« | »

NYT And WP Seek CRU ‘Whistleblower’

From the global warming cultists at the New York Times Dot Earth Blog:

Private Climate Conversations on Display

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

November 20, 2009

A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon. Before they propagated, the purloined documents, nearly 200 megabytes in all, were uploaded surreptitiously on Tuesday to a server supporting the global warming Web site realclimate.org, along with a draft mock post, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist managing that blog. He pulled the plug before the fake post was published.

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.

Here’s the news story:

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents…

[UPDATE, 11/22: Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post explores some email exchanges criticizing certain peer-reviewed papers and journals and focused on excluding the papers from inclusion in the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report. I'm running down tips and assertions related to the theft and hackings. It remains interesting that before they were placed on an ftp site and dispersed across the Internet, someone tried to plant them on Realclimate.org and publish a mock post linking to them. Needless to say, if anyone has information or ideas, feel free to email dotearth AT nytimes.com.]

We almost passed on this article when we first saw it last Friday. After all, what is to be expected from a writer whose job depends upon promulgating a lie. (A situation so many journalists at The Times and elsewhere find themselves in, day after day.)

But then we remembered all the vital national security secrets that the New York Times felt obligated to publish, claiming that the public’s ‘right to know’ superseded any danger to the nation – and, indeed, that same public. (The ‘Pentagon Papers,’ come to mind, just for starters.)

But then when we saw the article’s ‘update,’ we could no longer resist.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are more interested in tracking down and punishing the whistleblower, than they are in publishing the (now confirmed as authentic) emails and documents.

This is what passes for journalism from our two foremost newspapers.

By the way, lest we forget, both The Times and the Washington Post cheerfully directed their readers to Sarah Palin’s hacked emails.

Granted, they didn’t post any emails verbatim themselves. But they both were careful to link to a site that had images of Mrs. Palin’s emails.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, November 23rd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “NYT And WP Seek CRU ‘Whistleblower’”

  1. proreason

    I learned recently that Pinch Sulzberger (the current publisher of the Slimes ) was asked by his father years ago who Pinch would rather see die if a Viet Cong soldier and an American soldier confronted each other with loaded weapons during Viet Nam.

    Pinch answered that he would rather see the American be killed.

  2. Right of the People

    “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

    “Because they contain information contrary to what we believe in”, should have been the next line. Like Steve said, they never balked at printing private information before when it served their cause or beliefs. The New York Slimes, all the lies that we think are fit to print.

  3. jr

    dotearth, its the same hackers that are going to hack into all the swiss banks to expose all the american tax cheats. hopefully that will be happening soon.

  4. wirenut

    jr, switch and bait tactics don’t work here.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »