Orly Taitz, the lawyer and de facto leader of the “Birther” litigation, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of Dr. Connie Rhodes after Rhodes accused her of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz is also facing a possible $10,000 fine from United States District Court Judge Clay D. Land, who previously dismissed the action. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for her “reprehensible” representation.
The latest development in this unraveling case began when Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation. She then proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
I am a bit curious that all of this case appears to have been a surprise to Rhodes despite endless coverage in the papers and cable shows. It is curious that she never acted to sever representation before this time.
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggests that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He notes:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
434 thoughts on “Client Fires Orly Taitz and Threatens Bar Complaint Against Her As Judge Explores Sanctions”
here is part of the link you posted:
it shows cancer death rates per region of Region II which is Baton Rouge.
If you dbl click on the regions a pdf file pops up that shows statistics. They are from 1997 but seem to show the cancer death rate is about equal to the US cancer death rate.
Having worked in the oil field I can certainly understand why there might be an increase what with all of the solvents and other chemicals used.
But this data doesn’t seem to show any significant difference in and around Baton Rouge.
you never know.
It is quite possible they were slaves of Huey Long and he made them have intercourse with a chemical pit.
“Home to ”Cancer Alley,” a strip of land between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that houses many industrial and petrochemical plants, Louisiana is found to have cancer rates that outpace the national average. For Louisiana residents, the most frequently diagnosed cancers are lung at 16 percent, prostate, 16 percent, breast, 14 percent, colon and rectum, 12 percent, and urinary bladder, 4 percent. The five-year period between 2000 and 2004 brought 105,082 diagnoses of invasive primary in Louisiana residents, or an average of 21,016 cases per year. Specifically, Louisiana’s incidence rates for tobacco- related cancers such as lung, oral cavity, kidney, and pancreas are also higher than U.S. rates, which are preventable.”
From the Louisiana Public Health Institutes website.
And the problem isn’t so much rate of incidence as it is mortality rate. Even among preventable cancers, the mortality rates are higher in parts of Louisiana. For a more detailed look at cancer rates in Louisiana, LSU has some good studies at:
On the deaths caused by accidents: Did people die because they accidentally bought homes downstream from giant hog farms or coal mines–or accidentally fell into petrochemical cesspools?
the following is a table from a paper on cancer in La.
5 top causes of death in La. in 1996 for children 10 to 14:
all causes – 147
1. accidents – 58
2. congenital anomalies – 20 (possible environmental factors?)
3. homicides – 10
4. cancer – 8
5. heart disease – 4
5. asthma – 4
CRU: “…statement was released on November 24 at 3.30pm.”
Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.
One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.
Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.
We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.
My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.
We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.
Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.
A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.
This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.
There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:
• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.
The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.
CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.
One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.
Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”
The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.
CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)
Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.
The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).
“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.
The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.
“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.
The University of East Anglia has previously released statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.
Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.
The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change
The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.
There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.
In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.
The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.
Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.
We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.
Might I suggest Baton Rouge. It sucks for just more than being home to Louisiana’s politicians. It’s a petrochemical cesspool with cancer rates way above average.
I absolutely agree with everything you said. I think that the self-serving nature of the pro-pollution movement should be pointed out at every opportunity. Those who doubt the environmental impact of industry should go live downstream from a coal mine or a hog farm or really any major industry and see what your water is like – I’m sure the arsenic gives it extra flavor!
The scientific evidence that overuse of fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil is not only harmful to the planet, but their extractions is destructive to the environment. Slarti is a scientist and I’ll let him handle that aspect of the debate as he already is ably doing. What I think we should look at is how this has been politicized mainly in the service of the coal, oil and nuclear industries, who want the ability to have free rein to do as they wish with our evironment.
Most people, like myself, want to see my futre progeny inherit a world that is better than the one we have. The anti-environmentalists frankly don’t give a damn about the futre of their children and their children’s children. This is broken down in two ways: One way is the fundamentalists who believe the world is going to end soon so why care.
The second is those who think themselves entrepeneurial (many libertarians for instance) and do not believe any rein should be put on capital seeking outlets. They really don’t care either because they are usually highly self-centered individuals thinking mainly of their own comfort.
To people who go either way, the smog in the atmosphere, the spike in cancer, the destruction of natural beauty in service of greed, the pollution of the rivers and the destruction of rain forests are all justified by the lure of profit. Look at what coal has done to the beauty of Appalachia and the impoverished millions left in the wake of its’ moving on to new sites. While their water supply is compromised and their flora and fauna is destroyed.
I don’t need science to tell me that unbridled development will cause untold ruin, hunger, thirst and human deprivation. My problem is that I actually care about the fate of all of humanity and so believe myself to be a member of a society. Those who support unbridled development only really care about their own selves and in that sense are an anti-social element.
No. I already admitted that you and Mike S. were right… I just truly hate how divisive our national debate has become and believe that civility is a virtue which we are in desperate need of. That the lack of civility you sometimes display is justified and necessary doesn’t mean that I have to like it, so I’ll continue trying to encourage (or goad) Bdaman into actual debate while recognizing that you and Mike are what’s keeping most of the poo he’s flinging off of us…
I don’t add data points or massage them, I put enormous amounts of data into visual form. An example – You have a system of two coupled oscillators and want to investigate how the system behavior changes with respect to 2 parameters so you do, say, a quarter million simulations with different values of these parameters. How can you look at all of this data to see what patterns, if any, are present? You can look at the amplitude of the two oscillations, you can compare them, you can take Fourier transforms and compare the frequency information – but there are many specific details involved in how you do this, all of which require decisions as to what works best. After doing this, you certainly need to determine if the patterns you saw are really in the data, or if they are a result of your manipulation, but nothing unreasonable has occurred. (I apologize for the preceding being a bit technical, but I really couldn’t help it – it’s a sketchy description of something I did for my thesis to obtain one of the most significant of my results.) Furthermore, in the warming data, as I understand it, points weren’t added but removed – which, as has been pointed out, is reasonable if such measures can be justified. Giving a solid argument for the validity of any manipulations of data which you make is a necessary part of a good scientific paper. Personally, I like autumn colors, but in the context of data interpretation all that matters is different behavior can be distinguished with different colors (my figures do tend to be pretty, though).
