Letting off steam: if climate scientists will not defend themselves, why should we care?
According to Climate Progress, James Hansen writes that
The material that we [the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of the US NASA] supplied to some recent FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests was promptly posted on a website, and within minutes after that posting someone found that one of the e-mails included information about how to access Makiko Sato's password-protected research directory on the GISS website (we had not noticed this due to the volume of material). Within 90 minutes, and before anyone else who saw this password information thought it worth reporting to GISS staff, most if not all of the material in Makiko's directory was purloined by someone using automated "web harvesting" software and re-posted elsewhere on the web. The primary material consisted of numerous drafts of webpage graphics and article figures made in recent years.Let's see what has been done after this breach came to light. How many police investigations have been started to find the person behind the breach? How many cease-and-desist letters have NASA sent out to the webmaster(s) hosting the purloined files?
And speaking of which, how many scientists or institutions have started legal proceedings against the people who included their names in the "Heartland 500" list? And how may cease-and-desist letters have UEA sent out to people hosting the SwiftHack material on their web sites?
The message is becoming clear enough: that climate scientists and climate institutions are simply unwilling to defend themselves to the fullest extent possible. In a way, they're perfectly willing to let climate inactivists trash the landscape even as they complain about how the inactivists are treating them. I don't know why, but that's how it is.
Which raises the question: If climate scientists and institutions won't defend themselves, then why should the rest of us even bother?