Greg Schiller's Comments
Page 1 of 392  first | prev | next 
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 3:33pm EST
Please go back and read my comment again. The Institution has a right to disseminate anything done on their work stations. But, the employee has every right to expect privacy from those emails being stolen and disseminated by outside forces that do not have permission from the Institution.

Again, you are completely wrong and you haven't a clue how wrong you are.

1) An institution HAS NO CONTROL over who gets to review its emails and work product. That is determined by the law, not by the institution.

Frequently, and especially in the case of the CRU, the institution does NOT want to disseminate the data. Unfortunately, the law says they must. That is why your friends were breaking the law when they destroyed public data.

2) At work, emails are not the property of the people who send and receive them. This is almost always the case.

3) You keep coming back to the issue that the emails were published illegally. As if this means something. The fact is, whoever published them may face criminal charges, but that does not change the present status of the emails themselves, they are now public.

How do the lawyers say it, oh yes, I have heard it many times before when the left was benefiting from a whistle-blower, "You cannot unring a bell."
Your argument is like saying that a person doesn't have an expectation of keeping his money just because someone robbed him at gunpoint. I can see why you have difficulty discriminating between reality and ideological fancy.

Money is personal property. The CRU emails were, and are public property. You seem to be having a difficult time with this.

Individuals cannot control what is the property of the public. Nor can an institution subject to Data Practices like The University of East Anglia control what is the property of the public. It simply is not theirs to control.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 2:36pm EST
Please. You don't even know what was the topic of the emails. They seem to be suggesting that they didn't want some biased free market lobbyist cherry picking data to mischaracterized, just like is being done with these emails. Why don't you let others decide if there was anything illegal in the emails before you go off and condemn the whole basis for climate science.

Again, you are out of your league.

The law clearly states that Freedom of Information Requests must be honored. There is no mention of motive in the law. Quite the contrary, FOI requests are a primary tool used by activists to get information out of those who do not want to share it.

Are we witnessing a FOI for me, but not for thee attitude here?

On May 29 11:04:11 2008, when Phil Jones wrote "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?", he was breaking the law.

It does not get any more blatant than that.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 2:29pm EST
There is always an expectation of privacy.


Sorry David, but this is where your youth and inexperience shines through.

You are out of your league, I suggest you spin in another direction.

Every government worker, from clerk to director, receives an annual notice repeating the email and work product policy. They are instructed to read it and sign it. It clearly states that there is no expectation of privacy in any document they produce at work.

It is as simple as that.
The institution may have a right to disseminate emails, but this is not the case. Instead, the emails were stolen illegally. You seem to have forgotten that.

Data practices is quite clear. Once a document enters the public domain, by any means, it becomes public. The only exception to that is security and personal information, neither of which are germane to these emails.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 2:10pm EST
Better hurry, the ice caps are melting fast.

Most be all that hot air coming from the AGW spin machine. You have to wonder what kind of carbon-footprint that sucker has. :)
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 2:06pm EST
Do you wish me to enumerate the illegalities on this page or should we create a separte thread? Or both, your call.
I can see that you have implied, well, stated, that there is illegality here. Have they been arrested? Or are people guilty in the UK before being charged with anything just because you say they are guilty.

This is a process, David,

Here is what will happen.

1) A prosecutor will review the emails for illegal activity. (check, the emails are proof of that)

2) The prosecutor will determine that the email was sent by the person in question. (check, that is a given)

3) The prosecutor will determine if the actions described did indeed happen.(check, the text in the email is actually a crime. You cannot instruct someone to violate a law without soliciting a criminal action)

4) The prosecutor will then elect or decline to press charges.

5) If charges are persued, there will most likely a negotiation.

6) The case will then be forwarded to the courts for trial or disposition.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 8 | comments: 10
in reply to a comment by William Briggs
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 1:49pm EST
Thank you, William.

