Skip to content

New York Times develops strange new respect for laws, ethics and stuff

November 23, 2009

Adopting the snottiest tone imaginable, the New York Times pronounces with an almost audible sniff:

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.

What documents? Revelations about Stalin’s famines? Classified information about wiretapping terrorists? The Pentagon Papers? That ultra-leftist Unibomber Manifesto?

Why no, you silly! They’re talking about those hacked emails between scientists that strongly suggest that, as many of us have been saying all along, Al Gore‘s highly touted “global warming” is actually the Loch Ness Monster of weather.

The emails that posit that the IPCC record of temperatures during the last millenium were based on a “crude fax”. The ones that “appear to reveal not one, not two, but three real scandals, of increasing importance.”

All the news that’s fit to print. Except when it isn’t. Clear?

Advertisements
22 Comments
  1. November 23, 2009 9:08 am

    All the news that fit to HIDE so the people are not informed of the truth about the so-called climate change!

  2. Carterthewriter permalink
    November 23, 2009 9:08 am

    Good Lord, these people working at the Times are climbing all over each other to get the hell down to Florida.

    Give them a galley, one oar and a man with a whip at the helm and we’ll throw roses at them as they depart.

  3. politicalmoxie permalink
    November 23, 2009 11:46 am

    @ Ron Ross
    @ Carterthewriter

    Sometimes there’s nothing left to add!

    • betty boop permalink
      November 24, 2009 7:13 am

      re: sometimes there’s nothing LEFT to add… ha ha ha, prove that to this government! (Sorry)

  4. Rochmoninoff permalink
    November 23, 2009 2:11 pm

    Yet another argument for “Separation of Science and State”.

    Scientists are poeple too. They’re subject to all the same temptations to lie and cheat for personal gain as the rest of us.
    When science is state-sponsored (most of it is)
    And state sponsorship is doled out based on peer review (all of it is)
    You get a self replicating, politically motivated system.

    A system just like the one formerly administered by the Roman Catholic Church in Europe that Galieo battled against so famously.

    And we end up paying for it – bad, politically motivated science drives policy decisions.

  5. Charles Louis D'Ince permalink
    November 24, 2009 5:15 am

    Yet again, useful science demonised and polarised by the dumb side of politics. I am a European, degree-qualified scientist and English-language editor for a respected Central European hydrologist/meteorologist. I’ve seen the evidence, checked the statistics and judged the scientific opposition. For my money, it’s happening, folks, and anthropogenic activity is largely responsible. And that ‘largely’ is a scientific one, not a political weasel-get-out one; there may be other factors at work, but the blame for recent global warming sits squarely on the industrial revolution and the population explosion.

    The political polarisation worries me, just as it did when the facts of smoking-related damge to health took decades to reach legislators (tax us to death, literally), just as the pharma boys are – again literally (and I use the word in its proper sense) – killing us despite qualified criticism. I find the vision of Washington strung out on caffeine and SSRI’s very frightening indeed. Now, ever since Atilla the Hen Thatcher decided to link ‘eco’ to ‘terrorist’ and consign all of us who care for the planet to the sink of the foul left wing, we scientists who detest the lefty-eco’s for their rank hypocrisy (who are/were the worst polluters on earth?) have no place to go. The green party is, as they say in this part of the world, a water melon – green on the outside, red on the inside and seedy. The right – quite legitimately – hates the cynicism of Gore, who bolted down the cleverest political hole available after his humiliation, but devotes far too much energy to denying the undeniable and missing the point completely. We have let the left hijack a cosmically important issue and all we can do is whinge and phart about with loony fringe science. Come on, we who loathe the left have to do better than this. Toys, pram, people, wake up and smell the seaweed.

    • In the Know permalink
      November 24, 2009 12:15 pm

      You are amazing. As a scientist, you understand that your research alone does not constitute a consesus. If there were overwhelming evidence that was unbiased (which, is quite obviously not the case) to support the “warming” claim there would be no argument. I remember the global cooling crisis of the late 70’s, do you? You want to deal with pollution, let’s do it. However, this crap isn’t about pollution. It may have started out like that, but it’s been hijacked by communists and criminals who needed a crisis to use as a vehicle to get through the gate. Now they’re in and I for one ain’t lettin’ em get off the bus without a fight.

  6. Charles Louis D'Ince permalink
    November 24, 2009 5:18 am

    It all got a bit spot-the-typo in there – sorry, and please don’t tell me that editors should do better. No-one’s paying for this and I let my fingers do the thinking in my lunch-break. They’re old and thick.

    • November 24, 2009 6:26 am

      Charles Louis: It is kind of you to admit, what I had suspected after reading your previous contribution, that your fingers are old and thick.. just like the rest of you, it appears. And since you still cling to the idiotic belief in man-made climate change, I assume you are also blind. Delusions, delusions amid scientific confusions. Keep taking the medication .. in time it may help.

      • Carterthewriter permalink
        November 24, 2009 7:38 am

        I thought his fingers seemed a bit narrow, like his diatribe.

  7. betty boop permalink
    November 24, 2009 6:02 am

    Thoughtful words Charles. As a conservative, I feel somewhat conflicted because pollution and it’s related ills did not just go away because the left hijacked the cause, and yet I am so inclined to recoil from anything they are in favor of. I suppose I am like a climate change agnostic, as I drive a very small TDI car, and have been a very careful gas-sipping driver my whole life. (You might as well be prepared, just in case it’s true.) Your perspective largely confirms my perceptions of this issue, without pushing me to jump off a ledge for the polar bears or go send my savings to Greenpeace. Interesting. It is good that the original sources for these outlandish lies are coming out finally as well. There’s got to be some kernel of truth available about this somewhere, and perhaps we will now be closer to finding it.

  8. Stan Kabrt permalink
    November 24, 2009 8:28 am

    Quick, put Daniel Ellsberg on it. Oh, wait, ok, I see. Forget that idea.

  9. peachey permalink
    November 24, 2009 1:11 pm

    Follow the “global warming” sham and you will find the money.

  10. Joseph Cottrell permalink
    November 24, 2009 2:07 pm

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

    But, by Gum, we’ll publish any classified military strategy or intelligence program we can get our stinky little fingers on!

  11. Revnant Dream permalink
    November 24, 2009 7:07 pm

    What good has ever come from the NYtimes?

  12. Paul permalink
    November 25, 2009 3:58 pm

    This is just depressing of The New York Times. They will show EVERYTHING, unless it goes against the theory of Global Warming. Head scientists who are showing that their grand scheme had failed from the start and The New York Times just allowing the falsehood and complete treachery to happen is sad. They will absolutely de-classify everything. They could hack into the FBI, CIA, and DoD and get everything and just show it to the world, unless it is against the theory of Global Warming.

  13. Marty Trout permalink
    November 26, 2009 7:56 pm

    Good comment Paul, guess we will have to stop paying attention to them, just like MSNBC. What are they going to do in Florida, not write about people trying to escape from Cuba?

Trackbacks

  1. Turkeys of the Year « wehategringos.com
  2. Nothing to See Here, Folks. The Lamestream Media on Climategate « NewsReal Blog
  3. Nothing to See Here, Folks. The Lamestream Media on Climategate
  4. ‘Oh, Bennie, card tricks. If I’d known…’ « NewsReal Blog
  5. Ed Driscoll » The Warmchurian Candidate

Comments are closed.