Remember how all the warmists, pinkos, MSM, et al harked on the "stolen" emails, as opposed to their content? Actually: It has become fairly obvious this archive was not "hacked" or "stolen" but rather is a file assembled by CRU staff in preparation for complying with a freedom of information request. Whether it was carelessly left in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer system or was "leaked" by staff believing the FOIA request was improperly rejected may never be known but is not really that important. What is important is that:
* There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files.
* The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers.
*The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff.
*Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s).
Figures. I mean, these guys barely can add a fudge vector to another vector of data. Why would they be able to deal with a bunch of emails and massaged data?
Mannly defense: On Monday, Mann tried to justify the damaging e-mails by telling the Penn State college newspaper: "Someone being constantly under attack could be what causes them to make a poor decision." The guy doesn't even know that (someone = 1 person), whereas (them = more than 1 person). I mean, duhhh. Don't they teach that at Harvard?
Let's not get paranoid. It's just one of those glitches. Better drink some tequila. BTW, I haven't had a margarita in eons. Any of you guys knows how to make a good one?
On tricks: Jim from Anaheim >The “problem” arises because Briffa >reconstruction goes down from 1940 to 1994 >instead of up.
In “real” science, divergence of the outcome from that which was expected is looked at as an opportunity to learn something important. In politicized, taxpayer funded science, divergence becomes a “problem.”
11 comments:
Remember how all the warmists, pinkos, MSM, et al harked on the "stolen" emails, as opposed to their content? Actually:
It has become fairly obvious this archive was not "hacked" or "stolen" but rather is a file assembled by CRU staff in preparation for complying with a freedom of information request. Whether it was carelessly left in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer system or was "leaked" by staff believing the FOIA request was improperly rejected may never be known but is not really that important. What is important is that:
* There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files.
* The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers.
*The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff.
*Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s).
Figures. I mean, these guys barely can add a fudge vector to another vector of data. Why would they be able to deal with a bunch of emails and massaged data?
You see, Tecs, they were just trying to comply with the law!
IS THAT THE SAME AS SAYING IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT??
Mannly defense: On Monday, Mann tried to justify the damaging e-mails by telling the Penn State college newspaper: "Someone being constantly under attack could be what causes them to make a poor decision."
The guy doesn't even know that (someone = 1 person), whereas (them = more than 1 person). I mean, duhhh. Don't they teach that at Harvard?
Funny, blogger's so screwed up that I read your comment and responeded to it, but it ended up ahead of yours.
You taken over development over there, Prof Html?
I think Jones & Mann are messing up with our postings. Must be. Or perhaps Pepe, lurking behind the scenes?
It's Obamoebbls!
Let's not get paranoid. It's just one of those glitches. Better drink some tequila. BTW, I haven't had a margarita in eons. Any of you guys knows how to make a good one?
I thought it was tsuica, triple sec and tequila, no?
And lime-Perrier. With a touch of absinthe.
On tricks:
Jim from Anaheim
>The “problem” arises because Briffa >reconstruction goes down from 1940 to 1994 >instead of up.
In “real” science, divergence of the outcome from that which was expected is looked at as an opportunity to learn something important. In politicized, taxpayer funded science, divergence becomes a “problem.”
Post a Comment