Hackers Catch Prove Global Warming Fraud
in [Physics]
|
From: OuroborosRex on 30 Nov 2009 08:48 Robert Higgins 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? They don't break and enter for it.
From: mrbawana2u on 30 Nov 2009 19:50 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, Can't find anybody stupid enough to take your delusions seriously, columbiaaccidentofbirth? > and your > emotions have outwieghed your rational logical judgments. Once again, > you are skipping over the crime. Yeah, it's a happy crime! We need more of it! Can we get the leakers some government money? They deserve a good pay day for their work!
From: mrbawana2u on 30 Nov 2009 19:57 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.... Keeerist, it must be painful to be columbiaaccidentofbirth stupid. You must be on 10 - 12 vicoden daily?
From: mrbawana2u on 30 Nov 2009 20:05 On Nov 29, 10:07 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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... You're pathetically transparent, columbiaaccidentofbirth. Higgins figured you out quick.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 30 Nov 2009 22:33
On Nov 30, 6:20 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:13:30 -0600, Bill Ward wrote: On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:11:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote: a conversation between two idiots... |