Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oh dear. They may have murdered AGW

Rate this topic


Maarten
 Share

Recommended Posts

These were private e-mails. Also, I was under the assumption we were under a government that didn't require violence to get things done.

Work email, sent from workplace server is not private property of the sender. It belongs to the employer which in this case is a public institution. It is the employer who pays for your email address and is essentially responsible for anything that is send out from that email address. There can be no expectation of privacy on the employee part.

Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and others are public servants.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In my ideal world, the disposition of this hacker's case would wait disposition until it was determined what level of criminal activity, if any, was going on at the CRU. If there was crime, then the release of the emails and files would be partially and possibly entirely justified because there is no right to commit crime behind a shield of privacy, or anywhere else.

Isn't it one thing to be a whistleblower, which I think is analogous to what you're describing, and another thing entirely to be an external individual violating property rights with the potentiality of exposing criminal activities? What is the standard for determining whether the intruder's actions are criminal - are they only criminal if they had no prior knowledge of possible criminal activity?

Aren't we basically handing objective justice over to the vigilante when we decide whether their actions were criminal based on either their knowledge and intent, or on the ultimate results of their actions? If they had no knowledge of possible crimes by the CRU, then what's their legal status? If they did have prior knowledge, but it turned out to be false knowledge, then what's their legal status? If they had prior knowledge, and their actions vindicated their beliefs, but only coincidentally, then what? If they had prior knowledge and their actions truly vindicated their beliefs, then what?

And if we start going down the "prior knowledge" path - well I have knowledge of a widespread consipracy to forcefully take my property from me in the form of forced taxation. Should I use retaliatory force against them? If not, by what standard do you rule out one but not the other?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, but we have no knowledge of what is the case in the CRU employees' specific contract.

Although possible, I personally have never herd of a case in which an employer gave up their property right in regard to work email to the employees. In this case, it is public record. Look it up if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although possible, I personally have never herd of a case in which an employer gave up their property right in regard to work email to the employees. In this case, it is public record. Look it up if you like.

Should I be free to walk in to my local USPS and steal whatever I want? What's the difference between that and this case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theft in that sense is not exactly the same as the invasion of privacy in this case. Yes, the person took something that he didn't earn, but he did not deprive anyone of the original documents, either.

And these emails belonged to a public institution, which makes it a different situation than if it were a private individual, or a company. I don't think government institutions really have privacy in the sense that individuals do, except in matters of national security and the like. It is no coincidence that their operating statements are publicly accessible, and that the documents are able to be released when requested.

I don't know enough about the specifics to say if it is a crime or not; but it is ludicrous to compare it to breaking into a private company and stealing anything in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent more in-depth article sheds light on the content of these emails. Highlights from emails include misleading newspaper reporters, assuming that published critiques of CRU are wrong and that CRU's analysis is correct while admittedly having made no examination of any of the data, and being "amazed" that Science accepted CRU's paper. Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it one thing to be a whistleblower, which I think is analogous to what you're describing, and another thing entirely to be an external individual violating property rights with the potentiality of exposing criminal activities? What is the standard for determining whether the intruder's actions are criminal - are they only criminal if they had no prior knowledge of possible criminal activity?

I had the whistleblower model in mind, and I agree with the suspicions of some that this was at least partially an inside job. Vigilantism goes beyond self-defense and is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't we basically handing objective justice over to the vigilante when we decide whether their actions were criminal based on either their knowledge and intent, or on the ultimate results of their actions?

It is not about their belief, knowledge at the time, or intent but about what the reality actually IS. There is no right to privacy while committing a crime or a fraud. In this respect, a friend of mine pointed out to me, that this is not a private vs. public institution issue at all (although there is a social and legal expectation of information disclosure for public servants in regard to public matters, and AGW certainly qualifies).

So a person considering hacking to someone's computer, for example, should better be sure that violations are actually taking place because that is what determines the validity of the action. If you decide to act, you better be sure, that it is, in fact, in self defense (and it can be on someone else's behalf). This is true for any action that usually is a rights violation. For example, killing can be justified according to the same principle and the same rules of diligence apply here as in the case of killing another person. If it turned out to be false - it is a crime. If it turned out to be false but it was reasonable for you to conclude threat (it happens) - that can be used as a justification to lessen the punishment - but it is still a crime. If in self defense - not a crime.

Some actions by whistleblowers in UK are protected under this law

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't heard the news, here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/brea...files-released/

and try the homepage too for new updates.

The courtesy summary is that files containing many emails and data from CRU (climate research unit, hadley center, east anglia university) were hacked from that center and released anonymously to the public. The controversy stems from the fact that there had previously been some questions about the data used to provide key evidence for the extreme warming during the 90's cited as the global warming cause for alarm. Now, the data has been hacked (I haven't heard what the conclusions are, but climateaudit.com has info), but also, many incriminating emails have been discovered of scientists colluding to preserve their cause.

I saw 'preserve their cause' as opposed to saying 'commit fraud', because I'm concerned with the motivations of these scientists. I'm not saying they didn't commit fraud, I'm saying that I want to look primarily at their motivations for personally buying into the warming hysteria. My conclusion is that many of these scientists probably did not feel like they were perpetrating an outright lie. It's as if they believed that global warming was happening, that it ought to happen according to climate science, and that it should happen, so data is only an inconvenience and dissenting scientists must have an agenda.

