

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away - waterlesscloud
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

======
Scott_MacGregor
When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies.

If these e-mails are true this looks like it’s going to be a bitter pill to
swallow for a lot of people.

Many people have invested a lot of money and time into this issue, from buying
new tiny fuel efficient cars to investing a lot of money in green energy
businesses. Plus many have their reputations at stake here too.

Now that it is starting to look like this whole issue was some kind of hoax, I
see two separate groups that may surface here. Those who intended to profit
from this politically and financially, and those who are into it for purely
environmental reasons.

It seems if there is no real causative environmental impact happening, the
pure environmentalist should be happy to embrace the truth at this point
whereas those who were into it for other reasons may still attempt to spin and
re-spin facts and push for further legislation and increased taxes.

Another thing to consider is now that it has become a political issue and is
at the global center of attention a lot of people are going to look like they
were participating in something that was a fraud and a deception. Yet I’m sure
many of them had no idea they were being mislead and should not be lumped in
with the perpetrators of the deception, if it ultimately proves to be a
deception.

When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies...

 _(Jefferson Airplane--San Francisco, CA 1967)_

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO5Rc5LjOsM&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO5Rc5LjOsM&feature=related)

~~~
mr_eel
"Now that it is starting to look like this whole issue was some kind of
hoax..."

Or maybe, this is actually a small piece of erroneous data within a larger
body of evidence. Meaning; yes it's awful, but it's not as significant as some
would like to think.

The idea that these goings on invalidate the research of thousands of
independent groups is _ridiculous_.

People need to look at the bigger picture, not just the parts that validate
thier preconceptions. That goes for anyone, within _any_ debate.

------
tokenadult
The author of the submitted article certainly appears to be in agreement with
the authors of purported disclosed emails as to public policy, and he is
pained by their troubles. But he notes, "When it comes to his handling of
Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a
technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears
to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that
he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other
message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as
head of the unit."

That's really where responsibility has to be here: if someone has a legal
obligation to be transparent in handling organizational documents, he has no
fitness to run the organization if he refuses that responsibility. Any follow-
up inquiry may as well focus on that point to decide the issue of who should
be running the organization.

------
MaysonL
Here's an article to ponder:
[http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/729339--
h...](http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/729339--hamilton-why-
media-tell-climate-story-poorly).