I apologize for any confusion.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 11:24am EST
There has been no illegal behavior in any of the emails I've seen.

Really?

May I direct you to but one of the MANY emails regarding the violation of Data Practices law in direct violation of Britain's Freedom of Information laws?
Phil Jones, three weeks after David Holland's FOI request:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone [snip]
School of Environmental Sciences Fax [snip]
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [snip]
NR4 7TJ


The [snips] are my redactions.


If you cannot see the illegality here, you simply do not understand FOI or Data Practices law.

Seeing that you have no scientific or government experience, I can understand your lack of familiarity with the topic.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 11:13am EST
David,

Spin all you want - but steady yourself for the next round of CRU Emails. It appears as if this is but the tip of the iceberg.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 11:10am EST
Perhaps now it is in the public domain. Ethics is another matter.

There is nothing unethical about quoting public data in the public domain.
Do they? Why does that matter? The US Government gives funding to every country on the planet, so do we own everything China does too?

To accept U.S. funding, you must sign a contract mandating compliance with data practices standards. The standards are quite specific about what is public. These emails clearly fall under the terms of data standards which must be complied with by the CRU as a whole and not just with specific U.S. contracts.
You think there is no expectation of privacy for individuals?

David, you are way out of your league here. But no, emails sent or recieved from a public institution are public property and there is NO EXPECTATION of privacy. Even emails between employees and their spouses and children. Sorry, but that is the law, both here and in Britain.
You presented it with innuendo implying that it did something that it didn't. Romm addressed the actual issue and provided additional information and context so that it could be accurately interpreted.

I posted the email in its entirety without comment. Romm spun it like a top.

Since you neglected to comment on my point number 5, I will repeat it.

5) You seem only to be concerned about the legal provenience of the email but have no similar regard for the illegalities contained within them. The email reveal a pattern of illegal behavior by the world's top climate scientists. Conspiring to thwart an FOI request will land a few of them in court, if not in jail.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 9:49am EST
Nice try, David.

1) The email IS in the public domain. I violated no law or ethics.

2) The email IS public property and to be precise, it is my public property and yours since the Climate Reseach Unit of The University of East Anglia recieves U.S. Government funding.

3) Because the CRU is a public entity, there is no expectation of privacy. I am very familiar with the law concerning public data and it works in the U.K, the same way it does here.

4) Unlike Romm who cherry-picked the email, I presented it in full form.

5) You seem only to be concerned about the legal provenience of the email but have no similar regard for the illegalities contained within them. The email reveal a pattern of illegal behavior by the world's top climate scientists. Conspiring to thwart an FOI request will land a few of them in court, if not in jail.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 9:42am EST
Then what was your claim? The way you flip ethical polarity makes one dizzy.

Either it is right or wrong to take money from ENRON, Exxon, Shell, BP, Goldman-Sachs, GE, and Leyman Brothers or it is not.

You seem to suggest that it is wrong to take money from these companies to present the full range of opinion regarding the climate, but it is okay to take their money to present an over-hyped hysterical fear-driven view of the climate.

It seems Orwell has written a HOWTO manual.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 8 | comments: 10
in reply to a comment by Kenny T.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 9:25am EST
I agree with you there, Kenny, but one does not have to enter the domain of conspiracy to understand the full implications of the CRU Emails. The text is crystal clear, these guys are engaging in cover-up, manipulating data and violating Freedom Of Information law.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 9:21am EST
Interesting. I would say the difference today is that the scientists are now practicing science openly

If anything is revealed by the CRU Emails, it is this. The way climate science is being practiced by its leaders, is anything but open. It is petty, insular and faith driven.

Saying otherwise, in the face of the emails text, is simply Orwell on steroids.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 9:18am EST
Spell with me now. A= no author with a last name starting with A, B = Briffa, C= well, you get the idea.

I am pleased to learn that you have mastered the alphabet. Apparently you find significance in the placement of Mr. Briffa's name, while that may be important to you it was not important to me.

