Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate.

[lyonspotter]

WHAT is going on here?!!!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0

Excerpt: LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. WHAT is going on? Desperation.

The deniers are looking for any and every way possible to stir the pot and keep a solid consensus from forming amongst the general public.

That's it, nothing more. :(

[lyonspotter]

2. It's that easy?

Just dismiss this story outright?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Yes, it's that easy.

We can dismiss it because we can see the man behind the curtain- he's the same inbred meth addicted teabagger behind all the rest of the global warming denialist bullshit.

[lyonspotter]

10. So you are a denier too then...

Denying the content of e-mails you haven't even read, I presume.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. What content do you think I'm denying?

Please show any e-mail that actually indicates wrong doing and prove its authenticity.

Oh, and make sure it's not a legitimate e-mail not taken out of context.

[lyonspotter]

14. Proving authenticity with you is like straining out gnats...

...and given that you haven't done any work to look into these e-mails for yourself, I would have to say that your penchant for bias has not waned at all since the last exchange I had with you a few months back.

Given those exchanges were as enlightening as walking in the forest with no flashlight nor candles, I'd say that it is far time I put you on ignore. Do well, my skeptical friend.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Maybe you didn't understand my question.

Or maybe you're just too scared to answer it.

[HughMoran]

3. Yeah, this was posted a couple days ago

Hackadoodle

[lyonspotter]

4. Yep, story is two days old.

What's the verdict on DU? Anyone have the link?

[HughMoran]

6. Search

I didn't post in that thread, though I did read it.

It was quite contentious IIRC.

[Canuckistanian]

5. What are the facts here?

ONE person asked a question about the format of a data presentation.

Now, suddenly, it's a refutation of ALL "Climate Change" revelations and predictions?

Please.

[arcadian]

7. So, we are going on information provided by theives?

That seems to be what's going on here.

[lyonspotter]

8. Well, the e-mails state information we should know.

The information is true or false regardless of how it arrived to us. I.e., it doesn't follow that because the information came via less than admirable means that the information is necessarily false.

[cark]

12. One mans thief is anothers whistleblower

Are the emails ligit and if so is it info that the public should know about - that is what really matters.

[arcadian]

13. Information provided by information thieves isn't necessarily false.

Yeah, and hey, those Rolex you buy on the street in NYC for $20, they're authentic.

:rofl:

[lyonspotter]

15. Did you doubt the content...

...of the torture memos as easily?