Re: Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

[Michael Graham <jmgraham () gmail com>]

Climate change science is wrong and I don't believe their research
results say what the "scientists" claim they say.  Also I am
completely unqualified to have an opinion on the basics involved.

-emails get leaked-

Wait no only the numbers they want to show us are wrong!  The numbers
they have CONSPIRED to hide from us are correct!

THIS PROVES THAT THE SCIENCE, WHICH I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND, IS WRONG
BY IT HAVING THE RIGHT NUMBERS AS OUTLIERS AND THE WRONG NUMBERS AS
CONFIRMED AND THE SCIENTISTS BEING WORRIED ABOUT IDIOTS LIKE ME USING
THE OUTLIERS TO CONFUSE PEOPLE!

I know, let's open wide ranging and unqualified debate on this and
therefore confuse as many people as possible so nothing actually
happens based on these WRONG SCIENCE CONSPIRACIES!

---------------------

Here's the thing.  Debate on the specifics is only useful when it
involves only qualified parties and perhaps outsiders who can relate
the events to those unqualified to form their own opinions on the
subject.  I don't invite the interns working on the SAN to debate the
finer points of a detailed risk analysis.  They don't have the context
to understand the terminology and while they probably think they're
plenty smart to be involved, they're wrong.  So are you.

One of the great lies of the internet is that we're all geniuses who
can be involved with any subject through enough research on google.
Well we're not and the inability to know when you're not qualified to
form your own opinion on something is probably the best indicator that
you should be ignored on anything and everything outside your core
experience.

Even if you are smart enough, even if you are willing to spend
LITERALLY WEEKS researching the subject, in this subject you are
functionally retarded when compared to people who have spent 20+ years
doing hard data research on the subject.



On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Gadi Evron:
> >
> > > Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > > > I look down with contempt on the inferior creatures who are dumb enough
> > > > to fall for this denialist nonsense.  They belong with the creationists,
> > > Dude, some of it is obviously out of context, and some of it can be
> > > explained away as terminology. But some emails CLEARLY state to delete
> > > data for the sole purpose of hiding it from the denialist "idiots",
> > > rather than any other reason. The emails have been verified as true.
> >
> > They must be a very happy bunch indeed if they care more about the
> > denialists than about their funding.
>
> Politics is a fact of life, and taking it into consideration is fine.
> However, plain lying is an issue.
>
> Take vaccinations for example. They are in the vast majority safe, and
> if the populaton isn't innoculated, rather than the person, shit
> happens. And yet the entire industry just insists they are PERFECTLY
> SAFE. NO RISKS. NO DISCUSSION. Any discussion will make less people
> innoculate, which is counter-productive for them and makes their agenda
> very clear, noble, and extremely annoying.
>
> That's not the case here. Here, some of the examples give are taken
> completely out of context. But in some, they plain lied. They got
> caught. Tough. Whine whine whine but they are the bad guys now.
>
> > Perhaps scientists tend to have quite different ethical standards,
> > maimed by the unique kinds of compromises which life forces upon them.
> > I once witnessed a few people submitting a CS conference paper which
> > was cute, cleverly dressed BS, and when I pointed this out, they told
> > me that the program committee would never notice it, and all would be
> > fine.  They were right, they didn't notice, and the paper was
> > accepted.  (This was for a real conference, not some multi-sciency
> > fraud.)
>
> Catching such bs in papers is a past-time for me. Such as basing nearly
> all references on the first reference, with the last one retracting it.
> Where this first one was the only relevant research.
>
>        Gadi.
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.