It is currently 04/04/25 10:38 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/07/09 12:20 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida


Top
  
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/07/09 12:31 pm • # 2 
Equating the climate change deniers to Beavis and Butthead is appropriate.


Top
  
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/07/09 4:36 pm • # 3 
Thanks, jabra! I'm sure we could all be accused of things we didn't say or do if our emails were taken out of context the way those were. You can always tell when someone is being dishonest when they only report single sentences out of entire communications rather than releasing the entire content in context.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/07/09 6:08 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
hahahha. good video!


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/08/09 10:41 am • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
'Hello, this is Sir Bufton Tufton MP, how can I help you'
'Hi - I am calling to alert you to the fact that the the scientific basis for global warming is flawed and to demand the resignation of Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU at UEA for manipulation of scientific data …'
'Very odd, our Chief Scientific Advisor assures me the scientific case is solid, his predecessor described climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism. And that is an exceedingly serious allegation, what is your basis? '
'He has admitted as much in an email, look …. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"
'I see the Professor has explained the meaning of this quote on the UEA website … http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update It seems perfectly innocuous to me …'
'Well, he has deleted data rather than release it under the Freedom of Information Act'
'Another very serious matter. What data was destroyed?'
'Well, actually we don't know. But he certainly wrote mails that we can make sound very much like he was going to delete some emails ….'
'I see. Do you have the full record of the correspondence, is it possible there are others that provide more context and background…?
'I don't know'
'Excuse me?'
'Well we only have a selection of the mails ….'
'I see. These mails, I am sure you are aware that under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 an email is classed as a literary work and anyone reproducing it without permission of the copyright owner, that is, the author is committing an offence? I assume you have received such permission from Professor Jones … '
'Well, not exactly. We acquired the mails from an anonymous individual who removed them from the UEA server without authority …'
'I see, look, would you mind awfully supplying your name and address, the police would like to have a word with you regarding an ongoing investigation. Just routine you understand …'


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/08/09 11:50 am • # 6 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
Hah.

ff


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Smacking the Hack Attack
PostPosted: 12/08/09 1:59 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
How to become a successful climate change denialist (or any other crank)

Quote:
All great minds will be criticized by peon scientists who have grown fat and bloated with public grant funds. They've been feeding at the public coffers for so long, they wouldn't know an original idea if it fell out of the ether and struck them on their thick skulls. Here are some simple responses to common criticisms:

Accusation: "You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
Response: Either say "Peer review is just an old-boys network for peon scientists to pat each other on the back", or accuse journal editors of persecuting you. Compare yourself to Galileo.

Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.

Accusation: "Because of X, Y, and Z, your theory is false and you're an idiot"
Response: Yell "That's Ad Hominem - I win the argument" (and that they've persecuted you).

Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent. Or cut and paste large sections of print or references to papers that may or may not agree with you (the exhaustion strategy). Finally, it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument. Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one. If they do, ignore it and restate your original argument.

Accusation: "No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"
Response: "That's because they're part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!" In addition assert motives for the conspiracy like maintaining control over the populace, spreading materialistic atheist dogma, acquiring grant money, etc. Don't forget to challenge orthodoxy and compare yourself to Galileo! He was persecuted by the orthodoxy too! Remember, whenever a majority of scientists believe anything, that means it's wrong. Cite Kuhn, compare yourself to Galileo again.

If they show up at your blog and leave comments, remember to delete anything critical at all, dissent must not be tolerated on your home turf. Anything critical might damage the proof of your unassailable intellect, and the absence of critique will make it appear as if your critics are afraid to engage you on your own turf.

You see? It's easy! All you have to do is ignore anything that contradicts your theory, nitpick others' arguments, force them to explain themselves, accuse them of lying, accuse them of conspiring against the truth, exhaust them with dumps of links or citations, repeat yourself, and compare yourself to Galileo, because he had problems convincing the orthodoxy too. Also, don't forget to call yourself a skeptic, or dissident, or iconoclast.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.