The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy

Paul Chesser of the American Spectator writes about Andy Revkin’s lack of coverage at the NYT blog “Dot Earth”, in Andy Did Something Good Last Night, and gives him some points for posting a rebuttal.

That’s all well and good, but consider this:

Mr. Revkin stated in an earlier blog post that:

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.

Having worked in TV and radio newsrooms myself for 25 years, I can understand and relate to Andy’s position, to a point, but I think that point is long past now.

  1. Like it or not, the files are now in the public domain, they aren’t ever going back to private. They can’t be put back in the bottle now.
  2. It appears, due to the content, that the people’s right to know outweighs the need for privacy.
  3. The FOIA process appears to have been purposely circumvented in this case.
  4. NYT has in the past had no compunction about publishing private, or even classified government information. For example NYT published information contained in classified documents related to surveillance in the now famous story Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.
  5. In that NYT story it was said that:

    Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation’s legality and oversight.

  6. In the US surviellance issue, appears that NYT thought the public’s right to know outweighed the need for secrecy, but that action isn’t consistent with previous reporting at NYT with far more volatile information.
  7. In the Case of ClimateGate, the files are not classified, the players are known and public, and due to what seems to be public  “concerns about the operation’s legality and oversight” of CRU it would seem to me that the public’s right to know outweighs the FOIA limited privacy concerns, especially since it appears there may have been FOIA laws broken.
  8. Revkin himself appears in those CRU emails, suggesting the need for NYT reporting of the issue would be even greater to avoid the appearance of “running cover” for the scientists with whom he collaborated. Yesterday’s piece from Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert gives the appearance of “running cover”.
  9. Other media outlets are kicking your butt.

Here’s Paul Chesser’s piece, saying many of the same things:

Andy Did Something Good Last Night

By on 11.24.09 @ 9:47AM

The Amazing Revkin of the New York Times, that is, who at about 5:00 yesterday posted a reader response to the whining of University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who also contributes to the alarmist RealClimate blog. The responder is Geoff Smith, who is mentioned a few times in the Climategate emails. Smith challenges Pierrehumbert to overlook the “cyberterrorism” (Waaah!) and instead question: the deletion of emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests; the exclusion of research that CRU scientists and their colleagues disagree with; the “tricks” of playing with data to fit the scientists’ assumptions; and the desire to oust scientific journal editor who published the works of their enemies.

So, good for Andy for posting those succinct thoughts by Mr. Smith. But here are points deducted for Mr. Amazing:

1. He provides “balance” in his blog post by repeating verbatim the latest defense attempt on the scandal by the University of East Anglia. The spin includes, besides “out of context,” blah, blah:

CRU’s published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. CRU is one of a number of independent centers working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community.

“Peer-review” and “reasoned debate” were two issues that were proven to be disregarded by Phil Jones and his henchmen. Why does CRU want to surge even deeper into laughingstock territory?

2. Still waiting for Andy to do some of his own original reporting, for actual stories in the newspaper rather than blog posts, after he said on Friday that repercussions “continue to unfold” and “there’s much more to explore.” Does his curiosity extend only to reader comments on his own blog posts?

3. He also posted yesterday a regurgitation of the Times’ position on global warming, which is the same as the old position (“consensus!”). Perfect timing Andy!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 24, 2009 8:42 am

Status of the CLOUD experiment – November 2009
(The Sun and the climate)

November 24, 2009 8:49 am

You know, sometimes all it takes is for a person to have a little courage and self respect to stand up and do the right thing.
Perhaps Andy is being shackled by the NYT’s editors, but maybe not.
Perhaps he is afraid to lose his job if he fights to report what should and needs to be reported about the greatest scientific fraud in our lifetime.
Perhaps he is simply a coward.
Whatever his state of mind, the longer he remains silent, the littler he becomes.