In the context of philosophy, I see this as an extreme example of deductive vs. inductive reasoning. I see this in other sciences - especially economics - a lot. Econometrics requires that assumptions be made for any statistical analysis to occur. If you want to discover something hidden in a set of statistical data, you have to 'guess' what it might be deductively, then see if the data 'fit' your guess. Obviously, this process is prone to innumerable logical errors.

Still, do you suppose that a lot of global warming alarmism might be the result of the sincere but wrong use of deductive reasoning in science?

I come to learn, so please tell me if I have misunderstood something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's worse than an innocent mistake of inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I think the more invested high profile believers such as Hansen are willing to "massage" the truth for what they see as the greater good. What's a little fibbed data when the good of the Earth is at stake.

This story has received precious little attention so far. The few people I mentioned it to hadn't even heard about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's worse than an innocent mistake of inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I think the more invested high profile believers such as Hansen are willing to "massage" the truth for what they see as the greater good.

Isn't the minimum qualification for legitimacy as a scientist a thorough understanding of the methods of inductive proof? Creating, ignoring, minimizing or suppressing data that "falsifies" a theory is not even acceptable practice in a boardroom, a courtroom, or a bedroom. Has the public understanding of common sense been so eroded that no one can call a spade an effin shovel anymore? In the 19th Century, for even the suggestion of this level of malfeasance, a man's character and reputation would be irreparably stained for life.

Already the BBC, who should know better, has posted an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm) commenting solely about the break in, under their Technology banner, just below their Science and the Environment banner, where it should be. They are reporting as if it's merely a technology crime instead of a far reaching moral crime. The truth is out there, but nobody is listening. Well, nobody who matters.

<Φ>aj

When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power. Alston Chase

"had to abolish knowledge in order to leave room for faith." Kant

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars fortell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! Robert Anson Heinlein

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of philosophy, I see this as an extreme example of deductive vs. inductive reasoning. I see this in other sciences - especially economics - a lot. Econometrics requires that assumptions be made for any statistical analysis to occur. If you want to discover something hidden in a set of statistical data, you have to 'guess' what it might be deductively, then see if the data 'fit' your guess. Obviously, this process is prone to innumerable logical errors.

Please use quotes when using other's words. Here is a full context of this paragraph which explains proper scientific approach which is a total commitment to reality, honesty in presenting your findings without any particular agenda. This is how scientists with integrity behave.

Feynman on scientific integrity:

It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

In the context of philosophy, I see this as an extreme example of deductive vs. inductive reasoning. I see this in other sciences - especially economics - a lot. Econometrics requires that assumptions be made for any statistical analysis to occur. If you want to discover something hidden in a set of statistical data, you have to 'guess' what it might be deductively, then see if the data 'fit' your guess.

-------------------------

If the data does not 'fit' your guess you examine the validity of your guess (or collect larger data set to repeat the 'fit' test again). You never 'massage' the data to fit your guess.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, do you suppose that a lot of global warming alarmism might be the result of the sincere but wrong use of deductive reasoning in science?

I come to learn, so please tell me if I have misunderstood something.

Sure, it's possible, especially given how lots of this stuff is driven by computer models, but that's not science. Science has to be data driven.

The process is:

1> Identify the subject of study.

2> Read what has been discovered about it to date.

3> Come to a *logical* hypothesis about it.

4> Immerse yourself in the actual subject (gathering data, experimentation, measurement) to check your hypothesis.

5> Re-hypothesize via logic based upon your findings.

You keep cycling through this process, always anchoring your hypotheses in the facts and logic.

Real scientists are immersed in the subject of their study, i.e. the actual observed facts. You constantly sift through and check your hypotheses against the evidence until the hypothesis is more and more solid and maybe you discover a natural principle. Newton was probably the best exemplar of this. He was quite explicit about the method he used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, but we have no knowledge of what is the case in the CRU employees' specific contract.

A commenter on one of the websites reporting on this story found the following advice to staff on the University of East Anglia website:

Guidance for staff

5 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information

* The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA

* A request for information must be answered within 20 working days

* If you receive a request for information which mentions FOI, is not information you routinely provide, is unusual, or you are unsure of, you should pass the request to your FOIA contact or the Information Policy and Compliance Manager

* You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there

* As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional

----------------

Steve Mcintyre reports the chronology of events:

In late July 2009, I appealed CRU’s decision not to provide then current station data, sending a follow-up letter on Sept 2, 2009, pointing out the inconsistency between their claims to be protecting confidentiality agreements dating back to the 1980s and their delivery of station data to the US Department of Energy in the early 1990s and posting on their website of station data versions in 1996 and 2003.

On Nov 18, 2009, I received the letter attached below from Jonathan Colam-French, Director of Information Services of UEA, turning down my appeal. The letter is dated Nov. 13, 2009. In the letter refusing the appeal, Colam-French says that he consulted a file on the matter.

On Nov 17, 2009 at 9.57 pm occurred the first public notice of the 63 MB CRU file entitled “FOIA.zip” came at Jeff Id’s blog

The file contained emails up to and including Nov 12, 2009 (the most recent is 1258053464.txt) the day prior to the date on the letter refusing the appeal.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...