Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2010

The NYT On Publishing Stolen Material, Then and Now

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 6:00 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Here is the NYT explaining almost exactly a year ago why it wouldn’t publish the Climategate emails:

A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon. Before they propagated, the purloined documents, nearly 200 megabytes in all, were uploaded surreptitiously on Tuesday to a server supporting the global warming Web site realclimate.org, along with a draft mock post, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist managing that blog. He pulled the plug before the fake post was published.

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

By comparison, here they are explaining why the the newest wikileaking documents will be posted on their site:

The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

The Source of the Material

The documents — some 250,000 individual cables, the daily traffic between the State Department and more than 270 American diplomatic outposts around the world — were made available to The Times by a source who insisted on anonymity. They were originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing official secrets, allegedly from a disenchanted, low-level Army intelligence analyst who exploited a security loophole.

In other words, he stole them, probably by hacking.  They go on to point out that “[o]f course, most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides.”  And explains later that “For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.”

All of which raises the question: which of these arguments does not apply to the Climategate documents?  And indeed, there is one argument for posting the Climategate documents on the NYT website that is not present here: publication is not likely to compromise national security.

And I am sure any minute, now, the NYT will call for an investigation into these leaks, just like they did with the Valarie Plame, right?

Yeah, that is a rhetorical question, and a sarcastic one at that.

Hat tip: Powerline.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

132 Responses to “The NYT On Publishing Stolen Material, Then and Now”

  1. Actually, it is highly unlikely the material was obtained via “hacking”. PFC Dipshit Manning had complete access, as do what appears to be 3 million others.

    As a response to 9-11, in which information sharing was shown to be severely lacking, these and other systems had their access opened with little or no thought as to why some buck private in BFE needed access to diplomatic cables.

    But it wasn’t hacked. Now I’m no fan of these being released – though the part of me that enjoys a good bit of turnabout wants to tell the government “Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?” – at the least this will get them to tighten up the way in which they secure and allow access to this data.

    But the NYT’s “rationale” remains – in this one, limited instance – intact.

    The climategate e-mails were hacked, these cables were not.

    Still shouldn’t have decided to run with them, but that is a different matter entirely, and not one I hold much hope of the NYT ever understanding.

    The Departed (46e187)

  2. good catch Mr. Worthing

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  3. There’s no evidence the Climategate emails and documents were hacked. Evidence suggests they were leaked.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  4. And likewise, Aaron, good on you for pointing out the NYT’s hypocrisy. Climategate opened my eyes to the deception of top climate scientists.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  5. Hypocrisy and self-righteousness go hand in hand. “That’s different!” (with petulant foot stomp) should not be the motto of these folks.

    Eric Blair (a27ac1)

  6. To reiterate what The Departed said: no hacking necessary. If Manning had an Intel MOS he would have at the very least a Secret if not Top Secret clearance, and therefore access to SIPR computers. At that point it’s pretty much up to believing the person behind the keyboard is true to the oath he took and understands the potential consequences of violating that oath. Walking out of a secure zone with a hard copy of a sensitive document will get CID on you.
    From the stories about him, it appears that he acted out a global version of a hissy fit and of course it will be spun by him and his misguided supporters that he’s some moral dissident whistle blower. I would love to see the look on his face when they sentence him.

    SPC Jack Klompus (ea29bb)

  7. Ironically, the most recent release by Wikileaks is tending to support what conservative pundits were warning us years ago: China hacked into our computers, No. Korea sent missiles to Iran, etc.

    Arizona Bob (e8af2b)

  8. I’m waiting for the docs to show that Iraq did have WMD’s…

    Wouldn’t that stick in their craw…

    The Departed (46e187)

  9. Yes, but how busy could he have been, in order to search through all these Defense, State, CIA databases

    narciso (9d0688)

  10. The old Grey Whore digging for China.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  11. narciso: He could have just started at the top and let the whole cache of them download without concern for the details of the content. Apparently he was able to make it appear that he was just listening to music while he worked. And, you’d be surprised how much idle time is spent by the desk jockeys on deployment. They could send a lot of people home with little loss to the mission.

    SPC Jack Klompus (ea29bb)

  12. Yes, but don’t they have sys admin that monitor the system

    narciso (9d0688)

  13. “The climategate e-mails were hacked, these cables were not.”

    The Brother and Az Bob are on the scent here, this is causing the rubble of Beelzebub’s present-dency to bounce anew.

    Mann, Hansen, Jones, Briffa, Amann, Keeling,.., were exposed as frauds long before Climategate, but those in their court with integrity had not abandoned the fight, until the leak.

