Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!
You say you've "read about" the CRU emails. Rather than making up your mind on second hand opinion why don't you investigate the source?
Kate has a very nice ability for such things. The FOIA.ZIP_2009 files contain 1,072 emails in chronological order using the integer equivalent of the Linux time stamp (the emails were on Linux servers). You can open Kate and using its FIle-->Open dialog navigate to the subdirectory where the unzipped files are. Select ALL 1,072 emails. They will appear in the side panel. You can click on one and read its contents in the right panel. BUT, if you open a search bar and enter a phrase, like "hide", or "trick", or "destroy", or "conceal" and then do the search a panel will open beneath the text panel listing all of the emails that phrase appears in by showing the name of the email, the line the phrase is on, the the words surrounding the phrase. If you click on a line it will open up in the text panel and you can read the email.
Another thing about the emails is that often the CRU folks would top post over a received email, repeatedly. By reading a particular email from the bottom up one can follow the flow of the discussion without losing that all important "context", which is what the CRU folks are always claiming that "deniers" do.
IF you don't want to use Kate then you can use the Konsole and issue a command:
which, in this example, searches for occurrences of the word "hide", using your own paths, of course.
Doing that you can make an informed opinion as to the veracity of the work being done by the CRU.
Stupid behavior? To say the least!! But, it is their veracity, not their stupidity, that is being questioned. Mistakes? That would be hard to believe after you've read the HARRY_README.txt file, or the *.DOC files that contain the contracts that promise "deliverables" to prove AGW on milestone dates for specific sums of money. It's hard to toss 30 years of temperature data by "mistake" and then create synthetic (their words, not mine) data out of thin air, in order to support the hockey stick graph. HARRY shows how they did that. It's a VERY detailed look into how they manipulated, fabricated and many times falsified the data. If there is a dictionary example of a smoking gun HARRY is it.
As far as the timing goes, imagine that you are working at the CRU, as a scientist or knowledgeable technical person. The leaker specifically asked "HARRY" to read the document by that name. The document, which is a log of actions taken by an individual over several years, keeping track of how he processed the data to make it presentable for publishing, even though it wasn't published with the papers. You are privy to information about misdeeds by co-workers when do you think it would be a good time to make those mis-deeds public? (IF you read nothing else read HARRY.) Thinking the best for them, would you wait and give them time to clarify their behavior, or correct apparent unethical actions? Of course. But, what if a day was approaching on which the results of that cooked, trimmed or fictional data would be used to publicly bolster an hypothesis about which internal documents reveal that the manipulated data does not support and that the presenters themselves do not believe, as the emails reveal? Would you release those damning documents before that day arrived? Of course.
As someone who has done anti-cancer research, wrote a thesis and defended it, and in the process was taught about the sanctity of the data and how it relates to the Null Hypothesis, it is offensive to me that a "scientist" could claim to be able to deliver data that would "prove" an hypothesis, and do it for cash, and, as those 2009 emails (I haven't looked through the 2011 emails yet) prove, and for Socialist political purposes, as the email between the GreenPeace activist and Phil Jones established. It is a simple fact, long known, that a million experiments cannot prove an hypothesis, but it takes only one to disprove it.
An aside: A few days after the 2009 leak, and just hours after I had searched the emails and confirmed that which I have subsequently wrote about, Al Gore was interviewed on CNN about the emails. He stated that he had looked at the emails and that they were ten years old and not relevant anymore. Here is the header from the most recent 2009 email:
which is dated just about two weeks before Gore made his claim on CNN. So, either he did NOT read the emails and made a lot of assumption, took the word of someone in the AGW camp, or he was lying. Seeing that he has made MILLIONS from the AGW Carbon Credits scam I am skeptical, to say the least. He was the one who used the term "denier" to equate those who did not believe the skewed evidence with those who denied that the Holocaust occurred, a theme which AGW proponents picked up on in an attempt to stifle debate and opposition. As far as I am concerned, when ever the leading proponents of a position uses emotion laden labels to make personal attacks on opponents, THAT is prima facia proof that their data doesn't support their claim.
As you watch that video you will note that the interviewer "collaborates" Gore by saying that "some of the emails are not 10 years old, some were from last year". "Last year" (a year ago from early December 2009) would put the "most recent" emails sometime in 2008. I know by counting that at least 132 emails are during 2009, so either the interviewers didn't do their homework or .... You decide.
As far as your Left/Right issues, I skewer sacred cows on either side, as my non-Linux posts will verify. My own politics is a little Left of center -- a fiscal conservative with a social conscience who dislikes politicians of any strip whose actions seem focused on themselves and their personal wealth.
In America, so far, and on this forum, I have a right to express my views on any topic. Everyone else, of course, has a right not to read them. Many do not. Such is life. But, until the Constitution is changed or abolished, or the rules of this form forbid it, no one has a right to demand that anyone else be denied their rights to express themselves. And, in NONE of the more than 4,000 posts I have made on this forum, I have NEVER demand that someone not speak their view, or that they "shut up". Nor have I ever called anyone a name, or made personally derogatory comments to anyone. But, I admit to being a Socially Conservative Linux Fanboi!
Originally posted by Goeroeboeroe
Kate has a very nice ability for such things. The FOIA.ZIP_2009 files contain 1,072 emails in chronological order using the integer equivalent of the Linux time stamp (the emails were on Linux servers). You can open Kate and using its FIle-->Open dialog navigate to the subdirectory where the unzipped files are. Select ALL 1,072 emails. They will appear in the side panel. You can click on one and read its contents in the right panel. BUT, if you open a search bar and enter a phrase, like "hide", or "trick", or "destroy", or "conceal" and then do the search a panel will open beneath the text panel listing all of the emails that phrase appears in by showing the name of the email, the line the phrase is on, the the words surrounding the phrase. If you click on a line it will open up in the text panel and you can read the email.
Another thing about the emails is that often the CRU folks would top post over a received email, repeatedly. By reading a particular email from the bottom up one can follow the flow of the discussion without losing that all important "context", which is what the CRU folks are always claiming that "deniers" do.
IF you don't want to use Kate then you can use the Konsole and issue a command:
Code:
grep -B3 -A4 hide /home/jerry/Documents/FOIA/FOIA/mail/*
Doing that you can make an informed opinion as to the veracity of the work being done by the CRU.
....
Now again there are mails leaked. Just days before the next climate conference. Because it's just days before that conference gives me the feeling the leaker has some kind of (hidden) agenda. Why just days before the conference, so there's no time to investigate it thoroughly?
....
So I think there's a climate change. And I think it's caused (mainly) by human behavior.
....
Now again there are mails leaked. Just days before the next climate conference. Because it's just days before that conference gives me the feeling the leaker has some kind of (hidden) agenda. Why just days before the conference, so there's no time to investigate it thoroughly?
....
So I think there's a climate change. And I think it's caused (mainly) by human behavior.
....
As far as the timing goes, imagine that you are working at the CRU, as a scientist or knowledgeable technical person. The leaker specifically asked "HARRY" to read the document by that name. The document, which is a log of actions taken by an individual over several years, keeping track of how he processed the data to make it presentable for publishing, even though it wasn't published with the papers. You are privy to information about misdeeds by co-workers when do you think it would be a good time to make those mis-deeds public? (IF you read nothing else read HARRY.) Thinking the best for them, would you wait and give them time to clarify their behavior, or correct apparent unethical actions? Of course. But, what if a day was approaching on which the results of that cooked, trimmed or fictional data would be used to publicly bolster an hypothesis about which internal documents reveal that the manipulated data does not support and that the presenters themselves do not believe, as the emails reveal? Would you release those damning documents before that day arrived? Of course.
As someone who has done anti-cancer research, wrote a thesis and defended it, and in the process was taught about the sanctity of the data and how it relates to the Null Hypothesis, it is offensive to me that a "scientist" could claim to be able to deliver data that would "prove" an hypothesis, and do it for cash, and, as those 2009 emails (I haven't looked through the 2011 emails yet) prove, and for Socialist political purposes, as the email between the GreenPeace activist and Phil Jones established. It is a simple fact, long known, that a million experiments cannot prove an hypothesis, but it takes only one to disprove it.
An aside: A few days after the 2009 leak, and just hours after I had searched the emails and confirmed that which I have subsequently wrote about, Al Gore was interviewed on CNN about the emails. He stated that he had looked at the emails and that they were ten years old and not relevant anymore. Here is the header from the most recent 2009 email:
From: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Letter draft
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Letter draft
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000
As you watch that video you will note that the interviewer "collaborates" Gore by saying that "some of the emails are not 10 years old, some were from last year". "Last year" (a year ago from early December 2009) would put the "most recent" emails sometime in 2008. I know by counting that at least 132 emails are during 2009, so either the interviewers didn't do their homework or .... You decide.
As far as your Left/Right issues, I skewer sacred cows on either side, as my non-Linux posts will verify. My own politics is a little Left of center -- a fiscal conservative with a social conscience who dislikes politicians of any strip whose actions seem focused on themselves and their personal wealth.
In America, so far, and on this forum, I have a right to express my views on any topic. Everyone else, of course, has a right not to read them. Many do not. Such is life. But, until the Constitution is changed or abolished, or the rules of this form forbid it, no one has a right to demand that anyone else be denied their rights to express themselves. And, in NONE of the more than 4,000 posts I have made on this forum, I have NEVER demand that someone not speak their view, or that they "shut up". Nor have I ever called anyone a name, or made personally derogatory comments to anyone. But, I admit to being a Socially Conservative Linux Fanboi!
But, that doesn't seem to matter, since Phil Jones asks him to:
Comment