Climate Change Politics

In which e-mail (or e-mails) is such a conspiracy laid bare?

What was actually said - and what was the actual context - and is it actually damning?

Or is it just something that can be twisted to look damning if divorced from the actual conversation and touted in and of itself as suspicious looking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4&feature=related

(Gotta love the fact that Fox News polled 120% of the American population).

As for - yawn - the courts. Well, I don't think any of the people who are screaming about a conspiracy would actually do something credible like levelling an official challenge of fraud against "The Conspirators!!!" - but yeah, the courts would actually look at the details, in context, before damning anyone.

As opposed to a knee jerk decision made based on a few out-of-context quotes.

Trial by court might be a bit "yawn" - but it's usually more thorough than trial by Fox News.

Why isn't anyone following a legal action against these evil people if a conspiracy is so evident? I mean, it would be a huge fraud case if it was actually credible, wouldn't it?

Why not?

Because the charges of conspiracy are a load of heresay, misinformation and/or outright baloney.

What's apparent from the e-mail exchange is that some people are after data, that there is a bit of panic about whether or not they can request the data through Freedom of Information, which ends up coming to nothing as FoI doesn't seem to cover this info - and the university authorities and government seem to support this.

This isn't "Proof of a Conspiracy".


To further illustrate - I used to work in publishing, and we would often upload books for print onto an FTP server. This would cause two problems (potentially):

1. The FTP folder could get full.
   
2. More importantly, someone could get hold of the book and diseminate in PDF format - this even happened with one of our books and caused a lot of upset. The diseminator could have been someone at the printers, or someone in our organisation, or another publisher with access to the FTP folder.
   

Hence - a lot of reminders to clear files from FTP folders - often written in pretty harsh tones.

Because we don't know who the MMs are - or what they want...
Because we don't know what was in the folder on the FTP site...
Because we don't know if a threatened FoI request would have been valid or not (and it seems not to have been) ...


...crying "conspiracy" is premature.

• It MIGHT BE a conspiracy.
  
• It MIGHT BE someone trying to protect their copywrited work from piracy. Or telling someone else to do likewise.
  
• It MIGHT BE a paper that had been shown to demonstrate embarrassing facts.
  
• It MIGHT BE a paper shown to include obvious flaws.
  
• It MIGHT BE a work in progress that needs more work before being fit for publication. (The most likely explanation, I feel).
  
• It MIGHT BE that the climate audit are people the UEA justifiably regard as disreputable pests wasting their time by making pointless FoI requests.
  
• It MIGHT BE a combination of some of the above.
  

All these scenarios are possible and fit with the apparent facts and language of the e-mails. However, unless you have preconceived notions of what these scientists are up to drawing any particular conclusion is hubris.
As for Phil Jones saying stuff like "I'd like to see climate change occur so the science can be proved right" or "The mad Finn" and so on. They aren't nice comments - it is proof Phil Jones isn't particularly diplomatic.

But it still doesn't prove a conspiracy - it just indicates that he maybe writes e-mails before calming down about disagreements he has with other climatologists he disagrees with.

However, unless you have preconceived notions of what these scientists are up to drawing any particular conclusion is hubris.

There is always a conspiracy theorist for every painful truth.

You refuse to widen the debate but concentrate on what you feel is your best option. The truth is more than one confined example of evidence that you assume is worth concentrating on. What do you want to do, nit pick over these supposed disputed reports or widen the debate to more relevant evidence?

I don't need the options, as I don't have a position on GW that you can attack. I don't say it is not happening, I don't say man has no part in it.

I won't take those possitions, and therefore you find that your prefab arguents don't work. tough luck.

No instead you sit in your confined space and make silly gestures. You have colours but refuse to bare them, for you have little defence, only the one perceived opportunity to snipe at others who have the courage to debate the issue.

That is incorrect. As an example, I posted some information on water quality from Wilkes U. You did not respond to question there.

I have not called others who might be discussing this "Warm-Mongers" or "Climate Deniers", and have not attributed to them various characteristics and political bent. You mistake me for you. Those are the silly gesticulatings and and utterings that you have performed.



Now we could talk about Keith Briffa. Do you know the significance of Briffa in the wider sense - his significance, but not in regard to this leak ?

Most of that is not true; there is a conspiracy, as at least one other person ( Mann) agrees to forward the message to delete what FoI agents might demand. You seem to be forgetting that I am to show conspiracy to destroy potential evidence, anything whatsoever about their activities ( vis a vis Climate Change), that Jones feared might be shown.

Make your point but and lets see your colours. Do you agree the world temperature is increasing. Do you want to be selective or are you open to questions?

Well, you've creeped the word potential in there.]

memester said: conspiracy to destroy evidence ( seen by Jones as being sought through various freedom of information acts).

I'm not interested in possible evidence, or potential anything - I'm interested in seeing something concrete to back up a charge of conspiracy.

By which I mean a criminal act - not just an agreement to do something. Yes - Jane and John can conspire to go down to the shops - but is there anything remarkable or sinister about that based on the agreement alone? No.

Just as a bunch of e-mails indicating a refusal to meet the demands of the UA don't in and of themselves manifest anything sinister, even if they are rather irritable and snotty in tone.

It's not "straight up fraud of the highest order with billions of dollars at stake" as you referred to it earlier in the thread. Unless there's more to it than these messages.

It's evidence already.

"Conspiracy" was my claim, not "sinister conspiracy". You've creeped in that word.

Now you're changing the goalposts upon losing part of the debate.

I don't know if world temperature is increasing or not at this moment.

I don't know if world temperature is increasing or not at this moment.
I don't exactly know how you intend "selective" to be understood - as if it were something bad.

I haven't avoided answering any legitimate questions., if that's what you are trying to say.

Sometimes you offer strawman that it seems you think I must be grateful to accept as my position... however, I think it's clear that rejecting that strawman offering is not the same as evading answering to a legitimate question.

I think it'll be pretty clear to any fair-minded observer of this thread that it is you who are backing away from any serious charge of conspiracy - not me pretending that no sort of agreement was arranged between the e-mailers.

If there was never anything sinister or criminal about Phil Jones' behaviour in your eyes why did you call it "straight up fraud" in the first place?

Evidence of what?

You've no idea that it's anything that isn't technically innocent, really.

As for 'destruction' - why would preventing someone from obtaining the paper through FoI count as destruction - considering that they may have had no right to it anyway?

So you're claiming it was a straight up fraud and a conspiracy to destroy evidence, but that there was nothing sinister about it, yes?

You set the goalposts when you claimed it was straight up fraud. Unless you've moved them without letting anyone know I think I'm punting in the right direction.

Your not sure, why is that?

what kind of trash are you spewing now ? I'm not backing away, I won't allow you to put words in my mouth, though. That seems to annoy the untruthful. You can get over it thought, I'm sure.

I didn't say there was never anything sinister or criminal. More words youi are attempting to put in my mouth.

You've no idea what you're talking about.
destruction of it counts as destruction of it. not preventing someone. That's not destruction . What a funny thing to offer, Dave Allen.

But a great morining smile. none the less, Dave Allen. Thank you.

No, you offer untruth again. I made that statement about fraud, but that is notwhat you challenged me on.

What you challenged me on was the conspiracy statement > I am not the party responsible for your inability to remember what you challenged me on.

"Get over it thought"? What does that mean?

Isn't this the sort of mistake you usually quibble over as nonsensical?