November 24, 2009 8:50 am

Give them a chance, it is still early in this scandal and their entire world view (literally) is hanging on the brink of collapse.
It’s going to take an extended street wrestling match with Rowdy Roddy Piper to get them to finally put on the glasses… right now it’s enough that they are entertaining the possibility.

November 24, 2009 8:52 am

Happily CLOUDy
While the LHC experiments are fine-tuning their equipments waiting for ‘glamorous’ beams, CLOUD has finished its assembly phase and is starting taking data using a beam of protons from the 50 year-old Proton Synchrotron (PS). Here is a quick detour around a cutting-edge physics experiment that will shed light on climate-related matters.

“We expect the first results to come fairly quickly, some will already be available in real time as soon as we switch on the equipment. The results of a more quantitative analysis will be available in about one year from now”.

Douglas DC
November 24, 2009 8:52 am

Revkin was a player in all of this,sort of a information minister to the CRU’s Politburo…
Monboit almost seems noble-in his admission…

November 24, 2009 8:59 am

The climate gate story and the NY Times coverage brought me to a decision point this past weekend. I fully expect to subscribe to an electronic edition of a newspaper in the near future rather than just freeload off the web. I could not decide which to choose however. It took the NY Times and WaPo nearly 24 hours to even report a hack at the CRU, let alone revealed what a bombshell it would be to climate science. I decided at that point, these two alleged newspapers would not be on my list for consideration.

November 24, 2009 8:59 am

Check out
“Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. ”
They mention Gavin in the suit.

November 24, 2009 9:01 am

I think that one should attempt a more thorough examination of all the players………………….. is owned by Environmental Media Services, Washington DC. EMS was founded by one Arlie Schardt. And Mr Schardt just happens to be Al Gore’s communications director for his 2000 presidential run, among other things:…Media_Services
So here we have the ‘leading’ AGW website offering free rein to AGW scientists while stifling any dissenting voices. A website that just happens to be owned by Al Gore’s buddy.
Branching out further we have Gore’s Generation Investment Management and other carbon-trading schemes he and his chums stand to do very, very nicely out of – provided certain inconvenient truths didn’t come to light.
The whole enterprise is a global-sized racket. The real science never stood a chance.
Al Gore and friends are Madoff clones of the highest order…

November 24, 2009 9:05 am

A good WSJ article on the email fallout: click

November 24, 2009 9:08 am

Revkin had no qualms about publishing documents obtained unethically, if not illegally in an article a few months back.
“Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate”.
In the artcle he notes,
“The documents were recently sent to The New York Times by a lawyer for environmental groups that sided with the state. The lawyer, eager to maintain a cordial relationship with the court, insisted on anonymity because the litigation is continuing.”

November 24, 2009 9:13 am

A NYT blog was quite willing to link to the Wikileaks copy of Palin emails. The CRU emails are also on Wikileaks. And it is certainly not hard to find examples of NYT use of material from many sources, as long as the topic benefits the NYT’s liberal leanings. The Pentagon Papers is the most widely known example.

November 24, 2009 9:16 am

Along the same lines go over to Wikipedia and search under climategate, sure can see their bias. Note how they use the term global warming skeptic compared to climate scientists. Wikipedia sure like looking down their noses at the skeptics.

November 24, 2009 9:17 am

It IS odd that this email about a One World Government should be hanging around among the Hadcrut emails. It perhaps demonstrates the extreme left-wing thinking of some of these people.
The websites referred to in this email are for this site, which is mostly defunct:
The ‘president’ of this one-man-band Earth Community is one Germain Dufour, a Canadian. This chap:
And his so-called ‘Earth Community’ has now moved to this address:
I was just wondering, however.
a. To whom in CRU did this email originally belong?
b. How much climate-change money (my money) has been diverted into absurd websites and projects like this one.

November 24, 2009 9:20 am

Nine Billion People. One Planet. One Creduluous Reporter. Led By The Nose By Michael Mann.

November 24, 2009 9:21 am

Who is Seymour Hersh?
The NYT needs to get real.

