UPDATE: Andrew Revkin responds with an update on Dot Earth, which I repeat here. He now agrees that privacy expectations were not justified in the UEA Climategate emails. Perhaps now we’ll see some discussions of them, with publications of selected Climategate emails, on Dot Earth in the future.
– Anthony
==============================================================
From the NYT Dot Earth Blog, Monday, Nov 29th, 2010:
[Nov. 29, 3:41 p.m. | Updated In the last couple of days, some conservative commentators have compared the treatment of the East Anglia climate files in this post with the dissemination of Wikileaks files by The Times and charged that a gross double standard exists.
I’ll note two things about my coverage of the unauthorized distribution of the climate files:
First, while I initially did not publish the contents of the climate files and e-mails (at the request of Times lawyers, considering the uncertain provenance and authenticity of the materials at the time), I did (from the start) provide links to the caches of material set up elsewhere on the Web.
Second, in the rush on the day the files were distributed across the Web, I called them “private” when, in fact, I should have said their senders had presumed they were private. As I’ve said off and on since then, given that much of the research discussed in the exchanges was done using taxpayers’ money, any expectation of privacy wasn’t justified.]
=========================================================
The NYT published details in 2005 about US efforts to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, and is publishing info from the stolen Wikileaks Iraq messages, but they they wouldn’t publish the ClimateGate emails.
Mr. Revkin, your selective bias, and the bias of your newspaper (and your Dot Earth Blog) is screaming loudly for all to hear.
From Powerline blog:
The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained.
Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s inspiring statement of principle:
“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.”
Interested readers may want to compare and contrast Revkin’s statement of principle with the editorial note posted by the Times on the WikiLeaks documents this afternoon. Today the Times cites the availability of the documents elsewhere and the public interest in their revelations as supporting their publication by the Times. Both factors applied in roughly equal measure to the Climategate emails.
Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. Perhaps something other than principle and logic were at work then, or are at work now. Given the Times’s outrageous behavior during the Bush administration, the same observation applies to the Times’s protestations of good faith.
==========
h/t to WUWT reader “rk”
Lol..
“… and the pubic interest …”
I think it should say public. 😀
Reply: Fixed ~ctm
I seem to remember that the BBC had access to those e-mails a month before they were released.
The NYT has been listening to the BBC as to ways to spread alarm and despondency, not answer criticism and bias everything to what they wish would happen.
brilliant typo
…..and the pubic interest in their revelations as …..
Their interest is below the belt.
Just love your blog Anthony.
Cheers
Reply: Fixed ~ctm
Greetings from the City where they publish this POS.
Don’t worry, they Can’tcun us any more. And arent.
Ah, yes. The Fourth Estate at its hypocritical finest!
“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.”
Well picked Anthony, This is the day of its o.k. to work against the interests of your country and do any damage, including collateral damage to those that report or advise your government. Give selective lip service to privacy but only if it suits the agenda and sells newspapers, otherwise ignore the obvious.
I guess that is why we live in a democracy, we can mock our freedom and seemingly be immune to the harm we create, and protect those that should be exposed for the liberties they take, with both our lifestyles and in the final analysis our freedom.
Oh to be a coffee latte rebel in their own lifetime.!!
“Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. “
No you simply disagree with their determination of public interest. Claiming that people who apply a given principle to a particular situation differently than you do means they don’t believe in or uphold the principle at all is lazy at best.
One situation is private emails between individuals the other is secret but official records of government policy. You can claim there are reasons for or against one being released over the other but the idea that basic logic prohibits one opinion on one situation and a different opinion on the other is ridiculous especially given the general implication in this post and this site in general that the “Climategate” release is “good” but the wikileaks one is “bad”.
These newspapers of this calibre are wondering why they are going the way of the buggy whip. Obsolescence through stupidity is infinity worse than through technology.
One can adapt to technology but not to stupidity.
I have said it before and will say it many times again.
The only thing worse than a hypocrite is a sanctimonious hypocrite.
Great exposition, Anthony. Double standard is all over the “morality” of most warmers. That’s why they continue to lose credibility and integrity. Shame on them and the NYT dual editorial policy.
In line with the Xmas spirit – bah, humbugary!
By the way, has one of their brilliant investigative reporters established what the UK police have so far fail to establish? Or did I miss it? I stand to be corrected.
On the subject of hypocracy people should be aware that in 2005, Pachauri helped set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life. He is currently its scientific advisor.
http://www.glorioil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=10
Here are some more:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2009/11/celebrity-climate-change-hypocrites.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/james-cameron-labelled-climate-change-hypocrite-2115151.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=arrZzzbIySgQ
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-with-five-private-jets-travolta-still-lectures-on-global-warming.do
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64907
Eco-hypocritical general articles:
http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/heat/861-are-you-an-eco-hypocrite.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478845/Whats-green-flies-An-eco-hypocrite-wont-stay-grounded-say-researchers.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/10/how-not-to-be-an-eco-hypocrite.html
Both NYT positions go against the interests of the USA. To publish Climategate could prevent foolish and damaging legislation, so NYT refused. To sit quiet on Wikileaks could protect our position and sources, so NYT refused. Whose side are they on? Not ours!
declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained.
Maybe they were legally obtained? I.e. it is a deliberate dissemination of material in the form of a leak to serve/justify various purposes, diplomatic or war mongering or whatever.
Already on the net there exist “conspiracy of government and media” guesses .
Maybe the saber rattling over on the Korean peninsula is more than a game. Maybe it is a coincidence and not a trick to draw attention away from there. Time will tell. In such a framework, starting WWIII is much more important than the puny climate wars, and all is fair in love and war .
Why am I reminded of this film scene?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f7f_1190726907
the NYT are tomato heads red inside and out
“I seem to remember that the BBC had access to those e-mails a month before they were released.”
This is one of those Dawkinsian memes that will never go away once somebody mistakenly said it.
What actually occurred was that one BBC correspondent (Paul Hudson) was able to confirm that some of the leaked emails were genuine as he’d seem them a month before – but only those that he was actually copied on!
The emails involved were those from the team asking Black/Harrabin to intervene to stop Hudson putting sceptical comments in his blog – typical outrageous team behaviour which Black/Harrabin apparently didn’t even see as a problem!.
He certainly did not have access to the whole shebang.
Anthony said:
“Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. “
sharper00 replied:
“No you simply disagree with their determination of public interest. ”
No! There and throughout your diversionary comments imply that the reason for not publishing the Climategate files was principled on the revelations being of inadequate public interest (as if!). You completely ignore that it was clearly stated that the reasons for non-publication were because the files were obtained illegally and because they were not intended for public scrutiny – you know, just like the stolen State Department files. Trying to defend the NYT’s obvious agenda driven hypocrisy will only get you soiled.
“News reporting is not a matter of discovering and publishing facts. Rather it is a process of gathering accounts from a very limited number of approved sources, and stitching them together to provide a defensible narrative. Any relationship with actual events, much less the truth, is entirely coincidental – and usually accidental”.
Once you uderstand that everything falls into place.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/11/cravenly-conformist.html
No sharper00, they weren’t emails between individuals acting in a private capacity. They were employees going about officially sanctioned business.
I think the term “hypocrisy” is WAY off target here.
This is criminal fraud.
a) they know what they are doing
b) they are doing it deliberately
c) they know the cost to us, of their crime
Why are we all still so astonished that the majority of large MSM is a cleverly disguised (or even blatant) government/corporate propaganda tool? This is not new. Examples are endless, and this is just one. However, thanks to Anthony, a very solid case has been established here as a great and transparent example, and it needs a reply from the authors.
Will he get an intelligent rebuttal from the NYT? I won’t hold my breath.
WikiLeaks are a government tool, setting themselves up as a bastion of truth to cash in on their credibility on more important matters to come. Classic propaganda technique.
They were extremely muted over the Climategate affair (even released the 9/11 texts the same week to hide the Climategate headlines, as did Google with their inhouse story about the Michelle Obama primate pictures, in order to steal the tech headlines) and in July the Wikileaks founders said Climategate was overblown and didn’t discredit the science – it wasn’t and it does. Don’t be fooled.
“One situation is private emails between individuals the other is secret but official records of government policy.”
Oh please. Releasing govt secrets imperils national security and makes us all a little less safe while the so called private emails were between people funded by public money, about issues of public policy and on email servers belonging to their often publically funded places of employment.
If the Climategate emails were instead emails between BP engineers discussing how to hide flaws at an offshore well the press would have led on the front page.
sharper00
Is it in the public interest to put soldiers and informers at risk?
Is it in the public interest to inflame tensions in the Middle East?
Is it in the public interest to put diplomats in danger?
Is it in the public interest to destroy your country’s foreign relations which form part of your security network?
—
Is it in the pulbic interest to publish statements by scientists which suggested collusion, breaking FOI law, hindering scientific process and giving distorted weight to papers based on their authors / conclusions, when the science these scientists were proponents of was central to the spending of billions of dollars worldwide and a scare campaign like never before?
—
I can see why the NYT did what they did.
Liberals and hypocrisy !!
Shocking !!!
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am
“One situation is private emails between individuals”
Private? Which climategate emails contain discussions of a private nature?
I would tend to agree with Philip Thomas. If the government really wanted to stop Wikileaks publishing the documents, they could and would have. Or they wouldn’t have ‘lost’ them in the first place.
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am
One situation is private emails between individuals the other is secret but official records of government policy.
Those ‘Private emails’ were written in works time on works email addresses funded by the UK taxpayer amongst others. I pay those taxes and its my right to see where my money goes. If there was a way open to me I would not pay taxes to be used to write this type of email.
It is indeed hypocrisy, but still a good thing. Let the sunshine in! Transparency is the universal medicine.
@ Sharperoo; I realise that this should be obvious to you, but value judgements as to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are not relevant when applied to whether a principle is to be applied or not applied. A principle is something that is well defined and immutable. Revkin enunciated the principle on which NYT would not publish the allegedly illegally gained climategate emails quite succinctly and convincingly. But, having stated the principle that drove the NYT’s behaviour then, the NYT has a duty to be consistent and not publish the illegallly acquired Wikileaks material if that journal wishes to retain it’s cloak of ethical purity.
I know hindsight has 20/20 acuity, but was the real motivation that prevented NYT from publishing the Climategate emails an attempt to curry favour with the US administration, an administration which the NYT now sees as damaged, innefectual or irrelevant?
Sharperoo justifies the NYT stance that the Climategate documents were private exchanges while the wikileak documents were secret but official Government records. Yet the end result that both sets of documents were the basis for Government actions and that even more so in the Climategate exchanges, the foundation on which the UN, IPCC and many Governments acted to introduce major and expensive programmes to attempt to offset the alarmist conclusions reached.
Sharperoo:
Hypothetically there are many cases where revelation of State Secrets could be in the public interest. But this is discussion of a specific case and not of any other case or any hypothetical case.
So, please explain how you think the release of State Secrets that places lives at risk is or could be in the public interest in this case.
If you fail to provide this explanation then your comment at November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am is demonstrated to be the hypocritical nonsense which it appears to be at face value.
And, as Anthony says, the matter requires such explanation because the same criterion the NYT used to not report the ‘Climategate’ emails applies in this case.
Richard
I noticed the difference between government and non-government documents, too. Soooo, I guess the NYT would never ever have published incriminating E-Mails from Haliburton dictating war policy in Iraq or from the Republican National Committee celebrating Katrina in New Orleans if any had existed and had been obtained?
It’s partially about the bias and partially about their concept (a form of bias they are permitted but works in favor of other bias) of what is news. They would have published the E-Mails if they had fit their agenda.
As far as the Wikileaks stuff, it only partially fits the NYT agenda because the documents are not entirely consistent with some of their memes. Yet it is still anti-USGov to publish US secrets.
A related question, is East Anglia more like Haliburton, a political organization attempting to influence or control policy, or a government actor for an unelected, unrepresentative arm of the UN with de facto – but not de jure – governmental power to enforce climate policy?
A commenter takes the position that the climategate emails were “private” communications between individuals and therefore protected. Wrong. The climate scientists received funding from government sources and worked for us. The emails were private only in the sense that they contained embarrassing revelations about inappropriate behavior.
The WikiLeaks documents were of material that is protected by laws regulating official secrecy and to release them involves committing the crime of treason.
November 29, 2010 at 3:55 am
According to http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/, fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.
you’ve missed, at the very least:
d) intentional misrepresentation of the facts (Climategate or Wikileaks data)
e) knowledge of the falsity (Revkin could have believe what he was saying)
You might have a chance with “nondisclosure makes other statements misleading,” but I suggest you check the definition of “criminal” before talking to an attorney.
—-
Come on guys, go ahead and get hot under the collar, but when you blow off steam, try to hang on to your common sense. Anthony used the right word. (I.e. hypocrisy, not that other word!)
I thought about replying to the “soiled” Sharper00, but plenty of others manned the battle stations. Ganging up on such an easy target!! The NYT’s double standard doesn’t surprise us – but we surely would have missed it if not for Mr. Watts fast work. ….because we don’t read that paper. They keep it up and no one else will either. Another body blow to the crumpled reputation of the “gray bag lady”
“Sharperoo justifies the NYT stance “
No I’m not justifying any stance. I’m pointing out that there differences between the two situations such that it’s perfectly possible and reasonable to uphold given principles but reach different answers concerning them.
Of note is the usual suggestion that any disagreeable comment is “diversionary” or a troll of some sort i.e. everyone believes as the poster does and only people pretending not to post in order to create trouble.
People may feel that they have a right to emails written by scientists just as others may feel they have a right to know what their government is doing in their name.
It is time to completely and totally boycott the New York Times.
They are a force to be reckoned with–their intent is not the security of the Republic; they do everything they can to bring it down. If you’re a Marxist or a Communist, that’s fine, but for me and millions of others, they are the enemy.
It is time for freedom-loving people everywhere to boycott the New York Times, marginalize it, expose it, and destroy it.
(They’re already so deep in debt, the only thing that can save them is a government bailout, which we should absolutely oppose. They have already failed miserably in the free marketplace of ideas.)
On the one hand a lot of the diplomatic exchanges contain silly information reflecting badly on the judgement of the diplomats. Many of the things they say and report are just silly and the ongoings beyond belief. Also they show the arrogance of US Government officials. Everybody else is wrong. On the other hand the members of the “Wikileaks Band of Brothers” are reckless and they might have contemplated the fact that they are greatly increasing the risks of retalitation – and the victims will be: the Western World and that includes Julian Assange’s own countrymen (and women). Furthermore, I fail to understand how the US Government – spending billions on security – could allow these leaks to take place. The US Government is pursuing a dyslectic Scotsman here in UK for having hacked into their secure sites. Perhaps they should have hired him to secure their own sites. Maybe all these e-mails and correspondece have been kept because Congress passed a law prohibiting deletions. The NYT times will serve a purpose, namely to show how inefficient and leaking the US Government is. I am totally against the leaks as a firm supporter of US and a NATO soldier during the Cuban crisis.
Andy simply demonstrated the greatest principal of all:
That of selective self-interest.
Sharperoo writes:
“One situation is private emails between individuals the other is secret but official records of government policy.” Ah, the old “It’s just private emails” defense for climategaters. Prof. Lindzen laid this gambit to rest in a debate at MIT when he said “There are no private emails on my work computer.”
All the News that’s Left to Print.
====================
shaperoo,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you should show us just one climategate e-mail that was private in nature. Please show us any that did not discuss cliamte science, was not produced in the course of work, and was not produced on a work related server.
Otherwise, a reasonably well informed person may look at what you claim and decide you are either completely ignorant of the subject or just putting out deliberate untruths.
And they wonder why nobody buys the paper anymore.
Obviously the newspaper’s owners and staff are supporters of the Fabian Society and it’s principles of bringing about a “socialist” society by taking control of the news media, the legal systems and the political agenda by small increments and from within.
Congratulations, don’t expect balance from the media, they are driven now by ideology and newspaper sales… In some cases, even that is not considered as important as the message – example, The Guardian in the UK.
Global warming depends on hypocrisy. Why are we surprised when we see it at all? The real news is that the NYT’s had an article that talked about the land sinking at all while trumpeting the global warming alarm.
I guess we know what brainwashing looks like.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
One thing apparent in FOIA v. the electronic age is the fact that immediacy has led many who should know better to include inappropriate material in venues that are public, even if they sit on one individual’s desk.
The inclusion of personal material in the public documents (publicly funded, thus open) of the CRU could lead one to conclude that they are “private”.
No, it is just the sloppy practice of including private material in a public medium.
FOIA law is still evolving as the gadget age continues to do the same, but the fact remains that the UK found that CRU had NOT complied with FOI law, and only the (short!) statute of limitations prevented prosecution for that.
In addition, please correct me if I’m wrong, but has there been any determination as to whether those docs were “hacked”, or leaked?
And someone please point out to me what “whistle” Assange is blowing with these diplomatic communications?
Supposedly there is a bit of internal war going on in WikiLeaks, with some European governing members concerned over the direction Assange has taken in the past year.
Regardless, the CRU emails are very much public documents, and have much more to offer a true whistle blower story than some of the current Assange effort.
RockyRoad says:
November 29, 2010 at 5:00 am
It is time to completely and totally boycott the New York Times.
================================================
I disagree.
The NYT (fishwrap and birdcage fodder) is crashing and burning on its own.
“We” need examples like the NYT to stand out as they are like this.
The NYT is a wonderful useful idiot
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 4:52 am
“Sharperoo justifies the NYT stance “
No I’m not justifying any stance. I’m pointing out that there differences between the two situations such that it’s perfectly possible and reasonable to uphold given principles but reach different answers concerning them.
Of note is the usual suggestion that any disagreeable comment is “diversionary” or a troll of some sort i.e. everyone believes as the poster does and only people pretending not to post in order to create trouble.
===================================================
Sorry, but it is troll like behavior when evidence and facts clearly disprove your ideas.
Has anyone searched thru this latest dump for comments concerning climate or weather and related? It would be interesting to know what the ptb really think about it.
