From Franks article:

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.

"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."

"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."

Central America demands billions in climate damages

48 mins ago

GUATEMALA CITY (AFP) � Central American nations will demand 105 billion dollars from industrialized countries for damages caused by global warming, the region's representatives said on Friday.

Hacking is an asymmetric tactic and it shares a certain amount in common with terrorism.

We are institutionalizing a new kind of global socialism. And the left won't admit it. This IS the new world order introduced by B. Clinton. It's an extranational socialism. A safety net for the world's poor.

We're not institutionalizing global socialism if we won't do it. Guatemala can whistle for the money.

I am disgusted that more people aren't condemning the hackers ...

In this case, they were performing a public service: exposing the fraudulent manipulation of climate data by the Church of Global Warming.

if this sort of hacking-public exposure cycle becomes a trend in internet 'journalism,' it's something we news and info junkies need to question and not accept at face value.

Like photos and indeed, even coverage of political events with what seems to be pictures --- we are now justifiably suspicious that pix are photoshopped and substituted out for pictures from different events. It won't be long, perhaps, before edited and/or denied emails will make us suspicious that we can believe what people quote.

In this case, they were performing a public service:

And as I said, if hackers exposed the people making an industry of climate change denial, we'd likely have as many or more 'shocking' revelations.

Like photos and indeed, even coverage of political events with what seems to be pictures --- we are now justifiably suspicious that pix are photoshopped and substituted out for pictures from different events. It won't be long, perhaps, before edited and/or denied emails will make us suspicious that we can believe what people quote.

1) yes it was quasi criminal to hack into private databases and retreive this info.

They are so evil --- like Trotsky.

I am disgusted that more people aren't condemning the hackers, and their illegal actions raise more than my ire.

OK, I will condemn the hacking itself, but with qualifications.

Weren't the "pentagon papers" stolen and released, or leaked and released? Weren't either of those scenarios technically illegal?

To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[3]

Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction.

On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, the injunctions were unconstitutional prior restraint and the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters. The ruling is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment.

The Pentagon Papers were not illegally obtained. Daniel Ellsberg was a party to the information -- which was classified -- and therefore illegal to leak. In fact, Ellsberg might be in jail today if the Watergate plumbers hadn't illegally gathered information on him.

They were essentially stolen from the DOD at least in part.

It was illegally obtained by the press. And Ellesberg only wrote some of the documents and got assistance from a colleague to copy the 4100 pages in their entirety. They basically stole a copy from the DOD. THAT was illegal as hell and would have carried a charge of felony treason had the government's case not fallen apart.

Oh, and what's up with language (straight out of the UK) like climate change denier?

Ellsberg broke the "law" as much as any hackers did.

These global warming hired guns are scamming the whole damn world, in order to bring forth a global government

What do you call people who deny climate change? I call them climate change deniers.

People who promote it would be climate change promoters, I guess. Both sides leave me cold.

Get over it.

It's like war on terror denier. It's meant to imply heresy.

Sure. No one stole it, though. Ellsberg had access to classified information, and illegally leaked it to the press, who published it.

That "essentially" depends on how you view leaked classified material. No one ever ruled on that in Ellsberg's case.

It was dismissed because the government obtained its evidence through illegal break-ins and illegal wiretaps. Sort of like people illegally breaking in to a server, which is private property.

[edit]

The evangelists at the Church of Global Warming may be facing criminal charges, for deleting e-mails to avoid their disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act. Also, because it appears that the most damaging e-mails were deleted, we may never know the true extent of the fraudulent activity.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...sor_jones#63704

LC, no matter what the stated intentions are for the global tax system, you KNOW that the very people driving it are the same ones who have raped and plundered the underdeveloped nations. Especially, the nations of Africa. No doubt, any tax scheme will go for the upgrading of infrastucture and the paying ofo of more strong men, so the colonizers can more efficiantly go after other's resources.

What do you call people who deny climate change? I call them climate change deniers.

People who promote it would be climate change promoters, I guess. Both sides leave me cold.

Get over it.