NYT Eagerly Printed Wikileaks Military Secrets, But Takes Side of Government in Climategate
Some document leaks are more equal than others in New York Times-land, as demonstrated by reporter Leslie Kaufman’s snooty story Monday on the latest installment of Climate-gate, “Police Inquiry Prompts New Speculation on Who Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails.”
Unlike the paper’s standard eagerness to splash sensitive diplomatic secrets on the front page during the Wikileaks saga, the Times took the side of government when it came to the still-unknown whistleblowers behind Climate-gate, which revealed the underhanded tactics used by “climate change” forces to squelch dissenting scientific views on global warming. Kaufman accused the Climate-gate leakers of trying to “undercut climate scientists.”
The text box put a favorable spin on the Climate-gate scandal: “A push to find out who tried to undercut scientists, who were later vindicated.”
For two years, the mystery has endured: who set out to undercut climate scientists by publishing more than 1,000 of their private e-mails on the Internet?
The original e-mails, released in 2009 on the eve of a high-stakes United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, sowed doubts about the scientists’ research and integrity and galvanized skeptics who challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is under way. It set off six separate official inquiries, all of which cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct.
Then the controversy receded. Yet recently, speculation about the identity of the person who leaked the messages has surged with the release of new e-mails and signs that a police inquiry is under way in Britain.
In November, just before another major international climate conference opened, this time in Durban, South Africa, another round of e-mails between the scientists were distributed online. Like those released in 2009, they were part of a trove taken from a computer server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England; as before, the e-mail hijacker alerted the public to the e-mails in comments posted on various blogs.
Yet the Times had no qualms about publishing excerpts from the stolen document dump from Wikileaks -- sensitive American diplomatic cables discussing nuclear and terror threats.
The paper demonstrated similar standoffish behavior during the first Climate-gate leak. In November 2009, former Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin snootily informed readers of his nytimes.com blog that he would not be publishing the raw emails: "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."
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Wikileaks, good ...
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:42pm.
Wikileaks, good
Climategate, bad
Pentagon Papers, good
SWIFT program leak, good
Chappaquiddick coroner's report, fuggedaboutit
WH visitors logs (complete), fuggedabotit
Yup, no agenda....
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:13am.
Yup, no agenda....
Who are the 'deniers' now?
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:43pm.
"It set off six separate official inquiries, all of which cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct."
I haven't seen information on more than two of the 'official inquires,' but one I did see was conducted by the University of East Anglia itself -- not exactly an objective resource. I wouldn't be surprised if groups with similar agenda and stakes in the AGW claims were involved with the other inquiries.
What we do know for certain is that a great deal of the 'science' that underpinned the reports of the IPCC has been refuted, including Mann's infamous 'Hockey Stick' curve and a journalist's bogus claim regarding the rate of glacier recession in the Himalayas. Even the IPCC has withdrawn these bits of "peer reviewed evidence" from their reports and admitted their error. Why should we believe that there are no more errors?
That and the signatures of thousands of scientists disputing the IPCC's methods and findings serve as ample grounds for AGW skepticism.
You would be correct to assume that the rest of the...
Submitted by gs-425 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:08pm.
You would be correct to assume that the rest of the 'investigations" went the same way. Four of the six where commisioned and paid for by the very university accused of wrongdoing. All of the "investigations' followed the same script:
- It refers to the e-mails as "stolen" there by showing biased from the start.
- Used 'experts' that all had ties either finacially or professionally to keeping the warming scare going.
- It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics,
- Concludes that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human-caused even though skeptics views where not heard.
It is easy to find for the accused if no prosecution witnesses are allowed to take the stand....isn't it? That entire circus would be like BP handpicking and paying a panel of experts to investigate its handling of the oil spill.
Would you take that panel seriously if it "exonerated" BP?
undercut
Submitted by kinijane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:47pm.
What about scientific proof, they have already been caught fudging
the data for money. Bad smear on the scientific community, can't
trust anyone these days. Anyone will sell out for enough money.
Greed rules.
The communist left no-longer needs the climate change scam...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:49pm.
...to bring about freedom-destroying tyranny.
They have Little Caesar Obumma very rapidly doing it for them.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Even to an uninterested
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:59pm.
