It must be easy to get all your news from Fox News and friends.
It must be easy to get all your news from Fox News and friends.
Climategate was outsiders hacking into and stealing information from an orgainzation that they were not affiliated with.
Cablegate was a whistleblower with legitimate acces to the documents leaking them.
Nice try.
Climategate was outsiders hacking into and stealing information from an orgainzation that they were not affiliated with.
Cablegate was a whistleblower with legitimate acces to the documents leaking them.
Nice try.
how's that toe jam taste?
Oh, and btw, the climatic research unit of the university has been largely funded by the united states department of energy since the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/climatic_research_unit#history
but keep sticking up for the nyt! They sure do need your expert help!
Why, if we didn't know the difference between the two, they'd look exactly the same! But you've cleared that all up for us, haven't you?
Hint: When your apples look like organges and vice-versa, you've had too much kool-aid.
Nice try at what? So you're saying that if the wikileaks had been obtained by outsiders hacking that NYT would have then and only then been in violation of their ethical code by posting them? I think you're just trying to justify it in your own mind.
You'd have to ask the NYT, but even in that case there is still a signifigant difference between personal/professional emails of scientists communicating with each other about research, publicly funded or private, and the cables of individuals representing the foreign policy of the United States.
If you do not see the distinction there it is because you refuse to.
The distinction that springs immediately to mind is that the wikileaks dump found no conspiracy to defraud the world.
You'd have to ask the NYT, but even in that case there is still a signifigant difference between personal/professional emails of scientists communicating with each other about research, publicly funded or private, and the cables of individuals representing the foreign policy of the United States.
If you do not see the distinction there it is because you refuse to.
I don't discuss global warming on these forums anymore, and this is an excellent example of why. Anyone that claims that those emails revealed a "conspiracy to defraud the world" is a bombastic imbecile. I would be willing to debate/discuss the legitimate questions about the science and implications of global warming, but when most of the discussion on this forum happens at this level, it's about as productive as discussing evolutionary biology with a 6 day creationist, or astronomy with a geocentric flat earther.
So let's leave it at this: your inability or unwillingness to understand how the scientific community functions aside, the nature of climategate and cablegate are very different, and it is not interally inconsistant for the NYT to refuse to publish one while agreeing to publish the other.
You'd have to ask the NYT, but even in that case there is still a signifigant difference between personal/professional emails of scientists communicating with each other about research, publicly funded or private, and the cables of individuals representing the foreign policy of the United States.
If you do not see the distinction there it is because you refuse to.
What are you talking about, dummy? You're embarrassing yourself again.Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, as long as it agrees with the leftist NYT agenda.
Of course there's no difference between 100% tax payer funded activities, conducted by Federal employees, using Federal communication methods and those of some climate scientists at private institutions.
Gotcha.
Also, the NYT is clearing anything they release with the Feds first.
But hey whatever keeps your blood pressure up psychos.
Since the researchers were government funded, they were de facto employees of the government. I see little difference, and no difference worth making one worse than the other. Especially since their "work" was shaping policy every bit as much as the cables released by wikileaks.
Be careful, your bias is showing.
What?
Many of the climategate emails that they refused to post were business communications - professional if you will. Very similar to the professional business communciations that wikileaks will be posting from the US government.
You're trying to draw completely non-existent distinctions to defend the paper, and it just doesn't jive.
Has nothing to do with whether or not they are government employees. And if you think their work was "shaping policy" you must be living in a different world where we didn't dump 20 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere last year.
That's okay, I'm not ashamed of my bias for science and democracy.
Similar except that the cables represent the execution of foreign policy on behalf of the American people, while the email from climategate was discussion about scientific research.
Again, you don't see the distinction because you don't want to.
Republicans hate science.
Discuss.
No, you see a distinction because of your bias.
And if you put your faith in climate models made not only with an obvious bias, but when we have NEVER been able to create a model that can accurately predict future climate to begin with (even in the short term), you're not following science, you're being snowed.
The funny thing about science is that it is dead wrong many, many times before it is finally right. But when the process is stopped dead, debate censored and the results is accepted by "consensus" the entire process is fucked.
The minute we were told, "just trust us, you're too stupid to understand it anyhow" it was obvious to just about anyone with common sense. People know a con when they hear it.
And finally, yes, the climate research WAS shaping future policy. Thankfully many of those policies were stopped dead by this leak. Unfortunately, some got through, like the cap n tax in California.
You don't need to put any faith in climate models to accept that the there are 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and the reason it's so far above its regular levels (200-300 ppm for the last half million years) is because of human activity.
The basic mechanics of climate change are not hard to understand, and I've never heard anyone say or infer that people are too stupid to do so.
Climategate isn't the underlying reason for a lot of the backwards movement on environmental policy, it really has more to do with the shifting public opinion on global warming, far fewer people believe it exists today than did 10 years ago. Climategate was the "Gulf of Tonkin" that allowed the policy makers to do what they wanted to do anyway.
How's that toe jam taste?
Oh, and BTW, the Climatic Research Unit of the university has been largely funded by the United States Department of Energy since the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit#History
But keep sticking up for the NYT! They sure do need your expert help!
Why, if we didn't know the difference between the two, they'd look exactly the same! But you've cleared that all up for us, haven't you?
Hint: When your apples look like organges and vice-versa, you've had too much kool-aid.