@Theo Goodwin
“here are no private emails on my work computer.”
Subject to the rules and regulations of you employer perhaps but they vary wildly.
@hunter
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but you should show us just one climategate e-mail that was private in nature. “
They all were until and unless approval for release under the relevant FOI laws.
If you don’t believe me submit a request to every public university in the UK for all emails written by all staff members on record. You’ll invariably be told “No”.
“Otherwise, a reasonably well informed person may look at what you claim and decide you are either completely ignorant of the subject or just putting out deliberate untruths.”
Yes yes everyone who disagrees with you is woefully ignorant or a deliberate liar, someone who denies the facts you might say.
The quote from Revkin leaves out his response added to the very charge raised here. Talk about hypocrisy.
Revkin: “UPDATE 11/23[2009]: The line above has been widely interpreted below and around the Web as implying that The Times is laying off looking into these documents even as the paper has been quick to publish or report on other documents of uncertain provenance. A quick scan of the original news story and these posts shows that we’re actively reporting on and citing these documents. And of course there’s more to come.”
Pubic interest? Was that a Freudian slip or a tacit admission that the New York Times has an abiding interest in seeing American get screwed?
They are truthful! : Obviously they are in total accord with these leaks, they are not being hypocritical.
@sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am
You make a fair point, kinda, and I note that both sets of information are publicly funded. However, in the case of Climategate the public was paying to be informed, not stonewalled, whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.
“…pubic interest…” lol
The reason there is hypocrisy is easy to understand. AGW solutions involve leftist solutions; bringing awareness and credibility to climategate would hamper those leftist (final) solutions.
Interesting… when you look up the “A” records(IP address) of wikileaks.org it returns:
wikileaks.org. 2014 IN A 184.72.37.90
wikileaks.org. 2014 IN A 46.51.171.90
Then when you do a WHOIS on those IP’s it returns that they are both owned by:
OrgName: Amazon.com, Inc.
OrgId: AMAZO-4
Address: Amazon Web Services, Elastic Compute Cloud, EC2
Address: 1200 12th Avenue South
City: Seattle
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98144
Country: US
Nah… I must be dreaming….
Shaperoo: while I was employed incoming phone calls were not logged but all outgoing phone calls, the numbers called, and the the times were. The company paid for the phones and the calls. My e-mails were never considered private. The company owned the computers. These climate frauds (i.e. not scientists) were taxpayer funded – lavishly. Get real.
Sharperoo-look up Walter Duranty- the NYT Pulitzer winnning Reporter who knew and
covered up the death of Millions in the Ukraine and Crimea just because they were ‘inconvenient ” . Yet the NYT refuses to acknowledge that Duranty was a knowing and willing participant in Stalin’s Genocide. That is an “Inconvenient Truth”…
BTW I knew a Ukrainian immigrant who escaped that…
Nice work guys, you completely destroyed shaperoo’s sad attempt at logic. It continues to amaze how alarmists think. It seems they have no concept of reality and always bend every fact to fit their preconceived agenda.
In many ways they are like an adulterous spouse who blames their own actions on the person they are betraying. The human mind can work in strange ways, an alarmist mind appears to always work in strange ways.
I am no friend of the NYT, but it’s only fair to point out that both the NYT and Wiki-Leaks redacted the files that they published. They removed names and, in at least one case, Wiki-Leaks did not publish at least one one cable that might damage the public’s interest.
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 5:57 am
@hunter
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but you should show us just one climategate e-mail that was private in nature. “
They all were until and unless approval for release under the relevant FOI laws.”
ummm, trolleroo, if this were correct then it would NOT have been found that they failed to comply with UK FOI.
And only the statute of limitations prevented their prosecution for that failure to comply with the LAW.
Damn it! If we don’t bring the left back to the center, the backlash WILL send all of us back into the dark ages when ALL science was forbidden/jailed/executed, and pew taxes reigned supreme.
Idiots! Such idiots!
Solutions are what is needed; http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30503
Are you accusing the CRU chaps of performing priate correspondence on paid work time? Or did they only use the emails fro private use during their lunch breaks. I doubt is and the emails had time stamps.
And guess which newspaper supplied the NYT with copies of the cables ? Apparently, The Guardian–one of the five newspapers that had an advanced look at the cables-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/the-guardian-gave-wikilea_n_789091.html
The military and other government agencies involved in national security do not spend money on advertising. CAGW business opportunists do.
Which group do you think a “principled” newspaper must protect?
Keep that in mind when dealing with the NYT and other “news” media.
Curiousgeorge: are you insinuating that AGW is proceeding have a look at your recent pillar of support AMSU 600 mb Global temps BELOW average now. LOL
Each day I start my computers at work, a privacy policy pops up telling me I have no privacy.
Government agency (which includes contractors) communication via computer telecommunication is not covered by privacy law. Sharper00, no offense but you are only repeating talking points and have no idea what you are saying.
Scientists are not sacred cows.
@H.R.
“whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.”
The problem is with the criteria for “secret”. Once there’s a “secret” category the criteria for what goes in there and increases over time, eventually encompassing “Everything we’d find inconvenient for the public to know”. I remember reading an article before about the difference between the way the average American perceives foreign policy versus the way the people in the foreign countries perceive it. A big part of that difference is the way the US government presents itself to the American public versus the reality for those on the business end of those policies.
The issue then becomes, does the American public have a right to know how their government interacts with other nations? I’d say the wikileaks release is too much in that it likely compromises security (although they did offer to redact such details) but the previous situation was too heavily weighted in terms of obscuring the reality of policy.
“if this were correct then it would NOT have been found that they failed to comply with UK FOI.”
They failed to comply with FOI by saying they were going to delete emails which could be subject to an FOI request. You (or anyone) doesn’t have an automatic right to see any and all emails as suggested here nor is there any guarantee that even specifically requested information will be made available.
“ummm, trolleroo”
A contrary opinion? It must be someone who secretly agrees with you but is only pretending otherwise! Thank goodness your opinions are all so outstandingly correct it’s actually impossible to disagree!
Why does the hypocrisy meter flash like that on Firefox 3.6.x on Linux?
Pamela Gray says:
November 29, 2010 at 6:50 am
“Damn it! If we don’t bring the left back to the center, the backlash WILL send all of us back into the dark ages when ALL science was forbidden/jailed/executed, and pew taxes reigned supreme.
Idiots! Such idiots!”
Pamela, takea muffin, as they say in Quebec. I don’t think ” back into the dark ages when ALL science was forbidden/jailed/executed, and pew taxes reigned supreme.” is true. Some individuals who happened to practice science may have punished, but not for practicing science. I think it was that their conclusions were wrong. Sort of like what Suzuki wants to do to us “deniers and skeptics” for coming to the wrong conclusions. Only the punishments differ.
And tithes were never as high as the current marginal tax rates of todays middle income taxpayer.
No need to take a shot at traditional religion when CAGWism is more apropos.
Take a deep breathe.
Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT today on hyper-partisanship among pundits and politicians. I posted the following comment, which is now in moderation:
“And then there is the New York Times. They released the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s. Over the weekend, they decided to release raw State Department cables and give them prominent front page coverage, thus adversely impacting American foreign policy and possibly national security. Before that there were the reports of widespread telephone intercepts on American citizens who may have been communicating with terrorist suspects. But when the emails of the scientists working for the IPCC were released to the world just before the Copenhagen conference last year, the Times decided that the privacy of the scientists had been invaded and the documents illegally obtained. Therefore, no publication.
“One might expect partisanship from politicians, but it shouldn’t infect news coverage.”
Was there ever a question about which the NYT stands for? The publishing of the wiki-leaks stuff and the refusal to publish the e-mails are 2 sides of the same coin. The publishing casts the U.S. in bad light and hurts our ability to conduct foreign affairs. The refusal to print the e-mails protects policies and views which are crippling the U.S. economy.
The NYT’s history is replete with American bashing. It hates America and all that it stands for. All the while using the Constitution to continue its anti-American ravings.
Earth to Anthony: glad you are finially starting to get it about the NYT. Better late than never.
Duh!
I’m opposed to euthanasia, but The Old Gray Lady needs to be put out of her misery.
Truly it is a sign of the Times…NYT is just plain idiotic as usual, who would expect anything less?
The principled stand was that the climate gate documents were:
1) Obtained illegally.
2) Contain all manner of private information.
As a side note, the courts have upheld thus far that no e-mail is private in nature and your employer can review and use your e-mail against you at any time. I say that one could make the argument that as a taxpayer paying for publicly funded research, I am their employer. This is actually in-line with internet principles as most traffic over the tubes is unencrypted and there is no way to prevent a highly motivated person from following you. Why encumber the law to perform a function that technology deems impossible?
However, lets examine these two issues. Were the e-mails obtained illegally? The method used was likely illegal. However, at least some of these e-mails were subject to FOI requests that had been ignored or stonewalled for years at that point. You could make the argument that these e-mails should have been public domain already. The state department wikileaks case, however, involved (as far as I understand it) documents that were classified and exempt from FOIA. Also for clarification it’s treason to release them. That would seem to make the method by which they were obtained illegal.
So they were both illegally obtained, can we agree on that?
Now, did the climate gate e-mails contain private information? I recall seeing some chat between buddies about lunch dates and vacation times and health issues, etc, but by and large the e-mails contained coordination between colleagues on work issues (I almost cut my hand off by saying “science-related” issues but then corrected myself when I realized it was journal gatekeeping). So you could make the argument here that there WAS private information. However, do you honestly think any court of law would deem the private information contained in those e-mails as some kind of shield to prevent their release to the public?
While you’re thinking about that, let me just say that for the sake of argument I’ll accept that there was private information contained in those e-mails.
My final question is, How close to “private information” are classified documents in your or the NYT eyes? If you say “not private at all” then that’s taking a rather anarchist stance (perhaps unwittingly).
So, your argument that they reached a different conclusion on the same principles with two different situation says something. Either you feel the NYT doesn’t consider classified information as private or worth keeping secret; or you feel the NYT feels the wikileaks docs were obtained legally; or you feel the NYT feels that either or both the privacy concerns of the IPCC scientists are higher than state department classification and the breaking into of a University of East Anglia mail server is more illegal than breaking an oath to protect classified information.
I’m not kidding here, that’s the stance you’re taking, and it’s ridiculous.
These scientists were funded by public taxpayer money. I have a right to know what they are doing in my name.
Mike at 6:00 am:
You’re not getting it. They decided not to publish the emails verbatim even though they were obviously germane to one of the great and controversial issues of our time and were written by people directly in the middle of the debate and the formulation of policy. Citing privacy and deciding without evidence that the documents had been illegally obtained is the issue here. Nearly every leak the NYT reports on is illegally obtained, and yet they had no evidence that the person who leaked the documents obtained them illegally. Indeed, he may have been a whistleblower and there are statutes that protect such people.
No surprise here, is there? File this under “No [fooling], Sherlock.”
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism — when a Republican is in the White House. But when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, dissent can only be motivated by fear, greed and racism.
Likewise, when discussing climate change, fear, greed and hate must be involved when anybody disagrees with the “consensus.”
sharperoo,
Not one of the e-mails was private, nor was any of the e-mails about private, non-work related business.
The files were compiled due to FOIA action.
While they were leaked, they were not private.
But you knew that.
You are breaking the first rule of holes.
@Jimbo
“Are you accusing the CRU chaps of performing priate correspondence on paid work time? Or did they only use the emails fro private use during their lunch breaks. I doubt is and the emails had time stamps.”
I think you’re likely confusing “private” with “personal”.
OK, let’s talk hypocrisy:
– Al Gore is a liar/nutter but Monckton is a credible spokesperson (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf or http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/)
– Data and models must be published unless this is Wegman’s data and models (4 years ago Wegman said “I will create a website that fully discloses all supporting material related to our report to the extent possible” – still not done)
– Ad hom attacks are not allowed on this blog unless they’re against those lying, corrupt, mad, stupid, etc climategate so-called scientists (see numerous posts and comments on this blog)
– Our buddy got one of the best arctic ice predictions (but it was made just two weeks before the actual measurement) (see arctic ice thread on this blog)
—————————————————
COMMENT MERGER BY MODERATOR: Louise writes on the Cancun Spencer/Monckton thread:
Louise
Submitted on 2010/11/29 at 8:00 am
Well I just had a ‘no show’ on the hypocrisy thread. Possibly because it pointed out that this blog is not immune from charges of hypocrisy.
[NOTE: Or possibly because it had some trigger words and fell into the SPAM filter. Now recovered. Unfortunately, all your diversions don’t address the real issue of publishing things selectively at NYT, they are simply things you don’t like. ~mod]
If these were emails between engineers about Hubble mirrors or shuttle O-rings, I think the mainstream media would have paid attention.
It is interesting that applying consistent standards can be so difficult for some. This just proves that the issue is not one of science or engineering, but one of politics and philosophy.
ABF says:
November 29, 2010 at 6:35 am
That’s just the ISP (I would have expected some foreign ISP though), the owner of the domain name is a third party:
I’m not sure you can rely on reverse DNS for much beyond confusion. For example:
$ host wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com has address 72.233.2.59
wattsupwiththat.com has address 72.233.2.58
$ host 72.233.2.59
59.2.233.72.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer 59.2.233.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com.
I expected wordpress.com….
@Jeremy
“As a side note, the courts have upheld thus far that no e-mail is private in nature and your employer can review and use your e-mail against you at any time. I say that one could make the argument that as a taxpayer paying for publicly funded research, I am their employer. “
No you couldn’t unless you want to argue you posses the ability to hire and fire for the University of East Anglia.
“So they were both illegally obtained, can we agree on that?”
I don’t think anyone particularly disagrees on this point.
“So, your argument that they reached a different conclusion on the same principles with two different situation says something. Either you feel the NYT doesn’t consider classified information as private or worth keeping secret; or you feel the NYT feels the wikileaks docs were obtained legally; or you feel the NYT feels that either or both the privacy concerns of the IPCC scientists are higher than state department classification and the breaking into of a University of East Anglia mail server is more illegal than breaking an oath to protect classified information.”
No I think the point of difference is fairly clearly and isn’t as above.
Some people feel there’s no useful or relevant content in the climategate emails which justifies posting them given their illegally obtained and private nature.
Other people feel there’s IS useful and relevant content in the climategate emails which justifies posting them given their illegally obtained and private nature.
Some people feel that the wikileaks release comprises national security more than the public’s right to know the information in it.
Other people feel the public’s right to know that information outweighs the damage to national security.
People can easily make one judgement for one situation and a different judgement for the other situation and still be both FOR the public’s right to know important/relevant information and be FOR national security/private property etc.
What’s actually happened here is that someone who disagrees with the NYT’s judgement on the merit of climategate wants to use their judgement on the wikileaks release to paint them as hypocritical so they can dismiss their judgement on climategate.
@hunter
“The files were compiled due to FOIA action.
While they were leaked, they were not private.”
They were compiled for FOI purposes but not released.
“But you knew that.
You are breaking the first rule of holes.”
I feel perfectly fine breathing the fresh air. I don’t think your declaration that I’m in a hole makes it so but I guess if you fail your position is so unassailable you can go with the Chewbacca defence then that’s your right.
Ric Werme says:
I’m not sure you can rely on reverse DNS for much beyond confusion. For example:
$ host wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com has address 72.233.2.59
wattsupwiththat.com has address 72.233.2.58″
That’s only if it has a reverse, which is generally only used for mail. In this case the actual host name is:
ec2-184-72-37-90.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com
Which is probably provided by a third party, but part of the AWS cloud system.
Sharparoo:
You have made several posts since mine which you have not answered. I remind that it was as follows and its point stands.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
November 29, 2010 at 4:38 am
Sharperoo:
Hypothetically there are many cases where revelation of State Secrets could be in the public interest. But this is discussion of a specific case and not of any other case or any hypothetical case.
So, please explain how you think the release of State Secrets that places lives at risk is or could be in the public interest in this case.
If you fail to provide this explanation then your comment at November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am is demonstrated to be the hypocritical nonsense which it appears to be at face value.
And, as Anthony says, the matter requires such explanation because the same criterion the NYT used to not report the ‘Climategate’ emails applies in this case.
Richard
[…Unfortunately, all your diversions don’t address the real issue of publishing things selectively at NYT, they are simply things you don’t like. ~mod]
No – they are examples of why I think this blog should not be pointing the hypocrisy finger at other publications. I think that I have shown that this blog is also rather selective to the point of hypocrisy when the issue of what is published is considered.
As it happens, I agree that the NYT is being hypocritical – I’m just pointing out that this blog would have difficulty defending itself from the same charge.
REPLY: Thanks for being a shining beacon for hypocrisy exposure. I assume then you’ll leave similar comments at the following blogs:
Real Climate, Open Mind, Skeptical Science, and several others too numerous to mention, or does your zeal only focus here? If you are truly concerned about selective publishing as opposed to pandering your own opinion, I look forward to you calling out the other blogs that won’t publish certain items or comments. Otherwise, well, its simply hypocrisy for you to post such complaints here only. – Anthony
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 5:57 am
@Theo Goodwin
‘“There are no private emails on my work computer.”
Subject to the rules and regulations of you employer perhaps but they vary wildly.’
sharper00, you are simply unable to recognize a moral claim. The claim that you quoted is from Lindzen who was setting forth a moral claim about personal integrity and not, as you would have us interpret it, a claim about his employer’s policies. Lindzen ‘s point was that those who would defend the climategaters by claiming “It’s just private emails” trivialize the scientist’s everyday work and treat it as a matter of whim. By contrast, Lindzen is a serious scientist and would have nothing on his work computer that is not serious science. If your defense of climategaters succeeds in any way whatsoever it does so by presenting those you defend as children who cannot separate work and tantrum. In a court of law, that could succeed in acquittal for your client but only at the price of making him a laughingstock.
Louise says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:49 am
“OK, let’s talk hypocrisy:
– Al Gore is a liar/nutter but Monckton is a credible………” .”- Ad hom attacks are not allowed on this blog unless they’re against those lying, corrupt, mad, stupid, etc climategate so-called scientists (see numerous posts and comments on this blog)”
======================================================
lol, I think ad-homs are allowed here regardless of the circumstance, but to be certain, you’ve shown where strawman arguments are certainly allowed here.
Wasn’t this thread about the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the NYT? And you bring up big Al and Monckton? Well, when you can’t defend the indefensible……
@ Richard Courtney
“If you fail to provide this explanation then your comment at November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am is demonstrated to be the hypocritical nonsense which it appears to be at face value.”
I don’t respond to messages written in this fashion, by all means imagine whatever points you wish to be conceded as conceded. I certainly can’t stop you.
REPLY: Thanks for being a shining beacon for hypocrisy exposure. I assume then you’ll leave similar comments at the following blogs:
Real Climate, Open Mind, Skeptical Science, and several others too numerous to mention, or does your zeal only focus here? If you are truly concerned about selective publishing as opposed to pandering your own opinion, I look forward to you calling out the other blogs that won’t publish certain items or comments. Otherwise, well, its simply hypocrisy for you to post such complaints here only. – Anthony
If you looked at those sites, you’d see that I call them out on things that I spot there too, ie Al Gore is NOT a credible spokesperson, the guys at CRU WERE wrong to resist the FOI requests, data and models SHOULD be published, etc (however, most folk on those sites agree with these points too). What I find objectionable at both ‘sides’ of the debate is hypocrisy.
I see quite a lot of it here – especially when people are pulled up for ad homs on one ‘side’ but not the other.
REPLY: Well that’s your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But, without having moderator privileges, you don’t get to see the volume of comments that are ad hom that we snip from our side of the debate, so your view is incomplete. My suggestion is to show us where you successfully were able to put in such criticisms as you claim at these other sites. Cut and paste is your friend, otherwise it’s just unsubstantiated claims.
Meanwhile, the NYT hypocrisy continues, writ large. – Anthony
@Theo Goodwin
“Lindzen ‘s point was that those who would defend the climategaters by claiming “It’s just private emails””
I’m not “defending” the emails. People arguing multiple points and one person is responding to a refutation of one point as if it applied to another.
Some people are attempting to argue that the wikileaks content is secret whereas the climategate emails are actually public. They’re clearly private emails. Private doesn’t preclude their release under the relevant FOI statutes.
“By contrast, Lindzen is a serious scientist and would have nothing on his work computer that is not serious science.”
I haven’t noticed Lindzen releasing the contents of his computer or email archives for everyone to pour over, did I miss it?
“If your defense of climategaters succeeds in any way whatsoever it does so by presenting those you defend as children who cannot separate work and tantrum. “
It’s simply the case that just because someone wrote an email at a public university that doesn’t mean you have a legal right to see it. You may have a right to see very specific information if you can justify it on a case-by-case basis.
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:17 am
@H.R.
“whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.”
sharper00 responds: “The problem is with the criteria for “secret”. Once there’s a “secret” category the criteria for what goes in there and increases over time, eventually encompassing “Everything we’d find inconvenient for the public to know”. […]”
That is a true danger and it does happen. No argument from me. And I think the press, broadcast media, or other media have to keep an eye out, but they should be held responsible if they don’t exercise due restraint. I’d think anyone with a modicum of intelligence could distinguish between what could compromise national security and endanger lives and what informs the public without giving away the whole store. Someone does have to guard the guardians.
The rest of your post seems to be a reply to another commenter. I’ll butt out of that as I see others have addressed your points about the Climategate side of the published e-mails, e.g. Theo Goodwin.
sharperoo,
I am not the one in a hole.
good luck,
Actions speak louder than words. Perhaps it is time to publish a a list of NYT advertisers who are accessories in these crimes.
The mainstream and much of the (fake) alternative press are totally controlled entities. You will read what the powerful want you to read. Nothing is left to chance. Nothing is leaked. If something is revealed, it is meant to be revealed. There are honest blogs and websites that try to get truth or alternative opinions closer to truth to the people. Seemingly, however, people still want to rely on the established (controlled) sources.
Yes, I can. If I don’t assert my rights over those who take my money to perform a public service, I lose them. So yes, as a taxpayer and voting citizen, I am the “boss” of those being paid by my taxes. If I, as a citizen, succumb to the thinking that I have no power over what these people do, civilization will (not might), WILL descend into fascism. You’re essentially making the same argument on the wikileaks issue and being able to see what people are doing in your name, but you can’t see it here for some reason.
And none of that has any relevance whatsoever. NYT took a stand on the climate gate e-mails, a clearly explained (as quoted) and principled stand. Then they violated that very same stand on the wikileaks issue. You can say the “point of difference” is outside of what I stated, and make an obfuscation argument if you choose. However, they made a stand, explained that stand, then violated that stand when it suited them. That is hypocrisy. That is Anthony’s point and it is well made.
sharper00
Alarmists and the NYT say the CRU emails were private because they wanted to protect their science “buddies” from being accused of a being part of a whole bunch of dodgy activities. Whereas skeptics want to shine a strong light into their “private” space to expose their dodgy activities. This has undoubtably been achieved and the our world is going to be a better place because of this exposure. There has been a public good done.
They are acting more like revolutionaries than a news company when they continue to offend their customers with propaganda rather than present the news as expected. They have not realized the movie industry is the only industry that can insult their customers and get away with it because they do it with style, glamour and humor. And there is little alternative.
Why would anyone, want to pay money and time for news that is not news.
There is a major difference between the diplomatic cables and the emails. The cables were marked Secret. So, this is actually beyond hypocrisy into some new form of self contradiction. Anyone care to make up a new word to describe it?
[Reply: “treachery.”]
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 8:08 am
Can you prove that the climategate emails were “illegally obtained”? Are you the thief? That is the only way you could absolutely know they were “illegally obtained”.
And can you categorically prove that the material posted by wikileaks is “legally obtained”?
I thought not in both cases.
Tim says:
November 29, 2010 at 3:58 am
Why are we all still so astonished that the majority of large MSM is a cleverly disguised (or even blatant) government/corporate propaganda tool?
Tim, you are correct ! Plus . . .
The connection between CAGW alarmism can be tied directly to an un-holy alliance of Big Government/Taxes, Big Business/Corporate carbon trading scam, ECOlogical fundamentalists/funding, Big Science/funding. Keep in mind Big MSM is all owned by Big Business interests, so this articles information on the N.Y.T. bias is of no surprise. What is somewhat surprising is that the blogosphere and a few independent media could take on this un-holy cabal and win (maybe) !!!
Note: here in Canada the state owned CBC/media(MSM) toes the CAGW line because it’s a holy liberal/eco cause and the provincial governments wish the fear to be propogated so as to cash in on WINDfall taxes.
sharper00
Why are you so hung up on this private email thing? In my and I suspect any business all employees work sent emails are open to observation by the owners. Effectively the UK tax payers are the owners of their tax paid science institutions and so their employees emails should be open to observation by the owners. The facility offered by the FOI act provides for this public observation.
If the NYT [hopefully] goes belly-up, the only thing I would miss is the crossword puzzles.
troller00, standard diversionary strawman argument: where did anyone say they had a right to see “any and all emails”?
Nowhere.
They had a right to the public documents properly requested under FOI, which were not tendered, which was noncompliance with FOI, but not determined to be so until after the statute had expired.
You’re every bit entitled to your own opinions, r00. Not your own facts.
You are presenting your opinions as facts, which is why so many are “disagreeing” with you.
Actually, they are correcting you, but I’m sure it feels much much better to see it at unreasonable “disagreement”.
Or you are wilfully clinging to it, which may be why some are coming to the OPINION that you are yess, acting like a tr0ll.
Have a nice day!
NYT……..Weathermen above ground?
And I am sorry to rain microwaves on the tinfoil hat parade, but the government can’t just stop whatever they want to whenever they want to. Wikileaks and the founder, embattled by rape charges (also supposedly set-up by the CIA), are not in the continental US, and Pfc. Bradley Manning stole the documents and provided them to Wikileaks. Hence the court martial of said Private. Unless this is just layers of psy-op stuff. Yeah, that’s it.
sharper00:
Thankyou for your post at November 29, 2010 at 8:55 am which refuses to anser my clear point that was:
“So, please explain how you think the release of State Secrets that places lives at risk is or could be in the public interest in this case.
If you fail to provide this explanation then your comment at November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am is demonstrated to be the hypocritical nonsense which it appears to be at face value.”
Thank you. It is rare for a hypocrite to admit his hypocrisy as clearly your response does.
Richard
The NYT (pronounced ‘nit’) knows that it can safely publish in violation of national security laws. Their creature, Osamabama, is not going to bite the hand that fed his campaign. The needle on my propaganda meter long ago responded to NYT AGW coverage by wrapping itself around the right hand peg.
The question editors are asking themselves, obviously, is “Will this leak have the political effect we want?”
sharper00 says: November 29, 2010 at 2:26 am
One situation is private emails between individuals the other is secret but official records of government policy. You can claim there are reasons for or against one being released over the other but the idea that basic logic prohibits one opinion on one situation and a different opinion on the other is ridiculous especially given the general implication in this post and this site in general that the “Climategate” release is “good” but the wikileaks one is “bad”.
——————————————————————————–
Sharper00: I don’t see that the emails are private. We are discussing government funded activity here. The whole matter was subject to FOI which was being frustrated by these people’s efforts.
Douglas
Dave F says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:52 am
There is a major difference between the diplomatic cables and the emails. The cables were marked Secret. So, this is actually beyond hypocrisy into some new form of self contradiction. Anyone care to make up a new word to describe it?
[Reply: “treachery.”]
=====================================================
Just thought I’d second that. While I don’t believe any legal action should be pursued against the NYT,(they are protected) it is important that we call it for what it is…..treachery.
I am sorry to rain on your mindkontrolled parade, but what the government can’t control is an independent internet.(Which they are going after.) All else is just part of the package of control by the powerful. Wikileaks is transparent if you stop and think about it.
“They failed to comply with FOI by saying they were going to delete emails which could be subject to an FOI request. You (or anyone) doesn’t have an automatic right to see any and all emails as suggested here nor is there any guarantee that even specifically requested information will be made available. ”
Sigh, yet again, another strawman. Would you please tell me how deleting emails serves any purpose in science? Then lets take the logical second step.
These two situations are identical.
Public employees (funded by the taxpayer) send out communications that are supposed to be private. NYT publishes one that was obtained (illegally?) but not the other?
You then digress to how some people do not think this is relevant? What is relevant about what diplomats think about a particular leader and about calling one batman and the other Robin? Most of those communications changed nothing, put lives at risk and put simply are just fuel for the fires of foreign leaders.
We are talking relevance here right? Well the climate-gate emails would have been read more then wikileaks ever would have. A group of scientists hatching a conspiracy to break the law…yes I think that would have been front page news and I think people would have cared about that versus the batman and robin quotes. Subversion of the peer-review process…yes that would have been relevant as the cap and trade under consideration would have no longer had solid science to back it.
And we still to this day here people saying “the science is settled” by those scientists who covered up their incompetence in science illegally in some cases. I think whether we want to admit it or not, both sets of documents should have been published and it should have been up to the public what they cared about.
This entire episode is now a new game for me. Now my goal is to find how many people I can convince that the NYT is a rag and go from there.
Having somewhat of difficulties in following all these comments… Hypocrisy is the ‘name-of-the-game’, the ‘core fuel’ for the AGW-[pim*s] and its proponents are worldwide – we have them here in Sweden ‘en masse’ from the top and down… sic(k)!
The xxx’s number of words here [and there] tend to go into hair-splitting topics/ remarks type, thus evaiding the core of the subject [which obviously is the only ‘effort’ left ‘they’ can mobilize…]
The Climate Scam [ http://www.theclimatescam.se ] is ‘our’ [kind of] WUWT and – although not as prominent/’large’ – it is truly worth while having a look into. And, BTW, there are also some types [aka ‘sharper00’, ‘Louise’…] there as well.
Red/bottom line is still and will stay being the ‘core fuel’; hypocrisy covering up for the damned lies, frauds, deceptions, $$$$, greed, power, …
Karl Marx and your ilk, incl. M. Strong, Al Gore, Monbiot, Revkin and the rest: Just forget yourselves – the sooner you do, the better for all and everyone on Terra Firma.
Brgds from the Bestcoast of Sweden!
//TJ
Relax; Revkin was move to an opinion section. I believe it happened after climategate. I also wonder if there aren’t libel considerations – England having a reputation as being a place where it is easy to prove libel. Of course the N.Y. Times doesn’t explain one way or the other but Revkin has been saying recently that “the lawyers” have barred the Times from quoting the emails directly – that they can only link to places where the emails can be looked up.
Clearly Revkin has a green point of view and isn’t inclined to cast a skeptical eye on his scientific sources who he feels collegial toward. None the less the Times does now label his Dot Earth column as opinion.
At 7:27 am this morning I posted the following here at WUWT:
————————————————————————————————–
Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT today on hyper-partisanship among pundits and politicians. I posted the following comment, which is now in moderation:
“And then there is the New York Times. They released the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s. Over the weekend, they decided to release raw State Department cables and give them prominent front page coverage, thus adversely impacting American foreign policy and possibly national security. Before that there were the reports of widespread telephone intercepts on American citizens who may have been communicating with terrorist suspects. But when the emails of the scientists working for the IPCC were released to the world just before the Copenhagen conference last year, the Times decided that the privacy of the scientists had been invaded and the documents illegally obtained. Therefore, no publication.
“One might expect partisanship from politicians, but it shouldn’t infect news coverage.”
——————————————————————————————–
They didn’t publish the post. I guess they are emulating RealClimate by censoring opinions with which they don’t agree. The important thing to remember about liberals in this day and age is that they are no longer liberal.
This latest escapade of diplomatic wires published is being called “cablegate” and is being compared to climategate.
It all began with a U.S. program called Net Centric Diplomacy which first appears in the news in 2006 with the naming of one of the top 20 finalists bidding for the contract. Only two articles mention it – one in January and one in March of 2006.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22net-centric+diplomacy%22&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,cd_min:2005,cd_max:2007,cdr:1
Interestingly the program doesn’t appear in the news again until July, 2010.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22net-centric+diplomacy%22&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,cd_min:2005,cd_max:2007,cdr:1#q=%22net-centric+diplomacy%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DfLzTOvrNIKC8gbyuunlCw&ved=0CBoQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=nws:1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F30%2F2010&fp=6c786525ecdfe8a6
This was to facilitate instant sharing of information between diplomats and military – Dept. of State and Dept. of Defense respectively on a secure internet protocol named SIPRnet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet
It was up to individual diplomats to decide whether or not their cables were to go over SIPRnet or via more secure means with only sender and recipient being privy to it. It was to used only for communication classed secret or below. So if any diplomats put embarrasing information out on this network you can go straight to those clowns who did it who should have known full well that anyone in the military with secret clearance could be granted access to the searchable archive of diplomatic wires including low ranking teenagers like Private First Class Bradley Manning stationed in Iraq with access to SIPRnet granted as part of his job.
http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/86195/20101127/wikileaks-secret-documents-how-bradley-manning-us-army-diplomacy.htm
When Net Centric Diplomacy went online I cannot determine. All I could find reported was a competition among potential information systems contractors where there were 20 finalists still competing in March 2006. It probably didn’t go online before Obama’s
coronationinauguration but it may have.Ultimately the buck stops with Obama as he is both commander-in-chief of the military where the leak occurred and he is also our highest ranking diplomat who can hire and fire any other diplomat including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Ironically this is a major fulfillment of Obama’s campaign promise to make government more transparent. One is left to wonder whether he did it intentionally.
In any case it’s rollicking good fun just like Climategate was to see what the head clowns in charge (HCIC) are saying to each other when they think no one else is listening.
Secrets are much harder to keep in the information age. Welcome to the information age, clowns.
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:01 am
@Theo Goodwin
“Some people are attempting to argue that the wikileaks content is secret whereas the climategate emails are actually public. They’re clearly private emails. Private doesn’t preclude their release under the relevant FOI statutes.”
You have created this idea, all in your mind, because you systematically equivocate on the word ‘private’. For example, in a post above you write:
“One situation is private emails between individuals the other is secret but official records of government policy.”
Replace ‘private’ with ‘secret but official records of climategater policy’ in your sentence above. I argue that the climategate emails are “official records of climategater policy.” Then you have to tack on the word ‘secret’ to make those records seem parallel to government records that are classified secret. Yet the tacking on is illegitimate. Climategaters are not a government and have no legal right to designate anything as government secrets. Therefore, making available the government records breaks tons of laws that have no application to the climategate emails at all. How is it that you cannot see this difference? Once you see this point and recognize, as all Americans of good will must, that revealing these US government secrets causes huge harm to the US, then surely you can understand that the NYT has gone to the mat against America even though they bent over backwards to soften criticism of climategaters. How can you not see that difference?
well it certainly was in the public interest to have the climategate mails published. How else could people see that there was nothing of substance there.. hehe.
I would like to raise the idea that this latest Wikileaks dump was planted. It seems to me that the emails about Iran’s nuclear weapons and North Korea’s nuclear weapons portend serious changes in policy.
tj says:
November 29, 2010 at 10:43 am
“Wikileaks is transparent if you stop and think about it.”
We don’t know whether the material is authentic; we don’t know who selected it for publication; we don’t know who funds Wikileaks; we don’t know the services and nations that back Wikileaks. We don’t know how Assange got that rape affair in Sweden turned down in 24 hours.
What do you mean with transparent?
theduke says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:12 am
At 7:27 am this morning I posted the following here at WUWT:
————————————————————————————————–
Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT today on ………
They didn’t publish the post. I guess they are emulating RealClimate by censoring opinions with which they don’t agree. The important thing to remember about liberals in this day and age is that they are no longer liberal.
