Hackers Catch Prove Global Warming Fraud
in [Physics]
|
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 29 Nov 2009 15:39 On Nov 29, 12:26 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 2:58 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 10:01 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 12:46 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 7:46 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 29, 10:22 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 28, 9:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously. > > > > > > > > I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that > > > > > > > it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar > > > > > > > scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason. > > > > > > > > You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country. > > > > > > > and what about cyber crime? > > > > > > What about it? Do you support the vigorous prosecution of every > > > > > newspaper reporter that "finds" classified or private documents? Or > > > > > only those whose political views disagree with your own? > > > > > i have had to abide by the law when conducting my own investigation, > > > > thats what i am basing my argument on. I do not condone cybercrime, > > > > so i would have you expand on the words "finds" in your above > > > > statement, as to how it relates to the work of a hacker. > > > > You're joking, right? When the New York Times or Washington Post > > > publishes classified data, how do you think it gets it in the first > > > place? > > > Don't you know that leaking classified intel is a crime? Yet how many > > > people have been prosecuted for leaking? Who was prosecuted for > > > leaking info on terrorist renditions, or the "black prisons"? > > > > If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I > > > can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New > > > York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every > > > reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every > > > significant investigation involves such practices, without which the > > > press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down > > > the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged. > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked > > > or stolen documents all the time?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > first im suggesting you are skipping over how the information was > > aquired, which was a cyber crime. > > I get it - you are "shocked, shocked!" that someone in the press would > do something unethical/illegal. Shocked! > > > Next ethical use of information > > obtained from a source is most certainly in question here, so dont try > > to make left vs right, your example is an issue of ethics, mine does > > not waiver from left to right, does yours? > > What is remotely "unethical" here? The Left routinely supports > disclosures of ANY nature, from ANY source, even if it directly > jeopardizes national security. Are you saying, for example, that the > NYT disclosing the "warrantless wiretapping" program didn't damage USA > security? Yet, this is considered an adequate trade-off for freedom of > the press and an informed public. Where is there ANYWHERE near the > same situation here? The worst that happens here is that some pompous > scientists are mildly embarassed. Since they are accepting public > funds, and are holding themselves out as public figures (proselytizing > to the public), they deserve no greater privacy than an MP or > governor.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ok on that same note, you are blind, BLIND to a cyber crime, and your emotions have outwieghed your rational logical judgments. Once again, you are skipping over the crime.
From: Marvin the Martian on 29 Nov 2009 16:31 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:44:34 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: > On Nov 29, 9:27 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:22:02 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation >> wrote: >> > On Nov 28, 9:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change >> >> > seriously. >> >> >> I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said >> >> that it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion >> >> dollar scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason. >> >> >> You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your >> >> country. >> >> > and what about cyber crime? >> >> Let's see... A trillion dollar treasonous scam on one side. >> >> Downloading files and putting them on a website to expose that crime on >> the other ... when it is known that the criminals intended to (and did) >> delete the evidence when faced with a Freedom of Information act order >> to hand it over. >> >> These "hackers" (if it wasn't an inside job) just saved the damned >> world from you nutjobs. What they did was entirely justified. > > Once again, your rational fails. You present no rule of law, just a > rationalization based on your opinions, where does it stop? Once again, they saved the world. No one is going to convict them. They're heroes, you're a stooge, so forget it.
From: Mahipal7638 on 29 Nov 2009 16:33 On Nov 29, 1:01 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 12:46 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 7:46 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 10:22 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 9:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously. > > > > > > I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that > > > > > it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar > > > > > scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason. > > > > > > You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country. > > > > > and what about cyber crime? > > > > What about it? Do you support the vigorous prosecution of every > > > newspaper reporter that "finds" classified or private documents? Or > > > only those whose political views disagree with your own? > > > i have had to abide by the law when conducting my own investigation, > > thats what i am basing my argument on. I do not condone cybercrime, > > so i would have you expand on the words "finds" in your above > > statement, as to how it relates to the work of a hacker. > > You're joking, right? When the New York Times or Washington Post > publishes classified data, how do you think it gets it in the first > place? > Don't you know that leaking classified intel is a crime? Yet how many > people have been prosecuted for leaking? Who was prosecuted for > leaking info on terrorist renditions, or the "black prisons"? Good questions. > If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I > can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New > York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every > reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every > significant investigation involves such practices, without which the > press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down > the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged. What's funny is anyone considering paying 10 bucks for a VCR in light of today's technologies. What year are you time-trapped in? In principle, stolen property is independent of it being an archaic VCR or a set of freshly minted digital bits or records from anyone. Did the Hackers ask for money or otherwise sell the emails that were clearly ill-protected given today's clouded computers? Doesn't matter. What matters is the emails exist(a)all. > Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked > or stolen documents all the time? Set aside the IPCC and its recent findings. The greater IPMM works in mysterious ways. Enjo(y).. -- Mahipal If you have to ask what IPMM is, you're so search technology challenged. Asking questions is becoming so outdated -- since it's already been asked and addressed.