I’ll stand on my reputation for engaging in debate on this site – I’m sure the other people here are perfectly capable of deciding which one of us does a better job of answering questions that are asked of us. I will make one remark about your latest post:
“Secondly going to the scale and grain theory, in this case it doesn’t work if the scales are tipped in your favor.”
I think this tells us quite a bit about you as a person while doing nothing to impeach the analogy to which you refer.
The science is settled, there will be no more debate.
interesting post on the use of colors to visualize patterns. Do you like pastels or Autumn Colors?
If you add data points or massage them, how do you know you are not causing the patterns? Even if you can determine which variables were changed and change them in some controlled fashion how do you then know the right variables were changed in the right order/combination to reflect a natural phenomenon (weather in this case)?
Need I say more than Pavlov in re avoidance behaviors?
And you never answered my question from the last debate we had.
What is the percent of Co2 present in all greenhouse gases? Answer that and you’ll see how ridiculous your argument is.
Secondly going to the scale and grain theory, in this case it doesn’t work if the scales are tipped in your favor.
Anthony Watts did a volunteer campaign to expose this called, How Not to Measure Temperature. Any sane person can see how this data is not reliable.
Good link. The article is very helpful to anyone trying to understand this debate.
What you describe is entirely appropriate for engineering data (data on known phenomena which needs to be tested to ensure the quality of an engineering product. Scientific data, however, is a somewhat different beast. You don’t know, a priori, what to expect from data (which is why you collect it – to help you understand what’s going on) and some data is more reliable than others (and different people have different opinions of this which is why good scientists explain and justify why they’ve made these kinds of decisions). Your goal is to find some sort of pattern that hasn’t been previously discovered in the data and then interpret what this pattern implies about the phenomenon being studied. This is actually one of my strengths (at least in my opinion) 😉 My favorite ‘trick’ is to use color as a variable in figures (if you take red, green, and blue intensities separately you can add 3 ‘dimensions’ to a figure), vastly increasing the information contained and giving you the ability to visually see patterns that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to detect. I admit that these emails warrant further investigation, but an on-line discussion is not the appropriate venue. This needs to be looked at by people who understand the scientific process (and the climate change field as well) to determine if any ethical violations occurred. I would also note that the timing of this seems suspicious as well – something smells on both sides of the fence…
You are one high volume troll. I notice that you didn’t touch my argument (posted at 12:06pm on Nov. 27th and partially reposted below) about why working to reduce carbon emissions (and pollution in general) is a good idea even if global warming isn’t anthropomorphic – I guess this isn’t surprising since you’ve never shown the ability to debate or even think for yourself (you are a champion cut-and-paster, however). Until you answer my points, I wont be answering any of the specious crap that you post, either. (Byron, I would be curious to know what your response is to this as well.)
I said at 12:06, Nov. 27th:
“Considering the question (climate change) from a political point of view for a moment, if climate change advocates are correct, the risk of inaction is catastrophic (we can’t afford, as a species, to take your position and be wrong). On the other hand, you would argue (please correct me if I’m wrong) that there are serious economic costs to reducing carbon emissions that aren’t worthwhile if the climate change consensus is wrong, which I don’t disagree with. However, in light of the demonstrable fact that industrial emissions (not just talking about carbon here) have had a negative impact on our biosphere, I would argue that the positive benefits of reducing pollution are more than worth this economic cost. Furthermore, I think that the additional benefits of going down this road are incalculable: clean air, clean water, reducing the undue importance of the Middle East that comes from their oil reserves, saving petroleum for making plastics, ultimately a green industrial base for our society and hopefully the US emerging as the world leader in sustainable technologies. Especially when compared to what I fear the alternative is: extinction. If you would like to die by drowning in your own waste, fine, but please get out of the way of those of us who would rather avoid that fate.”
I liked the grain scale analogy, I would keep my mouth shut and bury that bitch in the backyard if I had been over charging my customers. What do expect from a cappie?
I’ll assume you read the article I linked too?
Let’s say you’ve been taking measurements for the past 30 or so years. We’ll say of the average weight of grain bills purchased at a home brew store. Now at a certain point, say 15 years in, the store buys a much more accurate scale, and you notice that the old scale was for some reason starting to get much more wildly divergent readings. You check the accuracy of both scales and the older one is definitely the problem. What would your solution be?
I’m betting it’s something like “look for where the readings start to diverge, and stop using the data from the older scale at that point.” Which is what was done with the data that was being “hidden.”
Here’s the Nature part of the ‘Nature trick’
I also think it’s worth mentioning that once again: scientific theory isn’t made up by one person and then accepted, it’s thoroughly and repeatedly checked before the community as a whole accepts it. Which is why the fact that a few scientists said some stupid stuff in private e-mails isn’t all that damning.
I submit that is because engineering is a system building exercise geared to known finites. You design things to failure as a general rule based on shape and material composition. Analytical sciences are different. They require more flexibility in modeling data because the models are generally for seeking patterns you may or may not know exist versus engineering which is designing systems to a known quantity. It the whole difference between science and engineering: one seeks to uncover basic principles and one seeks to apply them. In the former, massaging data is required for the most through analysis. In engineering, massaging the data can lead to disaster when components fail.
Comments are closed.