >
> > Speaker:
> > Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State University; Author,
> > The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
> >
> > This program was recorded before a live audience on December 16, 2014.
> really feel the heat.
Huh?
> The rule when you write an email is to suppose that it could be read, one
> day, by everyone, even if it is a private email.
Huh? The subject is stolen emails.
> Maybe it is time for him to be honest and unreserved.
Yeah: he did that already. So?
Paul Aubrin
Jan 31, 2015, 8:10:03 AM1/31/15
to
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:14:28 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> Here is the record of the slime ball,Steven J. Milloy,the worthless
>> smear master.
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
>
> That brings up a good question: are there *ANY* scientists who believe
> "climategate" happened?
There seem to be quite a number of them, one example:
>> Here is the record of the slime ball,Steven J. Milloy,the worthless
>> smear master.
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
>
> That brings up a good question: are there *ANY* scientists who believe
> "climategate" happened?
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/01/the-legacy-of-climategate-5-years-later/
"I’ve been in touch all week with Judith Curry, a seasoned climate
scientist at Georgia Tech with a particular focus on hurricanes and
warming. She has no skepticism about a growing human influence on
climate. But she has split with many of her peers and frequently engages
a certain batch of climate skeptics (most notably Stephen McIntyre). She
says she’s deeply troubled by the tribal nature of some subsets of the
climate science community and what she sees as ill-advised stonewalling
on releasing data and interpretations of data for review and independent
analysis. "
The content of the FOIA.zip archive is here:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
Here, for example, a mail from Neil Leary explicating the rules to use
non-peer reviewed sources for the IPCC reports, he had a better knowledge
of the rules than Mr. Pachaury.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3061.txt&search=peer+review
"Critically assess the quality and validity of the informtion you intend
to include in your chapter. Don't just cite results from non-peer reviewed
sources without assessing their quality and validity. "
Maybe you should follow this rule too. Before posting hastily in this
group, you could (you should) critically assess the quality of the
information you intend to forward to the group.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 31, 2015, 8:31:53 AM1/31/15
to
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:38:48 -0800, gordo wrote:
> People who claim corruption are the same bastards who took private
> emails and posted them out of context. It is over and done.
2,500 files, 200 Mo, that makes a lot of context. I you are in doubt of
> People who claim corruption are the same bastards who took private
> emails and posted them out of context. It is over and done.
the context, it is available here:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
You are free to show us how the context changed your opinion.
Example: travesty
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=travesty
Decline
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=decline
Nature trick:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=nature+trick
You may like to look for context in the document folder too, it is
available here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/
You will find the HARRY_READ_ME.txt log.
the http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/documents/
harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro program
"; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=
[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'"
The context is available.
Paul Aubrin
Jan 31, 2015, 8:38:00 AM1/31/15
to
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:55:31 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>> > Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can
>> > effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
>>
>> You certainly have a political agenda, I have none.
>
> Profiteers like you will advantageously utilize any argument, does not
> matter if its pure gossip or not, your agenda is simply greed.
Greed? what will I get if I succeed exposing how hysterical AGW fear is?
Nothing. You have a political agenda (a US political agenda). I have none.
>> > Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can
>> > effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
>>
>> You certainly have a political agenda, I have none.
>
> Profiteers like you will advantageously utilize any argument, does not
> matter if its pure gossip or not, your agenda is simply greed.
Greed? what will I get if I succeed exposing how hysterical AGW fear is?
Nothing. You have a political agenda (a US political agenda). I have none.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jan 31, 2015, 8:48:34 AM1/31/15
to
Paul Aubrin
Feb 7, 2015, 3:29:36 PM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 05:48:32 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:38:00 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:55:31 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can
>> >> > effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
>> >>
>> >> You certainly have a political agenda, I have none.
>> >
>> > Profiteers like you will advantageously utilize any argument, does
>> > not matter if its pure gossip or not, your agenda is simply greed.
>>
>> Greed? what will I get if I succeed exposing how hysterical AGW fear
>> is? Nothing. You have a political agenda (a US political agenda). I
>> have none.
>
> Laughing, would not expect you to be honest, nor am in interested in
> your personal investments or the industries you represent in court.
Personal investments? Industries I represent in court? Which industry?
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:38:00 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:55:31 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Laughing, you mean more like keeping a dead topic going so you can
>> >> > effect the polls in advancing your political agenda.
>> >>
>> >> You certainly have a political agenda, I have none.
>> >
>> > Profiteers like you will advantageously utilize any argument, does
>> > not matter if its pure gossip or not, your agenda is simply greed.
>>
>> Greed? what will I get if I succeed exposing how hysterical AGW fear
>> is? Nothing. You have a political agenda (a US political agenda). I
>> have none.
>
> Laughing, would not expect you to be honest, nor am in interested in
> your personal investments or the industries you represent in court.
Which court? Can you make your fabrications more explicit?
> Your political agenda floats with the winds of profits, kind of like
> when investors rally because a company has reduced its outgo by laying
> off workers. Its nothing new, the worst part of human nature, greed.
clearer?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages