Hackers Catch Prove Global Warming Fraud
in [Physics]
|
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 29 Nov 2009 21:13 On Nov 29, 1:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - interesting, you are once again are rationalizing a crime, that is a fact. You are trying to equate what a reporter or editor should do with leaked information, to that of posting private emails that were acquired by a hacker, and how a webmaster could handle things. But you are missing the point of how the information was aquired. Attempting to marginalize such a topic with your lame characterizations, does not make a logical case, it just shows how you are willing to justify a crime....
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Nov 2009 21:29 On Nov 29, 9:13 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 1:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > interesting, you are once again are rationalizing a crime, that is a > fact. You are trying to equate what a reporter or editor should do > with leaked information, to that of posting private emails that were > acquired by a hacker, and how a webmaster could handle things. But > you are missing the point of how the information was aquired. > Attempting to marginalize such a topic with your lame > characterizations, does not make a logical case, it just shows how you > are willing to justify a crime.... If a leftist steals documents or emails from a big, bad evil corporation, or from a Republican Administration, it is praise-worthy "whistle-blowing", and you'll fight to the death for the right of the reporter to avoid having to comply with court orders to name the source. If a non-leftist double parks in the process of uncovering massive fraud in the name of science, you'll prosecute them like you're the Spanish Inquisition. Yeh, we get it.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 29 Nov 2009 22:07 On Nov 29, 6:29 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 9:13 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation > > > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 1:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > interesting, you are once again are rationalizing a crime, that is a > > fact. You are trying to equate what a reporter or editor should do > > with leaked information, to that of posting private emails that were > > acquired by a hacker, and how a webmaster could handle things. But > > you are missing the point of how the information was aquired. > > Attempting to marginalize such a topic with your lame > > characterizations, does not make a logical case, it just shows how you > > are willing to justify a crime.... > > If a leftist steals documents or emails from a big, bad evil > corporation, or from a Republican Administration, it is praise-worthy > "whistle-blowing", and you'll fight to the death for the right of the > reporter to avoid having to comply with court orders to name the > source. If a non-leftist double parks in the process of uncovering > massive fraud in the name of science, you'll prosecute them like > you're the Spanish Inquisition. Yeh, we get it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - dude, if thats what you getting out of this thread, you dont want to understand much outside your canned view of the universe, good luck with that...
From: isw on 30 Nov 2009 00:52 In article <slrnhh450i.t29.tuka(a)bill.heins.net>, TUKA <tuka(a)tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-29, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > TUKA wrote: > >> On 2009-11-29, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >>> Marvin the Martian 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. > >>> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has > >>> been doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored". > >>> You have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set. > >>> > >>> The global data CLEARLY shows: > >>> > >>> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 > >>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png > >>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 > >>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm > >>> > >>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase > >>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend > >>> s.gif > >>> > >>> And accompanying Sea Level Rise > >>> http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700 > >>> px-recent_sea_level_rise.png > >>> > >>> There are many sources of good data, Marvin > >>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ > >>> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > >> > >> Lies. They won't show the raw data. > >> > > > > As any fool can see, you are wrong. > > Oh yeah? Just give the URL where it can be found. > > No, cooked data from NOAA doesn't count. Raw data only. All of it. > Including the station listings that supposedly provide the final data. > They won't provide it, and are being sued for it. > > And HADCRU? Oh yeah, they just in the past few hours admitted they > destroyed it all. All raw data from 1988 and before, gone. It's merely *their copies* they destroyed; the originals are still where they've always been, at the facilities that actually made the measurements. Isaac
From: TUKA on 30 Nov 2009 01:20
On 2009-11-30, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > In article <slrnhh450i.t29.tuka(a)bill.heins.net>, > TUKA <tuka(a)tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-11-29, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> > TUKA wrote: >> >> On 2009-11-29, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >>> Marvin the Martian 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. >> >>> For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has >> >>> been doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored". >> >>> You have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set. >> >>> >> >>> The global data CLEARLY shows: >> >>> >> >>> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 >> >>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png >> >>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 >> >>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm >> >>> >> >>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase >> >>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend >> >>> s.gif >> >>> >> >>> And accompanying Sea Level Rise >> >>> http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700 >> >>> px-recent_sea_level_rise.png >> >>> >> >>> There are many sources of good data, Marvin >> >>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ >> >>> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php >> >> >> >> Lies. They won't show the raw data. >> >> >> > >> > As any fool can see, you are wrong. >> >> Oh yeah? Just give the URL where it can be found. >> >> No, cooked data from NOAA doesn't count. Raw data only. All of it. >> Including the station listings that supposedly provide the final data. >> They won't provide it, and are being sued for it. >> >> And HADCRU? Oh yeah, they just in the past few hours admitted they >> destroyed it all. All raw data from 1988 and before, gone. > > It's merely *their copies* they destroyed; the originals are still where > they've always been, at the facilities that actually made the > measurements. You don't understand either. Without the mapping of station data to adjusted data, the adjusted data is meaningless. Sure, the original data is (or may) be there, but you don't know how it was employed. So it will require re-compiling all the original data again, and rebuilding the database and redoing all the calculations. Big task, but that is what is going to have to be done. -- An alien from Mars would almost instantly diagnose the problem of the Palestinians from simply listening to their inane apologists: The problem is not the acquisition of the final seven percent of the West Bank denied in the offer to them at Camp David, but the pathology of a victim culture, one that has learned, through playing the card of terror with simultaneous appeals to multicultural guilt, how to shake down Westerners for their money, attention, and pity. -Victor Davis Hanson |