[funsec] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

Gadi Evron ge at linuxbox.org
Thu Nov 26 12:28:27 CST 2009

Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Gadi Evron:
>> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>>> I look down with contempt on the inferior creatures who are dumb enough
>>> to fall for this denialist nonsense.  They belong with the creationists,
>> Dude, some of it is obviously out of context, and some of it can be 
>> explained away as terminology. But some emails CLEARLY state to delete 
>> data for the sole purpose of hiding it from the denialist "idiots", 
>> rather than any other reason. The emails have been verified as true.
> They must be a very happy bunch indeed if they care more about the
> denialists than about their funding.

Politics is a fact of life, and taking it into consideration is fine. 
However, plain lying is an issue.

Take vaccinations for example. They are in the vast majority safe, and 
if the populaton isn't innoculated, rather than the person, shit 
happens. And yet the entire industry just insists they are PERFECTLY 
SAFE. NO RISKS. NO DISCUSSION. Any discussion will make less people 
innoculate, which is counter-productive for them and makes their agenda 
very clear, noble, and extremely annoying.

That's not the case here. Here, some of the examples give are taken 
completely out of context. But in some, they plain lied. They got 
caught. Tough. Whine whine whine but they are the bad guys now.

> Perhaps scientists tend to have quite different ethical standards,
> maimed by the unique kinds of compromises which life forces upon them.
> I once witnessed a few people submitting a CS conference paper which
> was cute, cleverly dressed BS, and when I pointed this out, they told
> me that the program committee would never notice it, and all would be
> fine.  They were right, they didn't notice, and the paper was
> accepted.  (This was for a real conference, not some multi-sciency
> fraud.)

Catching such bs in papers is a past-time for me. Such as basing nearly 
all references on the first reference, with the last one retracting it. 
Where this first one was the only relevant research.


More information about the funsec mailing list