=======================================================
And yet, here it is, for all to read and comment on. A direct copy and paste……
theduke says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:27 am
Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT ……
=======================================================
Guys and gals, sometimes the comments go to the spam filter for various reasons, sometimes the reasons are unknown. Other times, the moderators may take a break, personal, or food or whatever…… If you post a comment and it doesn’t say “awaiting moderation”, simply make another post telling the mod that it is likely gone to the spam hole. My experience is that the mod will retrieve and post. Other times, you simply have to wait, just like everyone else.
steven mosher says:
How else could people see that there was nothing of substance there..
I disagree with that sentiment, but I doubt anyone will ever look into the manipulation of accounts at UEA that is most definitely suggested in this email.
Forgot the link, I guess:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:17 am
@H.R.
“whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.”
The problem is with the criteria for “secret”. Once there’s a “secret” category the criteria for what goes in there and increases over time, eventually encompassing “Everything we’d find inconvenient for the public to know”. I remember reading an article before about the difference between the way the average American perceives foreign policy versus the way the people in the foreign countries perceive it. A big part of that difference is the way the US government presents itself to the American public versus the reality for those on the business end of those policies.
#######################
you have
A: never had to classify a document in your life OR
B: forgotten the obligations of every document creator and the penalties associated with failing to follow the guidelines.
start here for an example:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
The definition of Secret is clear. It does not change over time. The same goes for TS and for TS/SAR. There are two ways to mis classify a document: over classify or under classify. You can actually be punished for both.
(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or
(h) weapons of mass destruction.
Within each of these categories you even have further categories and when you are given a clearance you recieve training in the appropriate marking of information.
“After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions.”
They conferred with the Administration about publishing. Isn’t that precious.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that they showed the same restraint and conferred with the Obama White House concerning the breaking news of the leaked Climategate emails. We can see clearly where priorities lie for our President and the NYT. The reputations of a handful of climate scientists and Pres. Obama’s persuit of carbon dioxide legislation are far more important to him than the lives and safety of our troops, or our interests in the stability of the Middle East, or our future intelligence sources in the region.
Louise says: November 29, 2010 at 7:49 am
Provide Monckton’s response to this “response to Monctkon” please. And note who wrote this response. Mann and Abrahams. What, you think they answer all Monckton’s issues? Look here – another place where Monckton was apparently demolished – until you read Monckton’s answers to the “demolition” job. People quote Gavin’s “demolition” as if to prove Gavin’s case that Monckton is not credible – but they omit Monckton’s reply. Warmists think it’s enough to quote such put-downs of Monckton but all this shows is they haven’t done their homework.
You have not grasped the fundamentals of law, which justly insist that the defendant defend himself, not just for himself, but also against the plaintiff’s attacks of his defence.
well wikileaks is clearly an intelligence operation – cnn and the nyt are simply running an add campaign for cia, mossad, whoever is behind them…and whoever is behind them.
James Sexton at 11:30 wrote: “Guys and gals, sometimes the comments go to the spam filter for various reasons, sometimes the reasons are unknown. Other times, the moderators may take a break, personal, or food or whatever…… If you post a comment and it doesn’t say “awaiting moderation”, simply make another post telling the mod that it is likely gone to the spam hole. My experience is that the mod will retrieve and post. Other times, you simply have to wait, just like everyone else.”
——————————————————————
I’m registered there. When I go to the website my name is at the top of the page. My comment was awaiting moderation and said so for at least an hour. I attacked the journalistic practices of the NYT and they spiked the comment. Numerous other comments were posted after mine.
“bias” is mispelt – it’s “buy(my)ass” – when it comes to journalism.
How can anyone of moderate intelligence believe that this cowardly character behind Wikileaks is some kind of folk hero championing investigative journalism or freedom of the press, just managing to get his lucky hands on 250,000 compromising documents, and indiscriminately publishing all of them? That stretches credulity a bit.
After all, this is the THIRD TIME Wikileaks has pulled off this inside job…somehow…and the Justice Department has remained silent.
This is no example of investigative journalism or freedom of the press
Re: Wiki. Controlled opposition at its finest, IMO. All the things we don’t know or know are part of the intrigue, but it comes from the press which, as others have pointed out, is a very big business owned by the powerful who allow next to nothing to chance. (Unless by chance an honest blogger gets the info to the masses…like this one, IMO.)
I don’t see why the NYT couldn’t just publish a mere few dozen of the Climategate emails, and coyly proclaim that nobody, including the Administratiton, really approves of the leaks…
“And, we hesitate to mention, you can find thousands more at THIS WEBSITE!”
@ Stephen Mosher
“you have
A: never had to classify a document in your life “
Much like 99.9999999999% of the world population this is correct.
“The definition of Secret is clear. It does not change over time. The same goes for TS and for TS/SAR. There are two ways to mis classify a document: over classify or under classify. You can actually be punished for both.”
How many people have been prosecuted for over classifying documents?
As for the definition of secret et all being “clear” they’re all defined relative to what the executive branch determines. So of course if the executive branch happens to determine that something could cause a lot of harm (like for example, people finding out about things the executive branch did) then it safely classify it.
One wonders what sort of hockey stick could be produced by graphing the amount of documentation unavailable to the citizens of the United States concerning the activities of the US government.
If you’re going to tell me that this is all very trustworthy and above board and we can all sleep safely knowing over classifying documents is treated very seriously indeed then I really don’t believe you.
The counterpoint between that and of course needing to read all the emails of climate scientists couldn’t be more stark.
@Zeke the Sneak
“After all, this is the THIRD TIME Wikileaks has pulled off this inside job…somehow…and the Justice Department has remained silent.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101129/us_ac/7300258_bradley_manning_at_the_center_of_another_wikileaks_leak
theduke says:
November 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm
James Sexton at 11:30 wrote:…….
“I’m registered there. When I go to the website my name is at the top of the page.”
=====================================================
Sorry man, I misinterpreted what you were stating. My bust.
James
Ah, because there’s a beam in my eye I can’t point it out in others? Is that it?
Unfortunately if pointing out hypocrisy worked this way, we’d all be hypocrites and humanity in general would be a lot less trustworthy. Which, as it happens, is probably closer to the truth than we might like to admit.
But there’s a more important issue here. the New York Times is a major publication with influence. Anthony is a weatherman with a blog. Beating Anthony because of his own alleged dishonesty because he’s pointing at the NYT is like telling the farm hand he/she stinks and therefore can’t complain about the paper factory next door.
But even if you consider Anthony large and influential (perhaps the stock horse of the farm?), it’s still perfectly appropriate and indeed expected for major media outlets to point out the bad faith of other media outlets.
In short, your complaints are silly. This is the only major climate blog that allows just about any comment outside of a straight ad-hom attack or blatant troll. Most other climate blogs explicitly censor any comment not in support of CAGW, and some even tell you this on the front page. In fact, Anthony is actually too loose IMHO, because there’s simply too much conspiracy theory that gets tossed out. So here you can say whatever you want and watch how it filters out, but Anthony is the liar? That’s an interesting stance to take, and it’s fun to watch how your comment filters out in an uncensored forum.
Guess this means the NYT gave up hope on a federal bailout of the newspapers.
And here they were so nice to Obama during the election and afterwards, not publishing virtually anything that’d embarrass him.
I thought I saw a mention somewhere that the NYT was thinking about going all-online, ditching the print version. That’d make a wonderful Green statement, “Save a tree, recycle an electron.” It would also unfortunately eradicate some very good remaining uses for the Times: puppy training, pet cage lining… And papier-mâché! Oh, the horror! Think of the children!
Rockey @ 9:53, said it first, but both Jeremy and sharperoo both assume facts not in evidence. While “we” can all agree that the Wikileaks material undoubtedly involves lawbreaking, the same cannot be said of the climategate e-mails, whose source remains unknown.
Enneagram @ 6:27 makes a good point. Given the political preferences displayed by ‘Pinch’ and Andy, their conduct probably shouldn’t be described as hypocritical, as they actually believe they’re doing the right thing. The proper term for this is duplicity.
@steven mosher says:
November 29, 2010 at 12:04 pm
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:17 am
@H.R.
“whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.”
The problem is with the criteria for “secret”. Once there’s a “secret” category the criteria for what goes in there and increases over time, eventually encompassing “Everything we’d find inconvenient for the public to know”. I remember reading an article before about the difference between the way the average American perceives foreign policy versus the way the people in the foreign countries perceive it. A big part of that difference is the way the US government presents itself to the American public versus the reality for those on the business end of those policies.
#######################
you have
A: never had to classify a document in your life OR
B: forgotten the obligations of every document creator and the penalties associated with failing to follow the guidelines.
=======================================
Steve, that’s great info, but I have to side with sharper00 on the basic point that government agencies have a tendency to escalate what is considered “secret.”
BUT, FOIA requests usually bring it all out when some department or other is overclassifying documents. It comes up when someone sues over an FOIA denial and a judge has to look at the requested info and then finds out it’s overclassified. Fine. The system works. What worries me is the cases I (half) recall were instigated by newspapers or news magazines and they are running short of money to press suits nowadays. Who will guard the guardians?
I don’t expect anything but hypocrisy from the one time ‘Grey Lady’ which has fallen a long way over the last years. It’s bad enough that they run Tom Friedman’s nonsense about climate, a subject about which he knows nothing. But like a faded prostitute, who keeps showing 30 year old pictures of her glory days, Friedman has his Pulitzer prizes which were for writing that had no connection with climate at all. Most people will give winners of such prizes a benefit of the doubt, no matter how little they know about a new and completely different subject.
Zeke, I for one am damn glad they published the stuff, your protest is feeble-minded at best. This leakage let’s Americans know what kind of nonsense goes on under the cloak of secrecy! Wake up, America!
BTW, Anthony…
“…but they they wouldn’t publish…”
Should probably be: “…but they said they wouldn’t publish…”
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“If you’re going to tell me that this is all very trustworthy and above board and we can all sleep safely knowing over classifying documents is treated very seriously indeed then I really don’t believe you.”
Well, shaper00, I am glad to see that you found your voice. This tirade was your topic the whole time. Your comments about climategaters were simply irrelevant. Now, forge ahead, shaper00. Attack the USA’s classification of documents as secret or whatever. Bang your head against that wall. I will enjoy each and every moment.
If you read today’s posts at Commentary Magazine’s blog, they have discovered that the NYT and other Leftists have discovered in the emails strong support among Middle Eastern leaders for the neoconservative position on Iran. I have a hunch that a big policy change is coming and that these emails were planted as a way of maneuvering past the extreme Left wing of the Left wing of the Democratic Party. (Notice I used the word ‘hunch’ not the word ‘predict’.)
In your update note you have UAE (whic is United Arab Emirates) where I presume you want it to read UEA (University of Easy Access, or East Anglia).
Mr sharper00: in an earlier post you claimed, “You (or anyone) doesn’t have an automatic right to see any and all emails as suggested here…” Oh yes he/she/ anyone most definitely does. In Bartnicki v. Vopper 532 U.S. 514 (2001) the US Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment protected the publication of lawfully obtained info regardless of whether it was initially obtained illegally. It is a crime w/o a court order to intercept a telephone conversation but the court ruled that this cannot be constitutionally applied to the media when they report on matters of public concern. Viewed in this light are not the NYT claims of ‘illegally obtained & private’ emails a crock? Or does one think that monstrous costs of climate change legislation or the questionable science (as revealed in the emails) behind it is not of ‘public concern’?
Thanks for posting the statement from Andrew Revkin. Goodness, the techtonic plates have shifted. I am thinking his statement amounts to an epiphany.
davidg says: Zeke, I for one am damn glad they published the stuff
November 29, 2010 at 2:24 pm
By “stuff,” he means Julian Assange published the Social Security numbers of U.S. servicemen and women in Afghanistan. I fail to see any thing to be damn glad about attacking volunteer soldiers in action by publishing private information.
Even if the charges of rape and molestation against Assange turn out to be false, who could possibly have any sympathy for such a vicious underhanded slanderer of our boots on the ground.
sharper00 says: November 29, 2010 at 4:52 am
“Sharperoo justifies the NYT stance “
No I’m not justifying any stance. ….
People may feel that they have a right to emails written by scientists just as others may feel they have a right to know what their government is doing in their name.
——————————————————————————-
Well: Sharper00 if you can’t see the difference between the two………. I guess that is your problem.
Douglas
davidg says:
November 29, 2010 at 2:24 pm
“Zeke, I for one am damn glad they published the stuff, your protest is feeble-minded at best. This leakage let’s Americans know what kind of nonsense goes on under the cloak of secrecy!”
By “cloak of secrecy,” I intelligently and logically assume you are referring to “the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or… the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or…any works or measures undertaken for or connected with the fortification or defense of any place.”
And by “leakage,” I may correctly point out that you mean communicating, publishing, and collecting this information and giving it to the enemy in time of war.
Just to be clear the 2010 Atlantic accumulated cyclone energy is the tenth most active since 1950. The record isn’t bad beginning about then. Before then there were few to none aircraft intentionally flying into Atlantic storms, no doppler radars, and no satellites taking pictures of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy#Atlantic_hurricane_seasons_by_ACE_index.2C_1950.E2.80.932010
steveta_uk –
downplaying what Paul Hudson at the BBC received more than a month before the CRU release makes no sense. the fact is BBC sat on that information for more than 5 weeks and has never released details of the “chain of emails” Hudson received or divulged who “forwarded” them to Hudson, which is what the Beeb claimed occurred. no-one has ever stated he was “copied” the “chain of emails”.
given that the “chain of emails” Hudson linked to and authenticated are some of the most damaging as they discuss what lay people could easily understand, namely that the CAGW scenario was not happening AS PREDICTED, then it was unconscionable for the BBC to withhold this information.
as Hudson wrote in his post which disturbed the Team: Whatever happened to Global Warming?
I just heard Big Mouth Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg trashing the NYT for their hypocrisy in refusing to publish the Crutape Letters but serving as a major conduit for Wickileaks. Makes me wonder if their fact checkers aren’t monitoring WUWT. You could sue ’em for plagiarism….
@shamper00, of course you are right to point out that someone somewhere has a suspect for Wikileaks in solitary confinement. I forgot about that fine work in law enforcement – as the cables continued to leak.
And, credit where credit is due! Your rapt attention please!
Lieberman: Shut Down WikiLeaks
Wikileaks’ release of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables is “nothing less than an attack on the national security of the United States, as well as that of dozens of other countries,” Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement on Sunday.
I am all for such aboutfacing statements, but this is on the eve of the loss of a majority in the House, where the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, wants the U.S. to formally declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization.
juanslayton says:
November 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I just heard Big Mouth Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg trashing the NYT for their hypocrisy in refusing to publish the Crutape Letters but serving as a major conduit for Wickileaks. Makes me wonder if their fact checkers aren’t monitoring WUWT. You could sue ‘em for plagiarism….
+++++++
Dear John,
More likely O’Reilly and Goldberg got it off Powerline Blog, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027788.php, where I first saw it last night! ;-}
(BTW, Powerline occasionally comments favorably on the type of science WUWT espouses, occasionally only in the sense that climate science isn’t its main focus.)
Best,
Mike Fox
Larry King interviews Hillary Clinton in regards to Wikileaks – Wikileaks explained
Glenn Beck showed how the Open Society Institute connects with Wikileaks…
Top down, bottom up, inside out…
===
Can hardly wait for more mocking commentary on the Obama State Department. Leno’s writers must be having more fun right now than any human should be allowed to have. Conan O’Brien, maybe Letterman, even Bill Maher. Saturday night live of course. Just about every stand-up comic around will want to take some cheap shots. Like I said before, rollicking good fun. I wish Monty Python’s Flying Circus was still around.
Revkin ought to have posted a fresh piece on the issue on his blog. Merely ‘updating’ one that was made last year is not sufficient to address NYT’s and dot.earth’s hypocrisy. Just how many of his readers will be aware of Revkin’s mea culpa unless they read archives routinely?
Revkin hasn’t done enough to wash away the stink of hypocrisy. He ought to be reminded of that.
The NYT is second only to Al Qaeda in hating the USA.
Well that’s something with Mr. Revkin’s post. Good update, and thank you.
Another tepid reaction moved by outcry? I’ll take what can be gotten–lol.
re Judd 11/29, 4:36:
We had an interesting FOIA uproar in our county, which resulted in the County Board lobbying the State assembly to change state FOIA laws (to no avail).
We pay for government email accounts for all public officials, with the logic being that all public business shall be conducted through these accounts, which will then be FOIA-ready at all times.
Unfortunately, many officials got in the lazy habit of simply treating their email accounts as indiscriminate email, and discussing public business in personal accounts, and vice versa.
Any email sent TO or FROM a government account is a public document. Even if it contains personal information.
You don’t PUT THAT in a public account email.
The Board wished to redact personal info from FOIAed emails.
No. As it was IN a government document, it was FOIA.
Any public business dicussed on private accounts?
Those portions of private emails discussing public business were ruled FOIA-able.
If the CRU people were foolish and sloppy enough (and the quality of their work makes this nearly a given) to include mass amounts of private slop on their government funded accounts discussing government funded business, too bad for them.
And all the more reason it should be published.
Before budget deliberations every year!
http://www.bu.edu/pardee/research/arts-media-and-climate-change/
This symposium aims to examine the shaping of perceptions of climate change within Europe and the United States, and ask: ‘what is the role of the media and the arts in determining this perception and enabling an appropriate response to climate change?’
Sounds like a bogus symposium. How to use the media to sell ‘an appropriate response’ to AGW. Should be selling itself by now according to Hansen. Who determines the appropriate response? Wonder what kind of hacks they could find to speak at this.
# Andrew C. Revkin, Senior Fellow at the Pace Academy for Applied Environmental Studies, blogwriter for the New York Times’ “Dot Earth”
Hmmm. Imagine that. Of course, impartiality is a cornerstone of the NYT. 😉 😉
We would like to chime in with our own take on the criminal liberal bias of America’s newspaper of record :
crimesofthetimes.blogspot.com
COTT: We read the New York Times so you don’t have to.
The logo of the NYT, “All the news that’s fit to print”, should be changed to reflect their relentless liberal agenda and read: “All the news that fits, we print”.