    The NYT is effectively making the case for abandoning the farce. They could not have known the pretender was such a thoroughgoing sham. /sarc

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  14. I’m not sure what the IT hierarchy is but I’m guessing that something of that sort led to his arrest. The huge amount of information that he leaked does lead to some fairly pertinent questions for some people above his pay grade no doubt about it.

    SPC Jack Klompus (ea29bb)

  15. Am I the only one who is finding confirmation of information, like N. Korea and China assisting
    Iran’s nuclear program, the Saudis funding AQ, Pakistan’s unsecure nuclear cache, etc. kind of…a relief? It is out there now. I am not sure why this information needed to be kept secret, other than to protect the U.S. government (not the citizens).

    Now the U.S. government will have to act on this information. Or not. And U.S. citizens will see it all.

    TimesDisliker (25f74e)

  16. Hey, Bradley. I’m sure you saw this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

    Of course, the hypocrisy of scientists traveling via jets aircraft to a resort town and deciding that Westerners needed to ration their energy usage is pretty high up on the hypocrisy scale.

    But…it’s different!…for them! The little people need to give things up.

    Like Glenn Reynolds says, he’ll take them seriously when they act like it is a crisis by giving things up themselves.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  17. Maybe not hacked but certainly stolen. Does it make a difference?

    Machinist (74634b)

  18. Eric,
    No, I didn’t see that particular story but it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Same old story, but fewer people take it seriously. The Copenhagen fiasco was a turning point.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  19. Eric,
    Even as an atheist, I mourn the trivialization of religion, global-warming style.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  20. First, it’s important to be a science denier when you’re a conservative and support every attempt at misinformation you can muster.

    The deal is, there is truth and there is bullsh!t and it is up to any news organization to decide. (Like Fox – that published a “story” from The Onion as news.

    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html#

    “not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim”

    ajb (ed31a2)

  21. It’s also important to disclose information that gives us insight to our leadership and enemies
    .

    ajb (ed31a2)

  22. This is changing my mind about gays in the military.

    A long time ago, I read a book, “The Marine”, which had this quote: “Give a queer his meat, and he will spill his guts”.

    As I understand it, Manning leaked the documents because he was resentful that the Army was depriving him of his “meat”.

    Gays have long been considered security risks and Manning has proven it once again.

    nk (db4a41)

  23. Eric

    Isnt alot of this Global warming scientific gold rush just a grab for research an grants?

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  24. ajb – Yelverton – how many names/sock puppets do you plan on hiding behind? Are you going to go all genderbender on us again? Tell us about your personal relationship with plagiarism.

    JD (85b089)

  25. ajb,
    Since you love science so much, would you give some specifics about how the investigations cleared the Climategate scientists?

    When Michael Mann and Phil Jones did their “hide the decline” trick, what did it consist of? Why did they do it? How does that equal good scientific practice?

    Why didn’t the British consider evidence from Steve McIntryre, perhaps the top source for skeptic claims, if they were to examine all sides of the issue?

    Where is the missing heat?

    Why did the UEA inquiry include members committed to the global warming theory if it was supposed to be impartial?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  26. ajb, demonstrating that he is but a troll, keeps repeating the same stupid spin. But fails to actually address any of the substance of any thread he infests.

    ajb calls AGW skeptics “deniers” which is a vile little epithet designed to associate skeptics with Nazis. It illustrates that AGW proponents are not interested in debating science and are not scientists but rather propagandists.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. JD, I think you are right. It has the angry snottiness of Yelverton, which covers up an awful lot of ignorance. But he did that before. Remember when he tried to smear me about evolutionary theory, and I demonstrated he literally didn’t know anything about it?

    What a tool. Literally.

    Bradley, you are cast pearls before…well, you know.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  28. Revealing classified cables from State and others is no big deal because the U.S. will just try to prosecute you (unless you’re a favored minority);
    but, the revelations of foreign leaders and whisking away the public curtain from in front of their hypocrysy – think the King of Saudi Arabia wanting the Israeli’s to “cut off the head of this snake” – will upset people who don’t play by our rules.
    Mr. Assange should be doubling down, or more, on his security.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  29. Eric – There is little to no doubt that it is yet another one of his many ever-changing cowardly names. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. So, we should do him the honor of referring to him by his real name, William the racist midget hilljack Yelverton, Professor of Plagiarism and the Skin Flute.

    JD (6e25b4)

  30. Damn JD. That ‘s a lot of name to remember, much less spell.

    I was just reading about the investigation into climategate which Newsweek refers to over at The Air Vent.

    The Muir Russel report is caught red handed deleting evidence of climate scientists being caught red handed manipulating the game.

    Which is to say the “investigators” deleted key damaging evidence which would have destroyed the credibility of CRU if it were given an honest scrutiny.

    What do you do when the official investigators are as corrupt as the con men they are sent to investigate?

    papertiger (9c3d67)

  31. Gays have long been considered security risks and Manning has proven it once again.

    They are a security risk only due to the fact that they are denied open service.

    You cannot blackmail, extort, or entice someone over something that is not a secret to begin with.

    Someone of authority who is a well-concealed pederast could easily be blackmailed through the threat of revealing his proclivities, but you would be hard pressed to extort favors out of Justice Thomas by threatening to tell people that he’s a black man.

    The Departed (d027b8)

  32. First of all, I don’t know Yelverton.

    Second, yes quoting Nasa climate science is “angry snottiness”?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    ajb (ed31a2)

  33. “science denier”

    A damning charge, until the denier, armed with Beer’s Law, Henry’s Law, Kirchoff’s Law, Maxwell’s equations, Differential Equations, some non-trivial Statistics, etc., asks to “see the work”.

    I’ve looked at Briffa’s tree rings, Mann’s PCA, Hansen’s Fortran, Keeling’s daily Mauna Loa data. I don’t need to rely on some expert’s opinion.

    I need only to read their equipment’s spec sheets, step thru their protocol, pick thru their calculations,…

    On careful review, they are frauds, the lot of them.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  34. Note how they used Fortran, and not some other language…

    It is telling that they used a programing language that allows you to actually change the values of numbers.

    It reminds me of The Nerditity Test…

    “Have you ever redefined the value of 4?”

    “While not using Fortran?”

    The Departed (d027b8)

  35. These are the rules. If you are a conservative Republican jesus guy. you must deny science because your politics tells you to. You will not be able to undestand the science and the evidence so you must assume that it is a liberal conspiracy and see cap and trade, and environmental regulations as one in the same. You will not be able to separate science from politics. You will do as your masters tell you because they are owned by industries that pollute. Forget about anyone independent minded who may think can and trade is bullshit but is NOT ignorant and denialist enough to see how humans are affecting the planet and can accept the fact of global warming that clearly has a human contributing factor.

    Just rely on manufactured scandals and fear that promote your point of view, despite what the evidence shows. These are the same people who believe in creationism.
    .

    ajb (ed31a2)

  36. First of all, I don’t know Yelverton.
    Gnothi seauton, dude.

    Uncle Pinky (8c0966)

  37. ajb

    Lol, in what sense is it science when they are using tricks to “hide the decline.”

    And its cute how you find it convincing that east anglia cleared itself.

    I should try that myself, sometime. “It is unfair to call me a murderer. i cleared myself of the crime.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. Araron, isn’t it time to grow up and become a thinking person and get your head out of your ass and places like “Hot Air” … “Newsbusters… and Powerline?

    ajb (ed31a2)

  39. It is so cute when willie the racist hilljack yelverton denies his very self. Kind of sad and pathetic, too.

    JD (85b089)

  40. Ajb/Yelverton/w/pam care about as much about science as I care about underwater basket weaving. Teh Narrative must be serviced.

    JD (306f5d)

  41. Mr. Assange should be doubling down, or more, on his security.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/29/2010 @ 8:31 am

    I agree. They’re going to cut off his head. His best chance is to plead to the rape charge in Sweden and get the refuge of the prison.

    nk (db4a41)

  42. Hell, if Fox News can believe “The Onion” as fact … nuff said about ‘your’ news sources and the people that believe it.

    Are you so naive that you think there is just one group of scientists that can “hide data” and produce a “big lie” about climate change? Do you have any clue how data is peer reviewed and collected world wide by mulitiple sources, numerous international climate labs? Forget it, it’s obviously beyond your ability to critically think beyond what your political masters have told you to think.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  43. ajb, the claims of how well peer reviewed AGW studies are have been shot down with the East Anglia emails and McIntyre’s work.

    Again, it is you the troll who are lost in this discussion.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. WTF is this ankle biter JD? Does he ever have any substance to offer? Or is a typical Republican science denier that can only insult and never offer facts? Thought so, obviously a mental midget among pygmies here at this blog.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  45. “Are you so naive that you think there is just one group of scientists that can “hide data” and produce a “big lie” about climate change?”

    Exactly what Climategate exposed, a naive group of second-rate intellects attempting to aid and abet government-sponsored fraud.

    The entire scientific community will suffer just as the world’s poor are made to suffer shortages in wheat, soy, rice and corn and pay inflated prices for that which they can obtain.

    All to save the planet for microbes, nematodes and lice.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  46. You should stick to the geetar, Yelverton. You have been proven to be in waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head here, repeatedly.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  47. Second, yes quoting Nasa climate science is “angry snottiness”?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Comment by ajb — 11/29/2010 @ 9:09 am

    NASA is not the source for almost all the information there, they just compiled it, so calling it “Nasa climate science” is erroneous.

    The very first claim at the site, that we have the warmest temperatures in 1300 years, comes from the IPCC, which has used Mann’s bogus temperature hockey stick as the basis for it’s long term temperature conclusions. There are various climate reconstructions that show we don’t have unprecedented warming. The fact that NASA shows a single conclusion on this question just demonstrates that whoever put that together is committed to pushing AGW.

    In other words, whoever put that together is clearly cherry picking whatever supports AGW.

    Nothing there addresses whether any changes are man-made or not, just whether temperatures have been rising lately. AGW skeptics don’t dispute that there was warming in most of the 20th century, which is what all of the other things there are about.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  48. HAHAHA, SPQR quotes 3 yr old artcle from McIntyre (mining industry guy – not a climate scientist!!) who refutes the 1000 yr hockey stick graph.

    Hey bozo, why don’t you look at the big picture. It’s great to be a science denier … I wonder how many scienctists are also evolution deniers?

    You’e got groups like OIM and the The Heartland Institute that are continually being exposed for misrepresenting scientists research, professional global warming denialist organizations and their high paid quack “scientists” who are not even close to the latest research. But you’ll still believe them, because you want to sooo bad.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  49. Aaron, You should note to your readers that the US Military is in on the Global Warming conspiracy.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  50. Yelverton/w/pam/ajb could not be less interested in the “science”. He is invested in the meme, in Teh Narrative. Eric embarrassed him last time it trotted out this denier of science crap, by showing yelverton knew not even the basics of the issue under discussion. Point and laugh, people.

    JD (822109)

  51. JD asshat, do you have an original thought or just insults? What does that say about your intellect?

    ajb (ed31a2)

  52. 44.WTF is this ankle biter JD? Does he ever have any substance to offer? Or is a typical Republican science denier that can only insult and never offer facts? Thought so, obviously a mental midget among pygmies here at this blog.
    Comment by ajb — 11/29/2010 @ 9:35 am

    I think psychiatrists call this “projection.” I count 9 insults, as ajb cries about being insulted.:-) Anyone who feels like keeping score, try to beat ‘9’.

    TimesDisliker (25f74e)

  53. I am mocking you, yelverton, which is probably more than you deserve. Why don’t you run along and find some more links to spam, or someone else’s work to plagiarize.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  54. ajb, the reason I quote a three year old article is because it was three years ago that NASA’s incompetence in the temp series was exposed. Meanwhile, NASA’s Hansen is still being arrested for his protesting. And you are trying to claim them as an authority while continuing to fall back on insults. Its is you who cannot deal in actual science, ajb, because you don’t understand any of it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. While you are at it, William the racist midget hilljack Yelverton, Professor of Plagiarism and the Skin Flute, tell us about your personal relationship with genderbending and sockpuppetry.

    JD (109425)

  56. Gerald A.
    There are several lines of evidence that support AGW. Most definitively, the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. There is positive evidence that a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels.

    ajb (ed31a2)


  57. “…I wonder how many scienctists are also evolution deniers?…”

    Yep, it’s Zamfir again. The insults, the anger. The studied ignorance of science, while claiming to support science.

    I guess it was too much Nutrasweet.

    The spelling error was funny, too.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  58. Hey, ajb.

    Without looking it up, define “isotope.”

    Right now.

    Because you are so smart.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  59. No SPQR, I’m not championing Hanson, Nasa, or anyone in particular. I prefer to side with the scientific consensus based on evidence, you apparently prefer to side with your political masters, critical thinking aside.

    You can remain ignorant and let politics dictate what you think is knowledge.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  60. Eric, instead of havinbg a pissing contest, why don’t you offer something of substance. Yes, I had chemistry in college.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  61. What, Dr. Yelverton? No definition yet?

    By now, you could have at least gone to Wikipedia.

    But I bet you are all over this:

    http://www.all-guitar-chords.com/

    Seriously, dude. Why the sockpuppeting, and anger?

    Oh, that’s right: you lost.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  62. Eric Blair, Are you a 3%er?

    ajb (ed31a2)

  63. ajb, you are an idiot. Skeptics are debating the science, it is clowns like you who are pushing propaganda, hiding data, suppressing scientific debate and resorting to ad hominem the moment you are challenged.

