full-disclosure - Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <234791.1260121461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:44:21 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Stephen Mullins <steve.mullins.work@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
	Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists_nada@...rr.com>
Subject: Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:42:22 EST, Stephen Mullins said:
> 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.

If you *really* wanted to do the world a service, you'd apply that sort
of ban not to scientists, but to pundits and their media enablers.

Wander over to factcheck.org or politifact.com and look at the usual suspects
there.

Why are the lying pundits a bigger disservice to the public discourse than
lying scientists?  Because they created the environment where lying was
considered acceptable.  Why should a scientist tell the truth to the public
instead of spinning it for their agenda, when they know that whatever they say
will be intentionally misquoted and misconstrued *anyhow*?  "You know what the
science really is, and I know what it really is, but those guys at Fox are
going to make a hash out of our report, so let's make the 8x11 color glossy
handouts and press releases say what's most likely to get us more grants".

This of course presupposes that "deliberate lying" was even going on - which
is *far* from conclusively proven.

Speaking of which - do you personally promise to retire from punditry if it
turns out your claim of "deliberate lying" was itself a deliberate lie that's
not supported by the facts?  No? If so, why should you get a pass but not
the scientists?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

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