November 24, 2009 9:23 am

I searched CNN’s website for CRU news:
Your search CRU emails did not match any documents
And they wonder why their ratings are dropping.

November 24, 2009 9:27 am

As Glenn Beck said, the NYT suddenly claims it has nobility and a moral compass? After how many decades now of publishing top secret documents and military stratagies?
Dont expect the media to help you guys on this climategate, youre gonna have the be the ones to keep pressing it home, as you already can see, the BBC continues their climate story of the day, today its climate change is causing all the wars in africa.
I fear this will be a losing battle no matter the evidence, the powers that be have already choosen a direction, and they never change course once the money starts to flow and the little empires are built up. The only thing you can do is cause doubt.

November 24, 2009 9:28 am

How about subscribing to the WSJ?

JimB in Canada
November 24, 2009 9:34 am

Can anyone tell me if there are more emails and data coming?
I’ve heard this is only about 1/3 of the full amount of the emails I would love to know when the next big shoe will fall!

November 24, 2009 9:40 am

Hey, Andy, wake up and smell the coffee. And that other aroma? That’s toast, Andy. That’s you. Better get a move on.
I’m thinking of writing a book about ClimateGate and media involvement. I’ll need a descriptive title that sums up the situation succinctly. Maybe “The Silence of the Whores.”

Richard Heg
November 24, 2009 9:41 am

Most people forget that a work email belongs to the organisation you work for and therefore is not private.

Skeptic Tank
November 24, 2009 9:44 am

While the NYT probably didn’t break any laws by publishing classified information, the person(s) from who they received the information almost certainly did.
You’re not allowed to take it upon yourself to unilaterally declassify Government classified information, just because you don’t like a policy or even if you legitimately question its legality. I can’t believe it wasn’t pursued.

Ken Hall
November 24, 2009 9:45 am

The hypocrisy in condemning the alleged hacking of this information by people who support criminal damage to shut down power stations, airports and other industrial enterprises is staggering.
They day these people, like Dr Hansen, encouraged people who took the law into their own hands to break into power stations and ground aircraft at airports, they lost any moral authority to protest against the alleged hacking in this case.

November 24, 2009 9:46 am

This is a whole new version of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, typically aired in the U.S. during the holiday season.
I’m amazed that any number of official agencies haven’t raided the place to secure whatever documents and computer files still exist, and started retrieval processes for all backup tapes, both onsite and offsite. It’s obvious that what’s been released in this batch is a small sample of what else is out there, and who knows what THOSE emails/files contain?
Let’s see…what possible reason would the U.S. have in dragging it’s feet on this? 😉 Bet we can all come up with the same list.

George E. Smith
November 24, 2009 9:48 am

Well Andy must be less of an investigative Journalist than I have been giving him credit for; so it isn’t too surprising to find him with his hand in the cookie jar.
But his excuse for not pursuing this (the stuff was illegally stolen) is looking less and less plausible all the time.
Andy; did you consider that one of the higher ups in this conspiracy; like someone of Jones’ stature, put this cherry picked file of burning embers together ready for the dog to eat, and accidently left it on the back seat of his car with the window open.
The likelihood that an outside hacker selected all this stuff for release seems remote. But someone with inside intimate knowledge of the whole tribe of miscreants could easily do that, and then play the stupidity card, like the one that got Steve McIntire legal access to the Yamal burning bush. Or an internal whistle blower posted the already constructed FOIA2009 file.
And ther NYT editors are looking dumber as time goes on. (IMHO of course)

Leon Brozyna
November 24, 2009 9:49 am

You can’t bury a nice juicy scandal suggestive of nefarious wrong-doing — look how well it worked for the Nixon White House.

George E. Smith
November 24, 2009 9:52 am

“”” JimB in Canada (09:34:21) :
Can anyone tell me if there are more emails and data coming?
I’ve heard this is only about 1/3 of the full amount of the emails I would love to know when the next big shoe will fall! “””
May not be any more to come JimB.
The Unzipped file spreads out to about 160 megs I’m told; so that’s where the extra 100 megs comes from.
But now we need the GISS “dogfood file” to cross correlate, with the one Phil Jones’ team put together.

Brian Macker
November 24, 2009 9:55 am

Realclimate is a political blog so why shouldn’t it be owned by political operative. Nothing wrong with that.

November 24, 2009 10:03 am

who was the NYT reporter who covered for Stalin the 1930’s because he was so compromised he declined to report the truth?
[Reply: Walter Duranty. ~dbs, mod.]
[REPLY – Yeah, and he got a Pulitzer for it. ~ Evan]

George E. Smith
November 24, 2009 10:03 am

When you talk about investigative Journalism, today’s players are mostly clowns.
For example. The Original Constitution of the United States is about four pages long; today, maybe a pocket version is 30 pages.
Governor Palin’s Book; “Going Rogue” is about 450+ pages long I’m told.
The Associated Press; the hornet’s nest of investigative Journalism has assigned 11 (eleven) investigative Journalists to look for typos In Palin’s book.
The as now revealed Congressional Socialized Medicine and tax bill, is now 4064 pages long; so AP has assigned two investigative journalists to research that so they can report what is init to the American Taxpayers. The Congress people haven’t read it since it doesn’t apply to them.
Yes journalism is still alive; well barely. Well I just learned that all those two AP investigative reporters are going to do is to count the pages, and verify that 4064 number of pages.
Maybe Dot.Earth could report on the socialized Medicine and tax bill. That would keep Andy out of trouble for a while.

November 24, 2009 10:04 am

” Brian Macker (09:55:42) :
Realclimate is a political blog so why shouldn’t it be owned by political operative. Nothing wrong with that.”
Since the scientists and Al Gore are on apolitical agenda, you are correct…..

November 24, 2009 10:19 am

It’s funny how these people maintain that the documents were ‘obtained illegally’, ‘stolen’ etc.
If the documents pertained to virtually any field other than AGW, they would be said to have been ‘leaked’

November 24, 2009 10:19 am

Perhaps a lawyer can answer a question for me; If a newspaper accepts gov’t assistance and/or bailout money in some form (havent heard much on this in the news for many weeks), would the news organization then be subject to FOIA regulations ?

November 24, 2009 10:20 am

Reply to Chris,
The WSJ has covered this and other controversies very well. It is as the top of my list. I will say this about the NY Times and the Dot Earth Blog, its actually a good place to get a two sides of a particular topic. I may not like the bias of the reporter but there is reasoned give and take from people that write in. While the regular readers and blog contributers there may have the same inclinations of Mr. Revkin, a hot topic like climate gate draws out the folks with a different point of view. They also have a sort for most recommended that allows you to quickly focus on the best comments. This also probably gives you a perspective of where his audience stands on a given topic.

Bill Marsh
November 24, 2009 10:34 am

Oddly enough the NYT didn’t seem to have this problem with posting Sara Palin’s private emails acquired illegally during the previous Presidential campaign. Wonder why they’ve had an a sudden attack of ‘ethics’ now?

November 24, 2009 10:35 am

The email were likely picked up on the /pub end of an ftp server, placed there for anyone to find. My guess is that it’s one of the internal people to CRU who had been the butt of tirades by the ‘elite’. There are examples of such internal lashings in the emails. Take your pick.
Revkin, like Jones, doesn’t get it.
Andy, you are pinning your reputation on someone who is coming unglued due to the fact that they, and the company they have kept, are in deepest goo up past their eyeballs.

November 24, 2009 10:35 am

jorgekafkazar (09:40:42) : I’m thinking of writing a book about ClimateGate and media involvement. I’ll need a descriptive title that sums up the situation succinctly. Maybe “The Silence of the Whores.”
jorge, please don’t drag down that ancient and honourable profession to the level of these deluded fraudsters 🙂

November 24, 2009 10:50 am

Regarding whether or not all files have been leaked, there’s this from the AP this morning:
Trenberth, a well-respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.

Pamela Gray
November 24, 2009 10:59 am

As far as Glenn taking the NYT to task for its double standards, how about Fox hiring the very same guy who drew out battle strategy in the sand for all the world to see? I too am waiting for legit journalism to come on board with reasoned reports on this growing scandal. Rush, Glenn, and that other guy just don’t rise to what I call investigative journalism, anymore than the guy who dug out the underground stall trying to find a car does. That they are all on Fox news is telling. It’s like watching news on the Eugene, Oregon channel. They add nothing to news and likely add a drag to other news channels and reporters wanting to look into the truth.

Bill Sticker
November 24, 2009 11:10 am

jay (09:01:42) :
Environmental Media Services is part of Fenton Communications. don’t think much of them; see link

Henry chance
November 24, 2009 11:26 am
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is located in New York City at the intersection of Broadway and West 112th St. in the Morningside Heights-Columbia University neighborhood of Manhattan. Right at the corner on the first floor of our building is Tom’s Restaurant, a restaurant which you will likely recognize if you have ever watched the TV program Seinfeld.
Our front entrance is just a few steps east along 112th St. from Tom’s. Immediately above the entrance is a sign stating 545 West 112th St. There is a smaller sign to the side stating 2880 Broadway, our official address.
The following links are provided for the use of visiting scientists and conference attendees. As GISS is a small research installation and because of government security regulations, it does not provide for drop-in visitors. Tours are available only on an extremely limited basis. Contact Ms. Emily Michaud at or 212-678-5641 for further details.
Reaching Manhattan
Gavin Schmidt camps out a couple doors down at

November 24, 2009 11:53 am

A couple thoughts on deleting e-mails:
The IT guys writing here already know this, but I have not seen it mentioned in a thread yet. May also have missed it in the flow of comments but….
Depending on the e-mail system used, deleting e-mails from the desktop does not delete the e-mails, as copies of everything are retained on the e-mail server. Just because they think they deleted the e-mails does not mean they are gone. Purging the e-mail servers of all e-mail will be another thing entirely and would require a forensic IT type to recover. And they ought to be recoverable unless overwritten on the server.
FWIW, this sort of cover-up normally results in jail time.
Bring popcorn, indeed.

November 24, 2009 11:59 am

i’m struggling to understand why he and other media are so reluctant to follow this story up. i’m not a conspiracy theorist i think human greed, ego, groupthink and incompetence are much more likely candidates for the apparent action of HadCRU scientists, but this is what bothers me about the media;
let’s say for the sake of argument that there is a conspiracy (by lizards(!) or whoever it is “running the establishment” this week). what pressure could “the establishment” put on an NYT journalist to prevent follow up of the story? the only thing i can think of would be denying acccess to future off-the-record comment and sources. particularly sisnce the event took place in the UK and don’t affect US juristictions from a legal perspective. i can’t see the US “going along” with the UK “establishment” for the sake of national interests.
so i’m left with the assumption that there is no grand conspiracy and therefore no way pressure could be brought on the NYT to suppress investigation. which leads me to conclude that any journalist has everything to gain and nothing to lose by following the story up. yet the media is very quiet given the potential implications. it baffles me – surely there’s another Woodward and Bernstein out there or have we all become so apathetic?

November 24, 2009 11:59 am

Has someone put together a list of who exactly is implicated by these emails?
I know we’ve got
Phil Jones
Michael Mann
Keith Briffa
Ray Bradley
Gary Funkhouser
Dave Schimel
Tom Wigley
Mick Kelly
Who else, and are these appropriate to put on the list?
Once this list is put together, every scientific paper that they’ve written or been involved with should be scratched as invalid. What will we have left after that?

November 24, 2009 12:17 pm

It’s such a pathetic statement that it’s a parody of itself.
The NY Times cannot expire too soon.

November 24, 2009 12:18 pm

One wonders, though, why ALL of these emails and ALL of the data aren’t readily available to ANYONE.
We’re talking about world policies dependent on this data.
Absolutely none of it should be occult.

Henry chance
November 24, 2009 12:24 pm

Just a little reminder folks. The NYT knows better. There are legal cases in which there are racial jokes or sexual jokes transmitted in an office. Companies have been sued for them in that they created a hostile environment. courts found all messages are the asset and also can be to the liability of the company/owner of the computer and it’s files. Martha Stewart did jail because electronic notes and written notes do matter and showed she lied.

dr kill
November 24, 2009 12:31 pm

Revkin’s silence indicates that at least one of these apparent co-conspirators is receiving competent legal advice. I enjoy the squeals of Jones as much as anyone, but seriously, he should STFU. He is really a moron.

November 24, 2009 12:38 pm

I would also like to point out:
10. There is – AFAIK – no sensitive private information in the files. You will see an occasional “I hope X is well” and “I have just arrived to conference Y”, which is trivial. There is one case about one person being ill and undergoing an operation, but no details are given and this is necessary to understand the circumstances of that specific mail exchange. That they *express* themselves in a personal way, doesn’t mean the mail itself is personal. These E-mails are work-related mail by public servants paid for by the tax payers, and they cover what they do in their work role.

Jason S
November 24, 2009 12:46 pm

Great points. Any one of those points is sufficient to make one wonder why Mr. Revkin didn’t feel like he was setting himself up to look like a hypocryt.

Dr S Jones
November 24, 2009 12:50 pm

Revkin is a population fanatic – he is obsessed with the idea that Earth is fragile and wicked mankind is messing it up. This is a deeply anti-human ideology.
In the Sixteenth Century he would have been handing out hair shirts to the peasants.
Although emails show him to be a creep, The climate issue is simply a means to an end for Revkin.

Jason S
November 24, 2009 1:01 pm

There is a lesson to be learned from the way the ACORN story broke. If this continues to be rolled out in phases, the rest of the media will have to eventually give in. One of the elements of that story was that each new headline that came out was more and more condemning. Thanks for keeping the pressure on.

P Gosselin
November 24, 2009 1:02 pm
November 24, 2009 1:04 pm

Hypocrites = Revkin and the NYT. Go back to the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Valerie Plame. No problem there. And it’s not illegal to print them once they are in the public perview. That was settled, for better or worse, in the Pentagon Papers release.

November 24, 2009 2:12 pm

Just as an aside – anybody notice the shift in terminology from Denier to sceptic? It’s not everywhere, but I’m noticing sceptic being used a lot more often. Is this a sign, me wonders.

Jack Green
November 24, 2009 2:13 pm

I would like to see comments from people like Walt Meier and other common sense experts that condemn this disgusting perversion of science for political gains. This completely destroys everything they are doing if the data has been manipulated to further organized control of society. Eco Scare tactics.

November 24, 2009 2:15 pm

Forget NYT, WP, the networks covering this. Is the Daily Show on the story?

Indiana Bones
November 24, 2009 2:15 pm

Yep, it’s rather amusing to watch these versions of once-great news organizations fall on their swords. Pretending the NY Times has never printed anything leaked from government is akin to gouging out one’s eyes with a corkscrew. Ridiculous.
Of course Andy should not have to take all the heat on this. He is only one reporter at NY Times. More to the point is the Editor in Chief Andrew Rosenthal, and his attempt to duck the science scandal of the century. It only weakens the world perception of a newspaper that shows itself to be duplicitous in policy and politics.
It is Mr. Rosenthal who needs to look deep into the NY Times charter and consider the damage he causes with each day he refuses to carry the full story of Climategate. The damage to the Times, like that to the failed AGW agenda, may well be irreparable.