What is important is something you and I have been going on about from the beginning. It is painfully obvious that due diligence is a problem among climate scientists.
No, you've created this whole scenario in your mind to support your preconceived notion. The uncertainties of Briffa's work have been discussed in the science world, as have the uncertainties about all science, all the time.

I didn't create the scenario, a lead author of IPCC AR4 did by not checking the temperature record in the Yamal Peninsula to verify the conclusion of his study against simple observation.

However, that is the least of Briffa's problems. The worst is that he refused to archive his data then stonewalled its release for eight years. Only when he made the mistake of publishing in a Royal Society journal was he required to release his data.

It took two days for the skeptics to point out the flaws in his study....flaws that the CRU emails reveal that everyone knew about but helped cover up.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 9:04am EST
Let's be clear, RealClimate.org is the voice of at least two of the people whose emails were released, Gavin Schmidt and Micheal Mann.

More interesting is what is contained in the emails. Putting aside the obvious illegal behavior which will toast their careers, the emails reveal these guys are believers, not scientists. They are believers who are willing to shape the science around the message, instead of the other way around.

By the way, RealClimage.org is owned by Environmental Media Services (EMS), a Washington media branch of Fenton Communications, the largest public interest firm in the United States, a company closely affiliated with The Democratic Party.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 8:47am EST
They demonstrate no such thing. They demonstrate that the denialist industry found a handful of statements out of a 1000 emails and thousands of documents that they felt they could reinterpret into something nefarious. That's called cherry picking and misrepresentation, common deceitful practices of the denialist industry.

Obviously, you have not read the emails.

Many emails contain references to deleting correspondance and data to avoid disclosure under pending Freedom of Information requests.

That is illegal, David, it is much more serious than releasing emails which are public property and carry NO IMPLICIT right of privacy.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 8:36am EST
So you support breaking the law?

You have a knack for irony, David. A large number of the emails are conversations between lead IPCC authors on how to break the law.

But let's speak to the general notion of whistle-blowing.

Are you suggesting that Daniel Ellsberg should NOT have released The Pentagon Papers?

Are you suggesting what he did was wrong?
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 8:25am EST
So what you are saying, David, is when Robert L. Bradley was lobbying for Kyoto and writing speeches for ENRON's Ken Lay, he was a good guy, it is only when he began working for other interests that he became the bad guy.

And how does this make Jim Hanen's paycheck from the defunct Leyman Brothers any less despicable?

This still does not address the issue of the billions pouring into pro-AGW coffers from corporate and high finance sources.

Let's look at some of the funders of the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia (the folks with the email problem).

British Petroleum,
Eastern Electricity,
Greenpeace International,
Leverhulme Trust,
National Power,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Shell,
Sultanate of Oman,
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)


Again, we have this predictable double-standard. When pro-AGW forces receive support from BP, Shell, The Sultan of Oman and activist organizations - it is a bad thing but when BP, Shel and The Sultan of Oman support a skeptical view, it is proof positive of nefarious motives.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 8:05am EST
So let me see if I understand this, David. It is not okay for me to quote an email that is in public domain because I am critical of the hype surrounding climate change but it is okay for Joseph Romm to quote the same email because he supports the hype surrounding climate change.

I guess I understand that all too well.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 109
in reply to a comment by David K.
Greg Schiller Nov 22, 2009, 7:23am EST
See, this is what I mean about cherry picking and reinterpreting and using the outlier to define the whole. Which from a scientific point of view is rubbish.

Go to your IPCC AR4, flip to the first page of Chapter 6

Who is the first name you see? That is right Dr. Keith Briffa (UK)

This is his premiere paper we are talking about and the science is so bad, it is like a airline neglecting to fuel a plane and all the peers, like pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer fail to catch "the outlier".
Page 1 of 392  first | prev | next 
 
Greg Schiller
MN

Works better in practice than theory
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16811, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.