3 ms·
> I don't understand why NSA - Snowden is an example of a conspiracy being exposed but UEA - Climategate is not. Because when Snowden's documents were analyzed
by magicalist 11y ago
> I don't understand why NSA - Snowden is an example of a conspiracy being exposed but UEA - Climategate is not.
Because when Snowden's documents were analyzed the evidence matched reality, while when the "Climategate" emails were analyzed all that was found was normal researcher chatter?
Seriously, the critics of the emails quoted a few phrases out of context that sounded bad but weren't and couldn't point to any change made to data or methods that wasn't already publicly documented. Then a bunch of independent bodies went through the emails and data and agreed all was good.
Mainstream rejection of a story is not evidence that that story describes an ongoing conspiracy.
You might as well ask why Obama - Birthers is not considered an example of a conspiracy being exposed. Unless of course, it's career suicide for a politician or journalist to come within a mile of being seen to portray his citizenship as a conspiracy. Which could be taken as more evidence that there is a conspiracy.
- marcus_holmes 11y agomy point has nothing to do with whether you believe climate change to be a hoax or not, or whether it is a hoax or not. The point is that someone exposed a bunch of internal documents in an attempt to whistleblow what they considered to be a conspiracy. The reason there's no parallel with the Birther thing is that no-one in the Obama camp attempted to whistleblow. The reason there is a comparison with Snowden-NSA is because Snowden was a whistleblower. The paper in the article holds up the climate change conspiracy theory as "it can't be a conspiracy because no-one attempted to whistleblow it" while completely ignoring that someone DID try to whistleblow it. Again, whether or not there was actually any conspiracy doesn't matter. Someone "on the inside" thought there was and attempted to whistleblow. It needs to be included in the list of failed conspiracies regardless of whether it actually was a conspiracy or not.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- marcus_holmes 11y agothanks for the knee-jerk downvoting too. At no point have I criticised anything about climate change, or even suggested that it might not be the most urgent pressing thing that human society faces. But the automatic downvoting/criticising happens to any post that dares to mention anything like Climategate. I had to think twice before mentioning it because I knew I'd lose some of my precious internet points. If this happens here, where there are no consequences, what happens in academia, where the penalties of being sceptical are so much more serious, even career-threatening?
- magicalist 11y ago> If this happens here, where there are no consequences, what happens in academia, where the penalties of being sceptical are so much more serious, even career-threatening? Looks like some of your points were restored, but I'll note I downvoted you for the above. It's ridiculous to assert some relationship between this message board and academia, or that downvotes are responding specifically to a single cherrypicked idea from that post. It ends up being complaining about downvotes with a not so subtle insinuation that the subject wasn't given a fair shot (when it was actually widely and very publicly investigated) and you're begging the question by asserting that any dismissal of the question is evidence of dismissal of the question for a specific reason, when it could just be that some questions have already been addressed and so are no longer worth more time than it takes to give a downvote.
- magicalist 11y ago> Someone "on the inside" thought there was and attempted to whistleblow No, all evidence points to it being done by a breach from outside.