November 24, 2009 2:27 pm

Where’s the U.S. Congress and President? If they were for America they’d be expressing outrage over this and telling the American people the scientists they trusted have failed them and the entire issue of climate change needs to be re-examined and therefore no climate legislation will be crafted and no treaty will be signed in Copenhagen. We now know definitively that any Senator, State Representative or President that pushes cap and trade is a traitor, a liar and should be tried for sedition. We knew it before based on empirical climate data and the work of CA and WUWT to name just a couple, but now we have proof of collusion thanks to the hacker who exposed CRU’s deception. The hacker is a true patriot of freedom.

November 24, 2009 2:37 pm

Shortly after it was posted I read the guest piece by Pierrehumbert in disbelief
A professional scientist (not a ratbag street protester or politician) depicts a ‘war’ against the ‘forces of darkness.’ If the spoils of this illegal act of ‘terrorism’ were not enough to display a bunker mentality then Rivkin nailed the case.
What astonishes me is how they both could NOT SEE the obvious turn-arounds of EVERY claim? It reminded me of some of the worst good/evil propaganda coming out of USA when beating the war drum against its own self-created ‘forces of darkness’ (sorry guy – we folks from non-super powers sometimes see it a little differently). In this type of defence by those in power against those they exclude, there is some weird wishful identification with the heroism of their enemy – like they imagine THEY ARE the heroic enemy, list sympathetic defences, and then make them their own.
For example, take these defensive statements of Pierrehumbert and see how well they could be of his enemy:
“harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science.”
“a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth”
After this terrorism he wonders: “What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers?”
“The real story…is that the tactics the inactivists [the sceptics] have been using in the run-up to Copenhagen have been all outside the sphere of legitimate scientific discourse.”
The turn-around is of course that global warming alarmism is being used to terrify the community towards supporting Copenhagen etc.
“cowardly illegal act”
Describing the release of these documents as cowardly reminds me of when successful acts of terrorism, like suicide missions, are described in this way – that might be reckless, brave, brutal, indefensible…but ‘cowardly’?

40 Shades of Green
November 24, 2009 2:51 pm

I liked the proposed book name.
“The Silence of the Whores”

November 24, 2009 3:15 pm

We have the same burying of heads in the sand over the other side of the pond. This morning I was listening to Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, wheeling out his, and his Tory cronies “green” credentials. In it he sets out how the UK is going to cut CO2 emissions to the bone. Like he hasn’t picked up a newspaper this week?
These are the same people who think an electorate heartily sick of New Labour vote them into office next May/June so they can complete the socialist inspired destruction of our energy industry …

November 24, 2009 3:56 pm

paulhan (14:12:01) :
Yes, the tone has changed, slightly.
The fear shoe is on the other foot now.
The hacker, as they call him, achieved the objective of leveling the playing field.
People are on to the scam, and are paying attention.
Today, a report from New Zealand cautions to beware of associating a flotilla of icebergs to Global Warming because this last happened in 1931.,2933,576681,00.html?test=latestnews
A cold snap in New Zealand has helped to create the conditions for Icebergs to get much further. Now, that’s a real change of tone, and the danger is to shipping, not a threat of Global Warming.

November 24, 2009 4:24 pm

Maybe the reason Andy Revkin hasn’t really gotten into this issue has to do with him having email contact (or possibly being a bit “chummy”) with some of those scientist? For example, email #1254258663 shows him writing a letter to Michael Mann with some mention of Briffa and McIntyre.

November 24, 2009 4:25 pm

Anybody notice that the believers are now the deniers?

November 24, 2009 5:48 pm

“what pressure could “the establishment” put on an NYT journalist to prevent follow up of the story?”
It is much much more than that. A journalist investigating a Global Warming scandal in NYT is impossible since most journalists are behind Global Warming, then the kind of society he moves, the parties he goes , the friends he has etc. Any investigation would be seen as treason.

Tom in Texas
November 24, 2009 8:15 pm

The Washington Post is closing its last U.S. bureaus outside the nation’s capital as the money-losing newspaper retrenches to focus on politics and local news.
“At a time of limited resources and increased competitive pressure, it’s necessary to concentrate our journalistic firepower on our central mission of covering Washington…

November 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Revkin allowed himself to be recruited. It’s like the parliamentary lobby system in the UK, where selected journalists are given off-the-record access to politicians. It totally corrupts the reporters involved, since exclusion from this cosy group means ostracism and being cut-off from the inside gossip. So they self-censor.
Believe it or not, The Independant was actually a decent newspaper when it was launched not so long ago. One of its policies was to eschew the lobby system, but it found itself without political contacts and caved in like the rest. Later it completely lost its vaunted independence and became the tabloid rag it is today.
With Revkin, it was cherished direct contact with Mann that was dangled in front of him.
And now he’s painted himself into a corner like all the others.

November 25, 2009 12:11 am

“And now he’s painted himself into a corner like all the others.”
Not quite, since Mann called him “not as reliable as we’d like.” Other reporters have been much worse.

November 25, 2009 1:44 am

dr john says it in a nutshell. “We’re talking about world politics dependant on this data.. None of it should be occult.”
So how come our global media are so silent about Cru hidden data and hidden practices? Where’s their commitment to ‘our right to know the facts?’

November 25, 2009 6:08 am

“So how come our global media are so silent about Cru hidden data and hidden practices? Where’s their commitment to ‘our right to know the facts?’”
Because having abandoned impartiality, they’re in it up to their necks.

November 25, 2009 6:10 am

My real name is Heidi Cline.
Back On Topic:
Revkin never seemed to be a straight shooter to me. Never totally in the warmist camp but not holding much truck with the natural variation folks at all.
And he had a strong warmist commenting section. Although I didn’t see significant censoring (my comments got through) .

November 25, 2009 6:15 am

maybe reporters are too familar with the machinations of politics – usually described as similar to sausage making and oftimes gross enough to cause one to swear off eating sausage. Or possibly, the lack of understanding by the reporter creates a viewpoint where science is simply mystical magic and scientists are magicians not to be questioned. A third possibility is simply that reporters now are not reporters but political operatives who entered the field of reporting in order to change the world into matching their delusional ideas of perfection.
In any case, it’s not actually science they see or perhaps understand. Too many years of sliced and diced dead frogs being peddled as general science education requirements has doubtlessly taken its toll, both in high schools and colleges.

November 25, 2009 9:18 am

Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team
Busted not Robust!

November 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Are you telling me a journalist has been DISHONEST? I don’t believe it…

November 28, 2009 1:29 pm

[since you have explained it to yourself, there really is no need to ask the question. ~ charles the moderator]

November 29, 2009 6:17 am

Funny, moderator, that no one here thinks it’s unnecessary to ask further questions about what the scientists have explained. I posit that the term “alarmist” has a negative connotation (as does “denier”), hence, if the author of the post has a problem with one of these being used by media outlets, he should refrain from using the other. I added the sentence about the Holocaust because I do NOT believe people equate Holocaust deniers (no quotes) with climate change “deniers”. The Holocaust is a proven fact, while any claims regarding climate change are as of yet probabilistic. “Deniers” and “alarmist” both imply the subject is wrong in his/her beliefs.
The author should either stop whining about the word “deniers”, or stop using “alarmist”. They’re equally wrong.

November 29, 2009 6:30 am

Wouter (06:17:37),
“Alarmist” is accurate: it defines those with the alarming belief that a harmless, minor trace gas will bring about major climate catastrophe — based on zero empirical evidence.
Whereas the term “denier” is conflated with Holocaust deniers.
See the difference?

December 15, 2009 1:16 am

Comment for Bill Sticker (11:10:44)
I didn’t know that Arlie Schardt, Al Gore’s communication director during his presidential run in 2000, was the founder of Environmental Media Services which owns That explains a lot to me.
I hope everyone will click onto the ActivistCash link that you provided to follow the story and see how so many organizations qualify as non profit entities, especially a goodly number of the so-called environmental groups

Verified by MonsterInsights