Exposure is irrelevant to rights.
No, it's not. Quarantine for disease is a well known case where rights can be legally violated.
Quoting somebody out of context is a fallacy
You have to show first that it was quoted out of context.
For all you know that sentence read
Stop wasting my time. The whole email was quoted in full in one of the links I gave.
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
It's not high drama, he's just sending over some data per request. But "Mike's trick" involves replacing or averaging near past temperature proxy data with temperature data. In particular, Jones states he's applying it to problematic tree ring data ("Keith's" series which moves counter to temperature after 1960). That means losing data and hence, why I called it "scientifically dubious".
Also keep in mind that for purposes of evaluating the ability of these various series to approximate global mean temperature is solely dependent on the narrow spread of time where we have overlapping both the recent past paleoclimate data and modern instrument and satellite data. Taking twenty years off such a series removes almost all of its correlation with satellite data. Similarly, losing 40 years (at the time) of tree ring data chops a significant amount off of the 150 or so years of instrument data as well as the entire satellite record.
I was disagreeing on whether delaying or refusing payment means they weren't honoring contracts.
Ok, so you disagree, It's still a breech of contract to systematically use terms of the contract to delay or avoid honoring terms of the contract. Proving it in court is a different matter and I gather that is just as hard to do today as it has ever been.
Then there's the "Hiding the decline" remark and "Mike's Nature trick". While there's a lot of spin claiming the two aren't related, it remains that Jones reused a scientifically dubious method pioneered by his associate, Mann, and not only did this hide divergent tree ring data (which drops sharply downward after 1960), it also found its way into the next IPCC report.
Yes, but you seem to be suggesting a conspiracy dating back to the start of climate science in the 1800s which if true involves millions of scientists
Of which, a few dozen at a few government-funded research institutes are the only ones who need be corrupted.
Your post is kind of like claiming that NSA spying couldn't have happened because it would require a conspiracy of billions of people, including the people being spied upon, while ignoring that the spying need only be done by a few NSA contractors - the rest of the participants need not even know that it exists.
And when one looks at the blatant politicization of climate research even to the point of using propaganda terms like "climate change" or "climate disruption" in scientific communication and media reports, one has to ask, why wouldn't the politicians who control funding for climate research and who benefit so greatly from public hysteria generated by climate research claims, not buy the research they want?
Human-induced climate change of any sort would not be noticeable at all, if it weren't for the massive number of people living on Earth.
Mismanagement of resources:
If global civilization collapses in 2093, it will be because of "poor agricultural practices" not because of AGW. That is the real civilization-ender. My view on this is that if everyone on the planet started implementing good agricultural practices, then it would be very hard to notice the effects of AGW which would slightly impair a good situation. OTOH, if we focus on AGW and fix that utterly while letting agricultural policy languige, then we're slightly mitigated a global civilization-ending catastrophe.
The relatively large amount of species extinctions are occasionally attributed to AGW or related phenomena (particularly, ocean acidification), but the dominant role of habitat destruction is routinely ignored. Even plants are mobile over the time scales that AGW happens at. But mobility doesn't matter, if you don't have anywhere to flee to.
Sure, in each case, one can argue that AGW does make the effects of each of these worse, but addressing these three while completely ignoring AGW is a far better world than addressing AGW while neglecting these three. And in my view, current proposals for dealing with AGW (by curbing economic activity associated with the release of greenhouse gases) worsen a key common contributing factor in each of the above three problems, global poverty. Poor people make more poor people, can't implement resource best practices, and use habitat inefficiently. How's that supposed to help us?
And FYI, I'm not opposed to any form of quarantine, but doing so only with circumstantial evidence would be a Bad Thing.
The evidence is in your face. She worked with Ebola patients not just someone who happened to be in the country.
So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection?
Sounds like he is. Let us also keep in mind that quarantines work a whole lot better than their absence does. And would it really be better to endure the privations of a two or three Ebola epidemic in the States, for example, than impose a quarantine on everyone who enters the US from affected regions? I strongly doubt that.
Having said that, the current level of quarantine does seem to be working for now. I'd worry about the rest of Africa getting this disease before I'd worry about it getting established in a developed world country.
My view is that a real quarantine will be imposed sooner or later unless the exponential growth of the disease is reversed in the near future. There's too much harm possible from a long duration Ebola epidemic to risk spreading it to your own country.