Excerpts from this article:
A British climate research unit had its computer system hacked, and the purloined emails and files quickly spread throughout the Internet. News stories then popped up on the New York Times, NPR, Fox, Drudge, UK Guardian, the BBC, and many more sites.
Here are two of the four points that can be deduced from the info:
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests(across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He's just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be "predictable".
The other two (just as important) points here:
Here are two of the four points that can be deduced from the info:
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests(across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He's just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be "predictable".
The other two (just as important) points here:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment