Heartland Institute...a change of heart?

At what point was it decided that any organization should be exempted from investigative journalism? CRU or Heartland Institute?

I read the source material you provided and the real issue about privacy concerns the right of privacy of an individual (which I 100% support) vs. the privacy of an organization. They are very, very much in opposition in my mind. Specifically, ALL institutions do not have a right from press examination. While we can oppose criminal actions, the criminal actions are in the techniques of investigation, not the success of an investigative result. In fact, the founding of this country thought that a free and open press made for a better country.....even if this caused occasional pain for various groups.

In both these cases, the larger population is better off. The CRU leaks showed that science is always improved by high discipline and re-examinations. The Heartland disclosures showed the same thing, from a completely different aspect.

 

You don't seem to grasp the concept of how accepting public funding ,means your work and communications are owned by the public.

 

I'm actually trying to figure out your thesis here. Part of my problem is I cannot determine if your point concerns the techniques used to obtain information......or that the information is released after being obtained.

 

I avoided the hypocrisy of their whining that "our private documents are private but their private documents are not." They have no shame and so are not bothered by it.

I do worry that it is crucial to their political goals that American school children remain uneducated. Can anyone rationalize a future in which that could possibly be a good thing?

 

Thanks. I now understand your point better.

Let's take your same viewpoint and apply it to science. Let's say an investigator's study in progress is put on the internet by a disgruntled graduate student. Let's also say that the study clearly reveals something significant and reproducible.

Are the graduate students actions worthy of disciplinary actions....I think so. Should all other scientist ignore the results and pursue barren lines of pursuit until the new results are properly published? I think that is taking good intentions too far. Is the purpose of science to reward researchers or advance knowledge?

Here is a strange real world analogy. The Dead Sea Scrolls had many of the original text kept private. The logic being that they should only be revealed when the best scholars had fully analyzed them. As a result, the owners kept them secret for what turned out to be decades, and decades, and decades. Finally, using early photos, in 1991 most of these missing scrolls were printed by disgruntled researchers outside the inner circle. Should this be criticized or praised?

 

I definitely was not saying ends justifies the means. That seems to be more the attitude of Phil Jones and Heartland.

Once climate gate emails were leaked, it was in the public domain. That meant that it was the responsibility of the news outlets to report on the non-private content. I do not think the leaker was a criminal in this case, but we won't know until we find out who it was. It was likely a disgruntled employee that thought they were doing the right thing. The CRU had actively tried to hide data and methods and tried to get other climate scientists to do the same. If it was to stop that practice the person is a whistle blower, reporting on an illegal act, but not brave enough to speak publicly.

On the heartland leaks it was likely an incompetent employee that gave the information to someone that suspected wrong doing. I don't think this investigator can claim the same high mindedness as the CRU leaker, but again these things are likely to happen in the modern world. Again once the documents were out there the news outlets were responsible to check if they are correct, but if verified its their responsibility to report.

The media in both cases might be reporting irresponsibly, saying these documents mean more than they do. This is a problem with the media. But these things do need to get reported on.

 

Whatever happened to the Freedom of Information Act, and whistle-blower protections?

Do you really and wholeheartedly believe that DAS?

I would think that would be just as bad as ignoring opposing evidence to prove one's hypothesis.

 

Chair of scientific ethics committee has ethical lapse

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...tific-ethics-has-ethical-lapse/#ixzz1n3rumA00
​

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/task-force-on-scientific-ethics-has-ethical-lapse/

 

Don't hold your breath. Or has HI redacted all the CRU FUD ? Didn't think so.

The CRU reputation was damaged amongst the benignly ignorant by HI and similar propaganda outlets. The least we can do now is wash them down the toilet.

 

First I would say good for the AGU, bad on Gleick this was definitely unethical behavior. I'm sure he thought it was important, but this is an extreme lapse in his personal behavior. I don't think this reflects badly on the AGU, they took him off the ethics committee. Note CRU seemed to do nothing meaningful to those involved with bad behavior on climate gate.. The only thing it does to the science is looking at the Heartland documents, and it looks worse for them than Gleick.

CNW is still at it, and did a hatchet job on the volt

 

Except thats because the damaging info was from a fake forged memo (that Chogan keeps quoting.)
To make matters worse,its most likely that Gleick was the forger.The forgery contains the non word anti-climate,which Glieck is fond of using.

 

We have a confession-

 

Manns Hockey Stick graph went away, just by talking about "what people do."

 

1) Start clock.
2) Google "Wikipedia Hockey Stick"
3) Go to page:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy[/ame]

4) Cut and paste key paragraph:

"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[6]"

5) Stop clock: Elapsed time, 49 seconds.