Tuesday, December 15, 2009

"You don’t mess with US lawyers"

In a post titled Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!, James Delingpole writes of ClimateGate issues:

God bless America and – can I really be saying this? – God bless the legal profession! Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, most of the world’s other governments (save the plucky Canucks), the United Nations and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to sweep Climategate under the carpet, the lawyers are putting this shoddy scandal where it belongs: in the dock. (Hat tip: Platosays)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Below – reports Watts Up With That - is a copy of the notice sent to the DOE’s Savannah office in South Carolina:


What does it mean? Big, BIG trouble for the Climategate scientists is what it means. You don’t mess with US lawyers and the reason that what might seem an essentially British affair comes under their jurisdiction is because the DOE has provided funding for these scientists.

See also



***One Lawrence Solomon points a finger at Wikipedia:

One person in the nine-member Realclimate.orgteam -- U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley -- would take on particularly crucial duties. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known -Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming.


But cap-and-trade is a dead parrot. In a way, that’s a shame. Actually trying to pass it would allow for salting the political earth from which the sneaky, cynical idea sprang. But that, too, shall come.


From an msnbc post titled DECADE OF SCIENCE HIGHS AND LOWS :

Bill Ralston writes: "Why isn't the falsification of data on alleged global warming one of the top 'uh-oh' stories? For crying out loud - we just had a global conference agree to spend billions of dollars on a 'problem' based on fudged data!" That is definitely an "uh-oh" moment, showing how even scientists resort to spin control in order to squelch rivals. The hacked e-mails show how data can be massaged to support the desired story. That doesn't mean the underlying story of climate change isn't true, but it does mean climatologists will have to work harder to earn the trust of politicians and the public. My favorite Web site for this kind of debate is RealClimate.org. Folks on the other side of the question will no doubt have their own favorite resources, and I'm glad to pass them along as comments.

Of "uh-oh" moments, Alan Boyle wrote of Schon:

In 2002, a committee at Bell Labs, where he worked, finds that data sets had been fudged and reused.

IPBiz notes that the Beasley committee formed at the request of Bell Labs was not "at" Bell Labs. Lucent/Alcatel has since removed the Beasley Report from its website. Another Sikahema event.


Post a Comment

<< Home