Comments on: Dangers of a Monoculture — Reactions to the CRU Emails

By: sheila

sheila — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:32:17 +0000

My concern is that climate science has followed the “Big Lie” propaganda technique first outlined by Hitler in his book Mein Kampt (1925).

By this was meant that one could propagate a “colossal” lie and have it generally believed, as no one could believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

We all know how well this worked in the past, deja vu anyone?

By: Gregory Fegel

Gregory Fegel — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:19:18 +0000

‘Ryder’ wrote: “The punishments will have as much to do with us as with them and what they did.”

Usually white-collar and government criminals are given no punishments and few consequences for their crimes. That is one of many things that must change if we hope to reform our system. And our system badly needs reforming.

If the Climategate scientists violated any laws, they (all of them, not just a few scapegoats) should be tried for their crimes and sentenced accordingly.

Jail time would be very appropriate, if legally possible. They should also lose their jobs and possibly their degrees. They should pay fines if legally possible, and they should also be held liable to repay any grant monies and other compensation that they recieved while doing their fraudulent work.

In no way should any of the Climategate criminals be allowed to escape with any of the profits from their conspiracy to defraud and exploit the taxpaying public. If they are not punished with grave consequences, society will continually be subject to abuses like the Global Warming fraud committed by the likes of the Climategate gangsters.

By: Ryder

Ryder — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:17:28 +0000

When one defrauds a someone (especially a government) of large sums of money and to continue to extract those monies by way of deception, it is easy to see how jail time would result.

“Invest in me. It is a sound investment.”

Now, I don’t care if it is Michael Mann or Bernie Madoff making that statement… to the extent that the fraud is intentional, is the depth of the crime.

All that is left, in this case, is to discover that depth.

Perhaps they will be slapped on the wrist.
Perhaps they will lose their positions.

In some nations, they might have gotten the firing squad or be sent to Siberia.

The punishments will have as much to do with us as with them and what they did.

By: Lawyer

Lawyer — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:08:48 +0000

Fraud is fraud. Given the financial self-interest involved and the costs to the community severe sentences would be in order if fraud is indeed established.

By: Gregory Fegel

Gregory Fegel — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:09:45 +0000

I must add my voice to all those above who believe that the author of the blog is far, far too lenient with the law-breaking UEA/CRU scientists. Lord Monkton has it right: the UEA/CRU scientists who have committed these acts of fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which would be scarcely enough punishment for what they have done.

This is no ordinary case of falsifying data by scientists. The fraudulent theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has provided the basis for a national and international political movement which has the stated goal of completely restructuring the entire global economy based on that fraudulent theory. This is a con game perpetrated by both the dishonest scientists and the government and corporate leaders who provide them with opportunities for advancement.

If we fail to stop the further politicization and institutionalization of the fraudulent theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, we most certainly face a future of science controlled by government decree and of a world government that facilitates the operations of corporate industries while imposing severe restrictions and arbitary taxes on the general public.

That is a future which would fully justify an armed rebellion among the international populations who will be the victims of this massive global fraud. If we fail to stop this fraudulent enterprise by legal means, we will certainly have a future of global repression based on fraud, with its attendent crimes, and whatever popular backlash might result.

Gregory Fegel

By: Chris Schoneveld

Chris Schoneveld — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:05:20 +0000

Warren, can you please correct your heading and text. It’s not Hadley, it is the University of East Anglia.
Even though it was pointed out already by “rationaloptimist” optimist yesterday you still maintain the error. Are you reading the comments on your own blog?

By: Roger Knights

Roger Knights — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:48:02 +0000

“Worse, those at the center of such monocultures can become convinced of their own righteousness, such that any action they take in support of the orthodoxy is by definition ethically justified. This, I think, is exactly what we see at work in the Hadley emails.”

The caped (shrouded) CRUsaders.

By: Bob Sykes

Bob Sykes — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:40:27 +0000

Using fraudulent data in research grant submissions to the feds is also a crime.

By: sabril

sabril — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:03:48 +0000

I think they should be prosecuted. Obstructing a FOI request (by destroying documents rather than turning them over) is apparently a crime. If there ever were a situation where such a law should be enforced, this is it. Let me put it another way: If this is not a suitable situation for enforcing the criminal law, then what is? (Assuming of course that further investigation confirms what appears to be true.)

By: Wayne Richards

Wayne Richards — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:42:26 +0000

I have to agree with mbabbitt, with this crucial addendum: if skeptics react to this astonishing turn of events with altogether too much dignity and restraint, we’ll lose. Remember three things. First, we’re on the wrong side of the political spectrum just at the moment; we are weak in numbers and appeal, and our opposition is immensely strong. Add to this the second thing: the MSM has sided with our opponents almost unanimously, and they will smooth over the affair unless we offer them the possibility of blood: the bleeds/leads attitude is real; we must offer some hope of legal action, or otherwise this will just go away. Third, it is crucially important that we win this thing, or at least fight it to a draw. We all know what’s at stake here, and we must keep those stakes uppermost in our minds and our actions. If we see an exposed carotid artery pulsing and obligingly exposed, then it’s fang-filing time! Copenhagen and all its baggage must be defeated.