From: Marvin the Martian on 29 Nov 2009 16:34 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:55:10 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: >> Answer these two questions, without a cut and paste from one of your >> bot replies. >> >> Do the East Anglia e-mails show that there is global cooling or not? > > Global warming is happening independent of emails. The impact of > increasing temperature is showing up in many way in many parts of the > world. I don't really care much about the East Anglia e-mails. 1) You're an idiot. The e-mails show that the top frauds in the AGW scam KNOW that there is no warming. They were conspiring to HIDE the warming. Okay, give it up. 2) You're saying that there's warming. Based on the "work" that we now know as lies. So other words, you're sticking WITH the bald faced lies even when everyone KNOWS they're lies. >> Do the East Anglia E-mails show that there is an intentional hiding of >> the cooling? >> >> > There is no cooling to hide, Marvin. You would do well to start > taking global climate change seriously. You're delusional.
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Nov 2009 16:41
On Nov 29, 3:39 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 12:26 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 2:58 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 29, 10:01 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:46 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 7:46 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 29, 10:22 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 9:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:36 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Marvin--You need to start taking global climate change seriously. > > > > > > > > > I do. I want to see criminal penalties for the frauds lied and said that > > > > > > > > it was warming when the earth was cooling. This is a trillion dollar > > > > > > > > scam. Perhaps put them on trial for high treason. > > > > > > > > > You don't give a rip about scientific integrity nor about your country. > > > > > > > > and what about cyber crime? > > > > > > > What about it? Do you support the vigorous prosecution of every > > > > > > newspaper reporter that "finds" classified or private documents? Or > > > > > > only those whose political views disagree with your own? > > > > > > i have had to abide by the law when conducting my own investigation, > > > > > thats what i am basing my argument on. I do not condone cybercrime, > > > > > so i would have you expand on the words "finds" in your above > > > > > statement, as to how it relates to the work of a hacker. > > > > > You're joking, right? When the New York Times or Washington Post > > > > publishes classified data, how do you think it gets it in the first > > > > place? > > > > Don't you know that leaking classified intel is a crime? Yet how many > > > > people have been prosecuted for leaking? Who was prosecuted for > > > > leaking info on terrorist renditions, or the "black prisons"? > > > > > If some sells me a VCR for 10 bucks, saying it "fell off a truck", I > > > > can (and will be) prosecuted for receiving stolen property. If a New > > > > York Times reporter gets the same deal on a stack of documents, every > > > > reporter from here to Kalamazoo will invoke privileges. Almost every > > > > significant investigation involves such practices, without which the > > > > press wold accomplish little. Unless, of course, the story smacks down > > > > the Left, in which case everyone becomes outraged. > > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that newspapers don't traffic in hacked > > > > or stolen documents all the time?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > first im suggesting you are skipping over how the information was > > > aquired, which was a cyber crime. > > > I get it - you are "shocked, shocked!" that someone in the press would > > do something unethical/illegal. Shocked! > > > > Next ethical use of information > > > obtained from a source is most certainly in question here, so dont try > > > to make left vs right, your example is an issue of ethics, mine does > > > not waiver from left to right, does yours? > > > What is remotely "unethical" here? The Left routinely supports > > disclosures of ANY nature, from ANY source, even if it directly > > jeopardizes national security. Are you saying, for example, that the > > NYT disclosing the "warrantless wiretapping" program didn't damage USA > > security? Yet, this is considered an adequate trade-off for freedom of > > the press and an informed public. Where is there ANYWHERE near the > > same situation here? The worst that happens here is that some pompous > > scientists are mildly embarassed. Since they are accepting public > > funds, and are holding themselves out as public figures (proselytizing > > to the public), they deserve no greater privacy than an MP or > > governor.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ok on that same note, you are blind, BLIND to a cyber crime, and your > emotions have outwieghed your rational logical judgments. Once again, > you are skipping over the crime. You're right - the hackers were NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY. How many letters have your written asking for prosecution of the reporters for the NYT or Washington Post for crimes? Has it occured to you that the meails in question suggest a certain pattern of attempts to circumvent laws like the FOIA? Are you upset about that, too? Were you the guy in high school who used to check hall passes? |