A real "Inconvenient Truth"

[DigitalShadow]

It would be a "smoking gun" proving that the organization is not above manipulating the data to bolster their case- that the organization is untrustworthy.

My concern is the emphasis placed on the issue of global warming and the fact that it's being used as a tool to gain power. When prominent organizations researching and supporting global warming are exposed fudging the data, that sends up red flags. Where there's smoke, there's often fire. If a group of people are willing to lie and hide certain facts for their political gain, what will they not do?

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.

[Moksha]

We will have to see if these Emails of Mass Destruction are themselves the container of something valid or perhaps can be relegated to the sands of the Iraqi desert emptiness.

.

[FunkyTown]

It would be a "smoking gun" proving that the organization is not above manipulating the data to bolster their case- that the organization is untrustworthy.

My concern is the emphasis placed on the issue of global warming and the fact that it's being used as a tool to gain power. When prominent organizations researching and supporting global warming are exposed fudging the data, that sends up red flags. Where there's smoke, there's often fire. If a group of people are willing to lie and hide certain facts for their political gain, what will they not do?

Maxel's right on this. Forget the data for a moment: If this particular group of scientists lied and threatened to force its version of the data to the fore, that needs to come out. Quite simply: We need to know the truth so we can make an informed decision.

[Hemidakota]

We will have to see if these Emails of Mass Destruction are themselves the container of something valid or perhaps can be relegated to the sands of the Iraqi desert emptiness.

.

Only if you really knew...but there is truth behind what the younger Bush stated.

[Maxel]

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.

It's possible that people are drawing conclusions that aren't warranted. My question, though, is why aren't the scientists in question going through the emails in question and trying to figure out what the infamous "decline" was?

If there's really nothing to fear, there's no reason for the scientists not to make the email correspondences (email chains?) in question fully public, so that we can see the full conversation and know exactly what the "decline" in reference is. I don't know much about the situation, I admit- it's not that interesting to me, other than an organization devoted to researching global warming may have been caught with their 'hands in the cookie jar', so to speak.

I wish the scientists in question would release the pertinent emails so the matter could be settled. If there really is nothing to these allegations, it will make those who questioned the emails in the first place seem very silly- despite their concerns being legitimate at the time they were had. As I said before, where there's smoke there's (usually) fire. I'd like to know for certain one way or the other.

[DigitalShadow]

It's possible that people are drawing conclusions that aren't warranted. My question, though, is why aren't the scientists in question going through the emails in question and trying to figure out what the infamous "decline" was?

Because it's a personal correspondence from 10 years ago that people are making wild assumptions about.

If there's really nothing to fear, there's no reason for the scientists not to make the email correspondences (email chains?) in question fully public, so that we can see the full conversation and know exactly what the "decline" in reference is. I don't know much about the situation, I admit- it's not that interesting to me, other than an organization devoted to researching global warming may have been caught with their 'hands in the cookie jar', so to speak.

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?

I wish the scientists in question would release the pertinent emails so the matter could be settled. If there really is nothing to these allegations, it will make those who questioned the emails in the first place seem very silly- despite their concerns being legitimate at the time they were had. As I said before, where there's smoke there's (usually) fire. I'd like to know for certain one way or the other.

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.