More weather hypocrisy at the New York Times

How do you spell hypocrisy? Try N-e-w-Y-o-r-k-T-i-m-e-s.

Yep, the paper that triumphantly published everything from The Pentagon Papers to all types of highly classified documents on eavesdropping and wire tapping, compromising the safety and security of all Americans, especially those in the military and spies, while piously basking in the glory from the hate America first crowd for doing so, has suddenly become circumspect. Or at least one of its reporters has.

The Times' earth blogger, Andrew Revkin, of Dot Earth: Nine Billion People. One Planet, referring to the hacked climate documents demonstrating hack science has decided that because

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.

Of course he continues to obliquely cover the story while guiding those interested to the proper sources

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there's much more to explore, of course (including several references to me).

(snip)

But a quick sift of skeptics' Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.


In a cozy update Revkin sends readers to the morally and personally compromised Juliette Eilperin of the Washington Post, because she

explores some email exchanges criticizing certain peer-reviewed papers and journals and focused on excluding the papers from inclusion in the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report.

Naturally Revkin doesn't inform his readers that Eilperin's husband works for one of the climate scare organizations which planned on "excluding the papers from inclusion" because they questioned their work.

Revkin then promises

I'm running down tips and assertions related to the theft and hackings. It remains interesting that before they were placed on an ftp site and dispersed across the Internet, someone tried to plant them on Realclimate.org and publish a mock post linking to them. Needless to say, if anyone has information or ideas, feel free to email dotearth AT nytimes.com.]

So Revkin is trying to solve the hacking crime, a job best left to the proper authorities, while ignoring their explosive content. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the original crime of computer hacking or the moral dilemma of utilizing sources obtained in an unethical manner.

(Is Revkin protesting the many NY Times reporters still freezing in Alaska trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin any way possible?) Just asking.



hat tip: Michael Goldfarb, The Weekly Standard

How do you spell hypocrisy? Try N-e-w-Y-o-r-k-T-i-m-e-s.

Yep, the paper that triumphantly published everything from The Pentagon Papers to all types of highly classified documents on eavesdropping and wire tapping, compromising the safety and security of all Americans, especially those in the military and spies, while piously basking in the glory from the hate America first crowd for doing so, has suddenly become circumspect. Or at least one of its reporters has.

The Times' earth blogger, Andrew Revkin, of Dot Earth: Nine Billion People. One Planet, referring to the hacked climate documents demonstrating hack science has decided that because

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.

Of course he continues to obliquely cover the story while guiding those interested to the proper sources

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there's much more to explore, of course (including several references to me).

(snip)

But a quick sift of skeptics' Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.


In a cozy update Revkin sends readers to the morally and personally compromised Juliette Eilperin of the Washington Post, because she

explores some email exchanges criticizing certain peer-reviewed papers and journals and focused on excluding the papers from inclusion in the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report.

Naturally Revkin doesn't inform his readers that Eilperin's husband works for one of the climate scare organizations which planned on "excluding the papers from inclusion" because they questioned their work.

Revkin then promises

I'm running down tips and assertions related to the theft and hackings. It remains interesting that before they were placed on an ftp site and dispersed across the Internet, someone tried to plant them on Realclimate.org and publish a mock post linking to them. Needless to say, if anyone has information or ideas, feel free to email dotearth AT nytimes.com.]

So Revkin is trying to solve the hacking crime, a job best left to the proper authorities, while ignoring their explosive content. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the original crime of computer hacking or the moral dilemma of utilizing sources obtained in an unethical manner.

(Is Revkin protesting the many NY Times reporters still freezing in Alaska trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin any way possible?) Just asking.



hat tip: Michael Goldfarb, The Weekly Standard