lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:11:32 +0000
From: dpcybuck@...il.com
To: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Software developer looks at CRU code


Did we loose site of the methods used to expose the frauds at work? And how fucking cool it is that people with those skills and talents can have that kind of impact in the world?

My question is, what is next?

Rock on!
-dave

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Mullins <steve.mullins.work@...il.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:42:22 
To: Paul Schmehl<pschmehl_lists_nada@...rr.com>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Software developer looks at CRU code

Deliberately lying to the public in order to push a political and
ideological agenda that is unsupported by the scientific data is quite
unscientific of them.  They are not scientists and have lost all their
credibility as such.  They should be unable to continue performing
scientific work and barred from ever doing so again.  Watching these
people go into damage control and spin mode is the epitome of
hilarity.

Let them go into politics, which is clearly where these charlatans belong.

>>From the InfoSec perspective, this shows why people with something to
hide fear those that have the power to expose them.  Cue mandatory
registration of anyone with "information security" skills to ensure
the technocracy is no threat to the oligarchy - or their lies.

Sadly, their agenda will succeed sooner or later regardless of the
facts as the money and power behind this movement is an unstoppable
force.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com> wrote:
> --On Monday, November 30, 2009 6:13 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik
> <quanticle@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, but you said that the global warming folks are asking for
>> unnecessary spending of *trillions*.  Where would those trillions go?
>
> Apparently you haven't read the proposals to deal with global warming.  An
> MIT study found the cost of complying with one proposed energy sector bill
> designed to deal with global warming would be $4500 annually per family of
> four.  The EPA analyzed the bill and estimated its cost at 500 billion
> dollars by the year 2030.  And that's just for the US.  And just one
> suggested "solution" to the so-called problem.
>
>> I don't see Al Gore becoming richer than Bill Gates off carbon credits.
>
> So unless Al Gore makes more than Bill Gates he's not motivated to
> proselytize for global warming?  He's already made millions of dollars off
> the scam, but I suppose his motivations were of the purest form.
>
>> Neither do I see the UN gaining any more power via the IPCC.  If
>> anything, the existing climate treaty (i.e. the Kyoto protocol) has
>> completely sidestepped the UN.
>>
>
> Anything that takes power away from local communities concentrates power in
> larger governmental entities.  By the same token, anything that takes power
> away from nations, concentrates power in a larger entity - in this case,
> the UN, which would supposedly administer fines for non-compliance, etc.,
> etc.
>
>> I guess what I'm troubled by is the fact that you seem to be stating that
>> there's some kind of deliberate malice on the part of those stating that
>> anthropogenic climate change is real.  I don't see malice.  I see a
>> fair amount of incompetence, but incompetence exists in every discipline.
>>
>
> Have you read the emails that were exposed by the hackers?  The
> "scientists" have deliberately misled the public regarding the data,
> conspired to deny FOI requests (which may be a criminal offense), attempted
> to get the media to both ignore and denigrate the opposition and written
> programs designed to deliberately skew the data in their favor and hide
> unfavorable data.
>
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece>
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece>
>
> If that isn't malice, what is?
>
> Paul Schmehl
> As if it wasn't already obvious,
> my opinions are my own and not
> those of my employer.
>
>_______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists