kim | April 26, 2012 at 11:13 am |
You are simply deluded, Bart. You can say ‘eight full inquiries’ and call criticism of that remark ‘snark’?
Ah, kim. But you misunderstand, and it is my fault.
I do not call anything you’ve said ‘snark’, as that would be attributing motivation to you. I allude to the snarkiness I expect many would perceive in “How can someone that bright be so dim? ‘Eight full inquiries’. Pretend I’m from Missouri, and show me.”
The Internet is full of flame wars begun because of perception of slights never intended. I accept that you meant what you said in good earnest, and perhaps with generosity of spirit (which you are notable for).
I’m not going to try to defend ‘full’, as different people mean different things by full. I meant that each inquiry fully covered (and in some cases exceeded) its terms of reference and jurisdiction. All handed down judgments and recommendations that by objective standards fully completed each inquiry’s terms of reference. They were so far as I can say held by fully competent and reputable persons in appropriate forums for what they were.
There is on the other hand always going to be room to complain that there was something no inquiry touched. Partly, this was the fault of the hacker, for releasing their files in pieces over time and not coming forward to explain their actions as an honest whistle-blower ought. Mostly, it was what the laws allowed, even for the Imhofe inquiry. No one suspects, I think, Imhofe is secretly supporting anyone even remotely associated with the CRU or its work.
Keeping in mind, I have no sympathy with the laws or lawmakers who defined what whistle-blowers ought, nor do I think laws or lawmakers seriously protect whistle-blowers. So I can understand why almost any outcome might be plausible to the hacker and the hacker’s fans. And, I recognize I’m flagrantly begging the question about six ways here, which is likely snarky-sounding.
It’s not intended, it’s just inevitable, when you come down to the pragmatic upshot: the inquiry route is done. It has no credibility. Those who argue for it, or rehash it, or belabor it, or try it out for themselves online as they wish it would have gone merely make themselves look absurd, with little hope of payoff.
It’s as absurd as arguing _for_ the conduct of the CRU as uncovered by the Climategate emails and testimonies. As scientists, the people involved were frequently acting not in the spirit of science. As public servants, at least one person was found to have contravened the rules and was dealt a reassignment of duties as a result.
But this making a show of it Tom’s doing?
Considering my own view of the standards of conduct of data handling — which it appears Tom is unaware of or cannot grasp — so far exceed what Mosher or McIntyre or any of the inquiries have called for, in that I want cradle-to-grave open data and open code and open methods in an online forum with full metadata for all research public or private, plus a fully integrated and radically realigned publication system, I don’t see the point of Tom’s by comparison feeble ‘why did PJ do it?’