A lot of people don't seem to realize how many assumptions they're accepting when they read an article like this. Random sentences out of context can be interpreted in many, many different ways. I'm going to collect the lines that Daily Mail has clipped out and put my own "interpretation" on them to demonstrate.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I AM IN NO WAY CLAIMING MY INTERPRETATION TO BE ACCURATE. I HAVE NOT SEEN A LINK TO THE FULL SET OF THESE NEW LEAKS SO I CANNOT POSSIBLY CLAIM TO BE DEFINITIVE ON THE ACTUAL CONTEXT. (unlike the Daily Mail, who is making such a claim)
What I'll do is add a hypothetical sentence or two that fits the context and wildly changes the meaning.
One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message'
They give us two words here so I have nothing to go on.
"This is looking more and more like the problem is more serious than we thought. We need to give the government a
strong message that something needs to be done, and sooner is better."
‘Humphrey’, ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
Next hypothetical sentence: "If we can get the public to understand the truth, we'll get more support behind this very important issue and this can drive real progress."
'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’
Hypothetical preceding sentence: "The skeptic backers are pushing more false information on global temperatures, and are now claiming NASA support that isn't there.
They want their story..."
'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.
Next sentence: "That is a direct quote from Richard Lindzen. He's trying to hide his oil funding. The fact that he calls himself a scientist is insulting."
'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'
Next sentence: "That data is already publicly available on file with the NWS so our releasing it would be redundant." (Deuce note: this is true. It's hilarious how many skeptics think some university in the UK had the only copy of US temperature station data)
'I’ve been told that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is above national Freedom of Information Acts.
Rather than trying to add context, I'll point out that this might actually just be true. Why would a French law apply to a body that is not France? I don't know how the international agreements on these things go.
'One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.'
"That way, you don't have to waste countless hours responding to malicious and repetitive FIA requests and only respond to the ones that appear genuine."
'The figure you sent is very deceptive.'
(talking to a climate skeptic)
'I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,'
"These skeptics [manipulating the science] are putting our entire species at risk for their own personal profit!"
'The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.'
"That way, we don't overwhelm the policy makers with minutia and can keep this upcoming presentation within their attention span."
'What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'
Orlowski says, 'That won't be necessary.'
"We know this isn't a natural fluctuation."
So, how come you skeptics are jumping to the interpretation that Daily Mail makes and not mine? It's not like just reading this article can prove it to you either way. Wouldn't you prefer investigation, or perhaps reading the full email set yourself?
opcorn2: