DigitalShadow

I would be far more concerned if any of the liberals I knew personally or read blogs of got caught up in trying to lynch Rush. In fact I consider myself fairly liberal and even posted in the thread here about Rush that I didn't think he was guilty of racism after looking at the arguments. Also, before getting too smug over how liberals don't know what conservatism is really about, consider that many conservatives don't know what liberals are really all about either. I know this because I am constantly told by conservatives what I believe as a liberal and none of it seems to match up with my actual beliefs, or the beliefs of many liberals I know.

From wikipedia: First, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for contemporary work, and second, while what she did was certainly brave and admirable, I don't see how it promotes fraternity between nations. I'm also not sure how Al Gore's work is any more qualified for a "peace" prize, but I think bringing this particular story up is an irrelevant smear.

Bah, there's no laugh button the the Gospel forum. Took me reading your post over a few times before I got it though :)

In that case, I am for it being illegal, for more or less the arguments you laid out.

I could post plenty of graphs and sites that say the complete opposite, but I'm sure if you did some googling you would find them too. In fact you probably already have found some graphs and sites that say exactly the opposite of the one you posted but you also probably simply ignore the ones you disagree with and bookmark the ones that you do agree with to regurgitate in threads like this. In short, you call their stuff propaganda supported by fallacies and they say the same back to you. I'm not sure how that really solves anything besides making both sides more sure that they are absolutely correct so I will leave you to that. My only interest in this thread is that there are serious accusations against an organization that appear to be backed by little more than a few suggestive phrases in stolen emails. When/if people post more incriminating evidence I would change my mind, but as it is all I've seen is media fluff catering to people who already think global warming is a hoax.

I agree, but I also think this applies to the OP as well. I have seen a lot of people lately asserting that these hacked emails prove not only that a particular organization manipulates data but that global warming as a whole is a fraud, but I have yet to see any direct references to data that have been manipulated or evidence to back up such large assertions.

This may sound like a silly question, but I've only had 1.5 hours of sleep so my mind is still a bit fuzzy. Does the term adultery include sex where neither party is married, or is it only when one or both are married but not to each other?

Because it's a personal correspondence from 10 years ago that people are making wild assumptions about. If the full conversation was so incriminating, why didn't the hackers simply make the whole email chain available? and if it is available, why didn't any of the coverage show the whole email chain? The scientists themselves may not even have the emails. I have no idea what server was hacked or who has access to whatever archives were downloaded during the hack. Even if they did release the full email chain, no news place would run it and you wouldn't hear about because the story is already over, damage is done whether it is justified or not. I guess that's what I really have a problem with. All it takes is sifting through years of hacked emails to find someone one person wrote one time that could be misconstrued as manipulating data and suddenly it's a "smoking gun" and all credibility from that organization is destroyed in the minds of many people. Never mind that it was obtained illegally and could very well have been altered and even assuming its not, it is still just one phrase out of YEARS of correspondence for a whole organization and it is vague.

But what data is being manipulated? Has anyone even correlated that "hide the decline" comment to a particular report or graph? Has anyone matched any of the these emails to real data that has been presented? Can anyone point to any instance of a graph or report that has been officially presented that has been manipulated? All we have here are a few vague comments in personal emails picked out of years of correspondence presented by hackers with an agenda. I think people are assuming a bit much here.

What I don't like is that a few emails out of years of private correspondence contain a couple phrases that vaguely suggest fudging and people are calling it a "smoking gun" against human influenced climate change as a whole. If you knew of a few reports or even organizations speaking out against global warming that had some fudged data, would that be a "smoking gun" for you? Climate change is a very political topic and I am sure there are people on both sides who fudge data for their own gain, the more important question is how much of the data is fudged and what specific reports were fudged and none of the reports on the hacked data seem to address that other than a few "gotcha" quotes that still seem rather vague when you read the whole email they came from. Frankly I think if there were a massive cover up or large scale attempts to alter data, it seems there would be far more incriminating emails surfacing.

Religions often promote a specific set of values. Whether those values are objectively moral or not depends on the religion and what values it promotes.

There, fixed that for you.

From what I've heard there's a 61 mb torrent of the "random sampling" of emails that the hackers decided to post. As for the full archive of emails obtained by the hackers, they ironically won't release that. I'd rather not post a link to it, but I'm sure you could find it pretty quickly with some creative googling or even looking through the comments on the slashdot coverage of this.

Do those charitable donations in the statistics include things like tithing and donations to your church?

I somehow doubt the phrase "hide the decline" in an illegally obtained private email would cause a senate investigation for any industry.

Other forums I've been to have the date of the first post on the summary of the thread as well, that helps a lot with that problem.

Our product currently has nearly 200 config settings and even though I wrote most of them, I don't remember the intricacies of how they all work. I often send out emails explaining how they work and have to document them. On more than a few occasions I have been left scratching my head as to what exactly I was talking about when I wrote the brief one sentence description (yes, like most coders I hate to document). So yes, I can understand how when you are caught up in the mindset of a particular project, a brief description of something can make perfect sense to you and even co-workers, but then years or even months later when you are no longer actively working on that project it will suddenly make very little sense even though you are the one who wrote it.

If after sifting through years of an organizations hacked emails the best they have is a vague reference to "hide the decline", I really don't see a "smoking gun" here.

I have to write about 10 very technical work related emails per day. I barely remember what I was talking about when looking at my own emails from a month ago.

After all, hackers with an agenda would never lie or cherry pick data to post.

Perhaps he's telling the voters to "rock on"

Honestly, I don't think it would be "wrong" to bring it up but I do think it would be counterproductive. I don't personally know any conservatives today that seriously consider fascism to be a good idea and it would only serve to further the liberal/conservative divide to point to things like that and make wild accusations on the intentions of the "other side" of this political divide based on a single paper.

What I'm saying is that the average liberal today would not support such a plan which directly contradicts the implication of the OP. I am not particularly interested in politics and political leaders so I can't say with any certainty, but my feeling is that just because an influential figure wrote a paper does not mean that particular paper is equally influential.

Fortunately though, a "radical leftist" plan from nearly 50 years ago is not particularly relevant to the average liberal today and certainly not "the liberal way" as the title of this thread claims.

I've never really thought of it that way. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I would like to point out though, in your example of "Where do babies come from?" my parents actually did take it as an opportunity to explore the wonders of the human reproductive system, though not quite to the extent of discussing pleasuring partners.