    That’s not science. And AGW proponents are not acting like scientists.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  64. Yes, Dr. Yelverton, you said that before. Remember?

    So why the sockpuppeting.

    And it is amusing that you don’t remember the definition of isotope.

    It’s a freshman concept.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  65. SPQR, it is just Yelverton again.

    Does he use different names to avoid ISP stuff?

    Crazy fellow. Plays guitar well.

    But my favorite part:

    “…You can remain ignorant and let politics dictate what you think is knowledge….”

    Projection, thy name is Yelverton.

    Go take a walk. You have a great life, remember: beautiful girlfriend, sent your parents to Europe, not much work at work, and so forth. Or so you bragged.

    Sheesh, dude. You won’t hang out with you.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  66. Do they require chemistry while studying guitar strumming?

    JD (822109)

  67. Eric, yep. The same clown with the same lack of ability to actually debate the substance. This is what AGW skeptics actually hate the most – a clown like Yelverton who refuses to actually understand the science enough to have a rational conversation but yammers incessantly that others are the ignorant ones. Skeptics work hard on the data, the methodology, the real science. AGW proponents like Yelverton just cheerlead for fanatics like Hansen without ever bothering to do any real work.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. Notice what these asshats are doing. Instead of offering any meaningful information, they try to build themselves up by insults. Truly pathetic.

    May “Dr.” Blair can give us his reasoning on why he is a 3%er and why he refutes the fact that a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Tell us why “Dr.” Blair there has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2? And tell us why this corresponds exactly to the advent of the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels?

    Maybe you can explain it to your fellow creationists. Perhaps you can convince them that scientific fact has nothing to do with politics. I doubt you can.

    ajb (ed31a2)

  69. I’m sure he took chemistry, JD. The funny part about Yelverton is how he cannot help but sound the same no matter what name he uses.

    Why does he do that, anyway? Who knows.

    However, what chemistry he took didn’t take, if you catch my drift.

    Based on some of his blog posts, anyway.

    SPQR, yep. Authority is always the enemy of science. The worst thing to come out of this AGW business is the authoritarian claims. And Hansen makes me ill.

    What a disservice to science. Yelverton is more amusing, as he tries to sound all smart and cool, and just shows himself to be waving pompoms in a cheerleader outfit.

    He’s like the guy trying sound all supercool and snide, but has toilet paper dangling from the back of his pants.

    When scientists resort to that kind of business, it’s sad for everyone.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  70. Yelverton – tell us about your personal relationship with pseudo-science.

    JD (822109)

  71. PFC Bradley Manning, the “alleged” source of the material that the hopefully-dead-man-walking Julian Assange published, would not have been able to enlist in the Army or have held a position in which he had a security clearance if “don’t ask/don’t tell” had not replaced the previous ban.

    Even if DA/DT was eliminated in favor of open service for homosexuals, PFC Manning would have been unable to obtain a security clearance because he was seriously fornicated up in the head because of being tormented by classmates for being homosexual, and a clearance investigation which was allowed to delve into that area of his life would have discovered it.

    The pissed off Dana (3e4784)

  72. First, Dr. Yelveron, you need to tell us the difference between the two isotopes.

    Since you had chemistry.

    No fair looking it up.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  73. ajb, you are the one trading in nothing but vague appeals to authority and insults.

    Like all AGW proponents.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  74. Oh, c’mon, SPQR. Yelverton is cute when he sputters in rage.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  75. No, Eric, not cute.

    Although the fact that he is asserting that data on the age of carbon in CO2 is proof of AGW when it is nothing but data on the velocity of the carbon cycle is hilarious.

    It is more evidence that he has no real clue what he is talking about.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  76. AJB

    Don’t bother to cite consensus with me. the hockey stick was the consensus and it is a proven fraud. Science is not democracy. Reality is not up for a vote.

    And please, citing military exercises? The movie The Day After Tomorrow was based on military assessments, and was also a laughable fraud.

    And notice not one word of that defends the times’ hypocrisy on the issue.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  77. SPQR, Yelverton is like a photograph of a dog wearing glasses, trying to seem intellectual.

    He is just a cheerleader. An angry cheerleader.

    Who, I suspect, just got dissed by the cool quarterback on campus in November.

    Hence the anger.

    But yes, I don’t think he knows what an isotope is. I’m sure he is scurrying around Wikipedia now.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  78. “There are several lines of evidence that support AGW. Most definitively, the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2.”

    Note how the pseudoscientists go right for the most arcane, most difficult to sort out analysis possible.

    Ice core data have been known for decades to have shown that a rise in the atmospheric CO2 fraction follows a rise in global temperature by the passage of approximately 8 centuries.

    The Suess effect, this supposed decrease in the 13C/12C ratio in atmospheric carbon(14C is also considered but its supply is of solar origination so its ratio must be discounted as not reliably understood) is so new(50 odd years) that the effect of the Carbon Cycle on its level remains to be established.

    Cloud the issue with half-baked reasoning and seek to bum-rush the half-educated.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  79. No worries. Yelverton will be back again with a new name later. But it will be the same thing.

    You know, if his life is so sweet—remember all the bragging a couple of weeks ago?—why is he so angry? And why the need to use new names?

    Hmm.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  80. SPQR shows he has no idea of what I’m talking about. Yes, thanks all for showing us a little about your intellect and your scientific illiteracy… and general lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking.

    I know this is over your head, maybe Eric can dumb it down for you.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/rq018511jg571835/

    ajb (ed31a2)

  81. Eric Blair, will you please go on record here and say you do not agree with the scientific consensus that 97% of scientists accept that man-made climate change is real?

    ajb (ed31a2)

  82. Do we really have to ask you to show you can define even simple scientific terms again, Dr. Yelverton?

    I mean, I don’t snark at you about music. Seriously, dude.

    But the fact is that you have been skooled, multiple times, on scientific issues…and like a Weeble, you keep popping up, angry grin on your face, thinking you have proven something.

    And you have. That you are an angry partisan poseur, accusing other people of being angry partisan poseurs.

    Surreal.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  83. Oh, good Lord:

    “…SPQR shows he has no idea of what I’m talking about. Yes, thanks all for showing us a little about your intellect and your scientific illiteracy… and general lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking…”

    It’s like Dr. Yelverton is unaware of the humor of his own posts.

    Go away, short troll.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  84. Heck, I don’t think Dr. Yelverton has any idea what he is talking about!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  85. And folks, start asking him questions about chemistry. I mean, since he is so smart.

    Remember: he couldn’t even answer simple questions.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  86. “There are several lines of evidence that support AGW.

    Alas, those appear to be the chemistry he took.

    A Fine Bunch of Rubens (84aba2)

  87. ajb

    btw, the funniest thing about your 97% study is when it mentioned how often that 3% is cited and published. because in climategate, we learned about their official shunning of deniers. So again your “science” is claptrap.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  88. “the scientific consensus that 97% of scientists accept that man-made climate change is real”

    A total crock. Most scientists have Stats 101 as their Math/Statistics “preparation” and no physics at all.

    Your hairdresser is as informed.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  89. Amusingly, ajb reminds me of quite a bit of the creationists I’ve debated over the decades. They google up a single bit of some “fact” that they don’t understand and is usually out of context.

    This “fact” becomes their irrefutable “proof” and they spam it repeatedly, ignoring any rebuttals, explanations, or discussion of context. It was a favorite trick of “Dr.” Kent Hovind as an example.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. For all the talk of co2 caused global warming – the amount of co2 and the amount of increase in co2 has cant possibly cause any measurable warming. The “pre industrial age” co2 was in the range of 288ppm .0288%. The current co2 is approx 390ppm (.0390%) the increase is 120ppm (.012%). Granted the increase in co2 is 42% which seems large, but the amount still remains extremely small.
    The O2 molecules that the co2 replaces have thermal retention capabilities and reflect light waves somewhat similar to co2 molecules. ( you cant pretend that A) the O2 molecules had none of these properties and B) that the co2 arent replacing an O2 molecule). So the proper measurement is the delta of the thermal retention and wave light reflection between a co2 molecule and an o2 molecule multiplied by the increase (.012%)x 30% delta which results in less than 0.0036%. When all is said and done – the effect is less than .005% – how do have any ability to measure or correlate any warming to an amount that small?

    I have yet to see any scientist that can overcome that hurdle.

    joe (6120a4)

  91. It is just a coincidence that the abreviation for Secratary of State is SOS, but the aim of this administration seems to be SOSOS, Sink Our Ship Of State. Obama is steering us into a storm and placidly saying damn the torpedos, full speed ahead in his twisted historical views.

    dunce (b89258)

  92. ajb, I’m really trying to understand your point here.

    In defense of the NYT not publishing the Climategate letters you say, “The deal is, there is truth and there is bullsh!t and it is up to any news organization to decide.”

    Presumably you mean the material within the Climategate letters, written by all the leading AGW minds (and no one else), and confirmed by them as authentic, is bullsh!t.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. Hansen and crew are indeed full of it.

    Was that not what you meant to say?

