Seeing as they each impact key pillars of what today passes for liberalism, there seems to be more than a few connections between the recent ACORN stings by Giles, O’Keefe and Breitbart, and the recent hacking of the emails of the University of ...

Again, the only people who will accept this as a reason not to pass cap and trade were already against cap and trade,

But those numbers have been increasing. The cover provided is a politcal one... "Poor Barack, he's facing such stiff opposition from the neanderthals in the US."
And notice the great lenths to which the press tries to tack the blame for this on those who have labeled AGW the hoax it is.

They harm the myth by exposing it as a fraud. Gives Obama political cover for having accomplished nothing in the matter.

Only they don't expose it as a fraud. They don't even expose the specific findings they talk about as fraud.

Again, the only people who will accept this as a reason not to pass cap and trade were already against cap and trade, Obama gains nothing from this.

I don't see how this really helps Obama's position in Copenhagen, as the leaks really don't harm AGW at all, they only gave a new talking point to his opponents.

They harm the myth by exposing it as a fraud. Gives Obama political cover for having accomplished nothing in the matter.

Does anyone think that it's strictly coincidental that this 'leak' happens mere days from the global warming festival at Copenhagen? You know, the one where the Obama campaign rhetoric was bound to catch up with the reality of the situation, absent a plausible excuse for not being able to produce global warming law (Cap and trade Tax. )

I don't see how this really helps Obama's position in Copenhagen, as the leaks really don't harm AGW at all, they only gave a new talking point to his opponents. His intellectual peers in Europe will still hold him to the science of the matter, this isn't going to give him an out with them, nor do I believe it will give him an out with the American left.

As for the timing, It's quite likely that is was intended to support plausible doubt ahead of Copenhagen, but only among those already predisposed to disbelieve in AGW, as again the leak doesn't harm the science at all.

All in all, I see no reason to believe that the source of those emails released them to help Obama.

The fact that everyone is claiming it was hacked makes me believe that the source of the emails is also the source of the claim.

A reasonable point. Let's examine that, by asking the question who would benefit by that data getting leaked. Certainly, those seeking to discredit the AGW myth would benefit and therefore when the server is publicly labeled as "hacked", the reasons for the hackage seem fairly clear to the general public.

But let's consider another scenario, shall we?

Does anyone think that it's strictly coincidental that this 'leak' happens mere days from the global warming festival at Copenhagen? You know, the one where the Obama campaign rhetoric was bound to catch up with the reality of the situation, absent a plausible excuse for not being able to produce global warming law (Cap and trade Tax. )

This, after all, would be hardly the first leak of private data that would be both timely and fortuitous to Obama. Indeed, if this were the only incidence of this kind of happening, I'd not even suggest it. But there've been enough now to the point where it's quite plausible.

A look at Memeorandum for the period shows every single article from the press and most of the blog posts as well, used the word 'hacked'. Seems to me a trifle early to be making such judgments, but .... ehhhh (shrug)

I'm guessing climate scientists aren't very big on computer security best-practices, probably more than one of them used "password" as their listserv password. It certainly wouldn't surprise me at all of this was obtained through illegal access.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was leaked by someone with access.

The fact that everyone is claiming it was hacked makes me believe that the source of the emails is also the source of the claim.

On a side note, if these were gathered from a listserv, you have no real expectation of privacy.

Uh, nothing. There are suggestions that it was an inside job.

Yes, which is why I said on Friday:

If you forced me to guess, it would seem the most logical response would be that it’s somebody internal to the place and someone who knows their way around a server, who could no longer morally deal with the lies. Maybe a backup tape found it’s way out of the building. I’ve seen that happen several times over the years

Course I said that not knowing it was a listserv list we were talking about.

As to the suggestion it was an inside job, lemme tell you... You certainly wouldn't know that from the articles posted on Friday and Saturday on the topic. A look at Memeorandum for the period shows every single article from the press and most of the blog posts as well, used the word 'hacked'. Seems to me a trifle early to be making such judgments, but .... ehhhh (shrug)

But now, look...If in fact that's correct, and access was by someone who actually had rights to the list, it rather negates the idea that it was due to what James calls "Illegal access', wouldn't it? It would place it more firmly inside what I described in that same post on Friday, as the left's 'Pentagon Papers'. In both cases, the data was made public by someone who legally had access to it.

And Zels, you have a good point, which furthers mine. By definition, it IS government held data. Of course, the chances of such incriminating documents coming out even under a FOIA order remains a question, then, doesn't it? The only reason anyone knew of this listserv thing at all, is its content was leaked.