Even to an uninterested observer, the fact that Made-made Global Warming theory now enjoys less support than it did 10 years ago is testament to what an awful theory it really is. The MSM has never presented the skeptical side with anything approaching objectivity. I can't remember a single article or feature presenting the skeptics viewpoint without a complete rebuttal from the alarmists accompanying it. But many features were run for the alarmists with no critiques.
With all the cheerleading, self-censoring, and one-sided presentations by our major media, a true believer must be flabbergasted that the debate goes on. And worse, they are starting to lose the battle for public support.
I'd say that the Average Joe now has an inkling about the lies and manipulation by the big GW players, even if he is only getting a fraction of the true story. He's also connected the dots that the MSM refuses to connect concerning the massive cost of chasing this chimera. As I might say, he smells something rotting in Kyoto.
Even so, it's amazing how the media buries their head in the sand with respect to investigation, when the results may threaten their liberal agenda.
Vindicated? What Climategate "scientists" were vindicated?
Submitted by JLin on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:11pm.
How do you undercut people who were not behaving like scientists in the first place? In any event, the whitleblowers were themselves scientists. Sorry Leftists, the gas done left your bag. Bald-faced liars and hypocrites all.
How DARE anyone "undercut a scientist"???
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:42pm.
This is truly an outrage.
That's right!
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:44pm.
It really pissed me off when that damned German-born Swiss patent clerk pulled the rug from under old Isaac Newton.
Let's see we've seen
Submitted by danbo on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:04pm.
Let's see we've seen manipulation of data. Losing data. Attempts to avoid FOIA. Attempts to manipulate peer review. Attempts to have peer review editors fired for daring to allow a critical paper. Undocumented opinion appearing as scientific fact. Supression of data. Much of it on our tax dollar. And the media's attempt to cover it up.
Yep. Nothing to see here.
The NYT's is as good as Penn State at investigation.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
The dog ate my homework..... and other excuses.
Submitted by Huapakechi on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:05pm.
Do you wonder about the availability of these 'secret' emails (written by 'scientists' who are paid by public funds about a project also funded by taxes) when the people who wrote these emails cannot even produce the 'original data' that has them claiming that the earth is warming due to CO2 produced by mankind?
I do have to wonder how many long (illegally) ignored F.o.I. requests have been rendered moot by the release of these messages, and how many more inconvenient 'secrets' are yet to be exposed?
If they do manage to identify the person(s) responsible for the document dumps, I suspect that any trial will have to be held at Guantanamo, as the secrets that would be revealed in an open trial would drive the last nail in the coffin of
anthropogenic global warming/uncontrolled climate change/global climate instability/trillion dollar international fraud, and likely lead to lynching of the people that are directly responsible for destroying the economies of a number of countries in the industrialized world.If we ever learn the real
Submitted by danbo on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:30pm.
If we ever learn the real identity of FOIA, (who released the files). The next president needs to award him/her/them the Medal of Freedom.
Obama won't do it. Nor do I want him to. He's too busy trying to blame Solyndra on George Bush.
The United States and the world are in debt to FOIA.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
I ask again
Submitted by ohio granny on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:55pm.
How did the ice ages end and begin if not for global warming and cooling. What is so special about the climate today that it should stay the same??? There have always been periods of warming, then periods of cooling, even before there were humans on earth.
So I ask again HOW DID ANY ICE AGE END if not for global warming???
AGREED !!
Submitted by creekrat on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 8:26am.
I have a 5 1/4 inch sharks tooth in my curio found on the banks of Chesapeake bay, and carried there by a GLACIER some 12 to 15 million years ago !! We were not driving S U V's then.
Splain that, Mr scientist !!
For those who did not see the
Submitted by danbo on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:01am.
For those who did not see the beginning of Climategate II.
Twas a midnight gift. Appearing in the middle of the night.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/hurricane-kenneth-forms-southwest-...
Thread on Hurricane kenneth;
Post at 1:02 am by foia
Again at 1:34 requesting confirmation
Response at 2:00 AM by Tallbloke Confirming arrival.
Post at 2:03 asks what is it.
Post at 2:58 Backs up Tallbloke. Responds it's a different kind of hurricane. It was apparently also dropped at other locations.
Post at 3:50 urges American sleepy heads to wake up and smell the Roses. Time to break it apart and rejoice.
It's kind of fun to watch what happenes as more and more people look at it. Until people forget about Hurricane Kenneth.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)