    Rich Horton (3ef32b)

  93. Rich Horton, ajb has no clue what to think about the East Anglia CRU emails other than what Gavin Schmidt told him to think about them. ajb has no real interest in any of the details of this topic, and probably no real interest in AGW itself, other than as a foil – incompetently wielded by him – to skewer his perceived ideological “enemies”.

    If he thought that obesity was a sign of conservatism, he’d be here condemning high fructose corn syrup and calling ADM “deniers”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  94. Careful, SPQR. Yelverton has some pretty remarkable ideas about additives and nutrition too.

    JD (b98cae)

  95. JD, where was it that I saw a conspiracy theory about aspartame, the FDA and Donald Rumsfeld? Was that Yelverton’s incoherent rambling? I told it to a friend I have at the FDA who handles aspartame regulation and he wanted to know where his cut of the payoff was.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  96. Don’t worry SPQR, I was merely pointing out that logic isn’t one of his strong suits.

    Rich Horton (e35ee7)

  97. Rich Horton, strong suits? ajb/Yelverton is a walking bag of logical fallacies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  98. In any case, NYT won’t shine a light on bogus scientists, half of whom are foreigners but is happy to expose the alien in the WH.

    Just what Superfreak needs, more exposure.

    And Dims have nothing to look forward to in 2012 other than running from this bufoon’s litany of disasters.

    Let’s see, comes back from Asia with bupkis, comes back from Europe bitch-slapped, TSA pervs, now leaks his diplomacy is custerflucked. It hasn’t been a month.

    Head on a swivel?

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  99. I think that was Yelverton. Aspartame is one of his little pet issues.

    JD (ab60db)

  100. Good Lord!! Does anyone still feel comfortable with our government keeping our medial information confidential after these leaks?

    THey said banks were too big to fall….what about governments too big to fall?

    I strongly recommend you just read a new thriller out about history possibly calling us to our true destny. Where Americans finally take a stand against tyranny.

    http://www.bookbyoliver.com

    There is no more FOIA or transparancy in our government which was based on being an open society. Our govt. now classifies everything so we haven’t a clue to what the govt. is doing. These leaks show this.

    WhiteSnow (00501f)

  101. That ‘s a lot of name to remember, much less spell.

    His name is now ensonced with the immortal one, whose goes by the name of Zamfir.

    As for Wikileaks, I wish just one person in this administration would have the bare minimum of a single ball and tell them if one more leak comes out, we will hunt them down and kill them, with extreme prejudice. Period – just one more, and you’re dead. What a bunch of wussies that are leading our country.

    Dmac (498ece)

  102. Dmac – You violent reichwingnutz are always advocating violence against those that are more properly moral in their political views. Why do you hate America?

    JD (ab60db)

  103. “As for Wikileaks, I wish just one person in this administration would have the bare minimum of a single ball and tell them if one more leak comes out, we will hunt them down and kill them, with extreme prejudice.”

    You want to do this to who? The guardian? the NYT? The leakers? Assange? American citizens who donate to wikileaks?

    imdw (8bb588)

  104. it is nnot the least bit surprising that iamadimwit is taking the side of the treasonous wikileaks and the accused rapist Assmunch.

    JD (ab60db)

  105. We don’t have to do it. The Russians will. (The Saudis will dream of doing it but forget it over their arak, nargileh and loukoum, I think.)

    nk (db4a41)

  106. Is wikileaks even american? They do have to be american for it to be “treasonous” right?

    imdw (8222e7)

  107. Jeez. Tell me again that this guy isn’t a troll? And not a clever one.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  108. It’s rather pleasing to watch a commenter like ajb drown in slow motion. Of course I mean that in the figurative sense. I’m not a good swimmer either.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  109. Birdbath – Yelverton could drown in a baby pool.

    JD (ab60db)

  110. Yelverton is the POS who wished cancer on Jeff’s kid. Ignore him, or help Jeff (and me) find him.

    nk (db4a41)

  111. nk – he is very easy to find, should you wish to.

    JD (ab60db)

  112. dimwit – The source of all of this is a cowardly treasonous American soldier, no?

    JD (ab60db)

  113. ” The source of all of this is a cowardly treasonous American soldier, no?”

    You’re talking about Bradley Manning? But earlier you said “treasonous wikileaks.” Manning is not “wikileaks.”

    And Dmac was talking about more leaks. Manning won’t be making more leaks.

    imdw (7b0243)

  114. jaysus freaking Christ, are you mendoucheous.

    JD (ab60db)

  115. nk, that is awful. If that is true, hammer him with it.

    It’s sort of like posting someone’s home address—when that person works to convict murderers, I think.

    I just don’t understand people sometimes.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  116. Dmac wrote:

    As for Wikileaks, I wish just one person in this administration would have the bare minimum of a single ball and tell them if one more leak comes out, we will hunt them down and kill them, with extreme prejudice. Period – just one more, and you’re dead. What a bunch of wussies that are leading our country.

    Uhhh, why give them a fourth chance? You don’t tell them if one more leak comes out, they’re dead; you go ahead and do what must be done before they can further harm our national security.

    nk wrote:

    We don’t have to do it. The Russians will. (The Saudis will dream of doing it but forget it over their arak, nargileh and loukoum, I think.)

    Actually, what Mr Assange has done is to provide plausible deniability. Before the last document dump, an assassination would certainly have been blamed on the United States. Now, he has created a long enough list of government actors who could order his death that everyone has plausible deniability.

    The cold-blooded Dana (bd7e62)

  117. “Uhhh, why give them a fourth chance? You don’t tell them if one more leak comes out, they’re dead; you go ahead and do what must be done before they can further harm our national security.”

    Meanwhile, Palin finds it “inexplicable” that she can stop leaks of her unpublished book but Obama can’t sue a bunch of newspapers all over the world.

    imdw (53b665)

  118. “Meanwhile, Palin finds it “inexplicable” that she can stop leaks of her unpublished book but Obama can’t sue a bunch of newspapers all over the world.”

    Nope, that’s not what she wonders about. Maybe Media Matterz say that’s what she wonders about.

    Palin asked: “First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months?”

    She said nothing about gagging newspapers. Sorry.

    daleyrocks (df87cd)

  119. “Nope, that’s not what she wonders about”

    Here:

    “Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book “America by Heart” from being leaked,but US Govt can’t stop Wikileaks’ treasonous act?”

    She’s with JD in finding wikileaks “treasonous.” I think they both just like using that word.

    imdw (068ba9)

  120. “but US Govt can’t stop Wikileaks’ treasonous act?””

    Right. I see nothing about Obama suing newspapers in that statement. Can you point to where you found your claim in #118?

    daleyrocks (df87cd)

  121. “Right. I see nothing about Obama suing newspapers in that statement. ”

    I see it in the part where she talks about her lawsuit to shut down pre-publication release of her book, and the part where wikileaks is basically a publisher that distributed pre-publication materials to several newspapers all over the world.

    But you know what, I’ll admit there’s a lot of ambiguity in her tweet. So maybe that is why this is “inexplicable” to her: she doesn’t know what’s going on.

    imdw (2946bf)

  122. Suing newspapers would be useless, once the material gets on the Internet.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  123. “But you know what, I’ll admit there’s a lot of ambiguity in her tweet.”

    Because she doesn’t even mention newspapers? Seems like you are just making sh*t up again.

    daleyrocks (df87cd)

  124. It’s like you don’t know what the word “ambiguity” means.

    imdw (418908)

  125. It’s almost as if don’t know what the word “ambiguity” means.

    imdw (017d51)

  126. Assange?

    What do you think, you quisling of a douchebag. He heads the outfit for publishing sensitive information that has exposed prior informants at the risk of their lives, thereby discouraging future activites in gathering critical information on our enemies. If you don’t understand that basic concept of evil, then you really need to go post somewhere else for awhile – like forever. And the fact that he’s not a citizen means it should be open season on his carcass – either tell the Icelandic authorities to arrest him and deport him here or let’s see him run for his life over the next year and watch how many more leaks he decides to publish.

    Dmac (498ece)

  127. BTW, Clinton would have had this guy’s head on a stick, the sooner the better. This is the same guy who privately mentioned that we should bomb Bosnia back to the stone age.

    Dmac (498ece)

  128. And in the end, he waited nearly three years to do it, making Bosnia a wonderful recruiting tool for AQ, his Energy Secretary, O’Leary, released every
    file of the Department,

    narciso (9d0688)

  129. Good point.

    Dmac (498ece)

  130. I was not happy with WL for publishing material that was ill gotten. But after seeing some of it, I think those responsible for creating it would be more afraid of a TSA pat down than the junk they wrote to one another getting out!

    Besides this whole kerfuffle is just being caused by the NYT, cuz they are so jealous!

    NOW what we all should be looking at is where are our rights being undermined by another bill in our worthless congress that will cost us freedom and money at the same time Christmas credit card bills hit the mailbox?

    RRR (99d16a)

  131. Wikileaks has some revelations about the push for AGW.

    And by the way, a skeptical paper on Antarctic warming is being published despite ferocious opposition from the usual suspects:
    article here. This shows that the East Anglia CRU revelations are having a effect on breaking the strangle hold the AGW crowd had.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6391 secs.