Note to AP: A theft is not a "leak"
November 22, 2009 5:43 pm ET by Terry Krepel
From a November 22 Associated Press article:
If the email was "stolen by hackers," it's not exactly a "leak," is it?
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Glad that you at least caught that and realize that a CRIME is not a LEAK.
Congrats, PoV & Oscar ... birds of a feather ...
There was both leakage and theft in both cases, so I think MMFA's really being ticky-tacky in this case. As far as the e-mails, the thief and the leak could be the same person(s). Not so in Jim McDermott's case.
McDermott paid a very stiff price for what he did, as he should have. The voters will decide if that price includes his job.
The e-mail theft concerns the health of our planet. I consider that just a tiny bit more important than the careers of Gringrich, McDermott, or any other Washington bureaucrat.
It's now clear that global warming deniers will let nothing, not even the law, stand in the way of protecting the windfalls of the fossil fuels industry.
You don't live on Planet Earth, do you? Because here on Earth, two wrongs don't make a right, and the excuse that other people did it too doesn't excuse a wrong.
As the facts emerge we'll find that this was a wistle-blower that simply got tired of the lies, distortions unscientific "facts" espoused by these climate money grubbers... pathetic
As far as evidence on global warming emerging, the critics, driven by fossil-fuel industry money and hatred for Democrats, have continuously come up empty for many years now.
What saying that it's a leak, versus saying that it's a theft, is the simple fact that saying that they were leaked fails to acknowledge that they were stolen by hackers!
This is really very simple. I am baffled as to how it could have confused you, gs425. You must be one of the stupiest persons who has ever posted here if you can understand the distinction between something that's stolen and something that's leaked, and how falsely describing them as being leaked in the headline would lead someone to the wrong impression if all they did was to skim headlines, which we know many people do!
The headline, in fact, no headline, could EVER change the validity of the emails or the the criticism of the emails! No one ever claimed that it could though - that's your strawman argument that you knocked down.
What challenges the validity of the criticism of the emails are facts.
The criticism is invalid, as has been explained elsewhere.
Please note that GoreViDelly is a rabid AGW cultist who cannot be trusted as a legitimate balanced voice. She is a documented fabricator who hoped for my early demise because of my "denier" beliefs. For the back story, look here (search "drown"), here (search "pathological"), here (search "jokingly"), and here for the kicker (search "hyperbole").
As has been explained elsewhere, the criticism of the emails is quite valid. Perhaps you could actually put down Gore's new book and your Larry doll and read them before making your ridiculous claims.
crooked, lying money grubbers have been exposed. algore and company are probably really furious now. Let's see algore go crazy...
They didn't get hacked, they were victim of a wistle-blower...
Unfortunately, a lot of the public is going to get what somebody tells them is in them, based on what Rush Limbaugh thinks is in them.
Yes. because statements such as:
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline" need to be explained. Even the most repugnant and misinformed individuals such as myself doesn't need for that to be interpreted or "put into context".
Both Micheal Mann and Keith Briffa had been challenged for years to produce their data, methods, and source code....I wonder why they never did. Any ideas??
Well, I guess that I must be pretty repugnant and misinformed then. what is your issue with the statement? It seems pretty innoucuous to me.
Interesting.
The "hide the decline" phrase to me says that after using real temps in the data that it no longer showed a decline.
But; again, global warming, climate change whatever you want to call it, can never be "proven" until after the fact. If we wait one hundred years to see what is really going to happen, it will probably be too late to do anything.
By the way, sorry about the spelling issue, typing dyslexia is in full force this morning.
However, with the ramifications that a Cap and Trade bill would have on the economy, I am not willing to rely on the scientific version of "Pascals Wager". I am more of a 'watch what they do, not what they say' type of person, so when any sort of skepticism is meet not with debate, but with ridicule, demonizing and marginalization, I tend to think something is amiss.
so when any sort of skepticism is meet not with debate, but with ridicule, demonizing and marginalization,
Yup, that does sum up some of the history of science and scientific views, especially when someones else view does not meet the majority opinion. The only good thing is that it isn't quite as bad as it used to be. (maybe not much but; some)
On topic:
The issue here is that someone hack their files and then "leaked(?)" select emails to the media.
Then others are using these emails to make their point, not even considering that the emails are being taken out of context, etc.
If we want to have a debate, that's great but; let's be honest about it.
(OK I know that is asking a LOT now and days)
Apparently , you don't want to understand. I didn't provide that link just to kill time, but to help you out.If you had read the item and the comments, you'd understand.
Remember this, the next time you whine that somebody isn't responding to you, or providing support for their statements. You've shown that you'll ignore information in order to hang onto the spin you've been fed.
People don't like to have their time wasted.
go ahead, let algore and his fake science tell you what to believe... pathetic...
These e-mails show that the data has been intentionally changed in order to show different results.
The e-mails also show attempts to prevent the press from publishing articles that question man made global warming and to prevent papers that challenge the global warming theory from being peer reviewed.
They are very revealing. Shows how many of the premier global warming alarmists operate. Hiding data, erasing data, changing data. Might I add "cherry picking data". Look how much money these fellows get from (renewable) energy companies and the government, all this should come as no surprise, just follow the money.
See more information on them here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/
Your text to link here...
Furthermore, the authenticity of these files has yet to be confirmed (and I don't believe there's any evidence contained in these files of truly nefarious behavior like intentionally publishing false data or something), and the actions of those who obtained them are highly illegal. They should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I am assuming, however, that these files do not contain any admission that global warming is, in fact, a giant hoax, promoted tirelessly by the lowly progressives of the world as we blindly follow the orders of our evil, socialist leader George Soros.
and while they may not say "GW is a hoax" they do discuss how to perpetuate the "hoax". Hoax is a bad word as a hoax is by definition funny. This isn't funny...
Newtongate