walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Feed
Features
Reviews
Podcast
You have read 1 out of 3 free articles this month. A quality publication is not cheap to produce.
Subscribe today and support The American Interest—only $2.99/month!
Already a subscriber? Log in to make this banner go away.
Published on: February 15, 2010
DC Post Runs With Climategate; NY Times Still in Tank

The New York Times turned down the Watergate story, giving the Washington Post ownership of the story of the decade.  Now the Washington Post is going for a repeat, scooping the somnolent Times on the Climategate story.  The Post story by Juliet Eilperin and David A. Farenholdt is no skeptic’s dream, but Post readers now […]

The New York Times turned down the Watergate story, giving the Washington Post ownership of the story of the decade.  Now the Washington Post is going for a repeat, scooping the somnolent Times on the Climategate story.  The Post story by Juliet Eilperin and David A. Farenholdt is no skeptic’s dream, but Post readers now know something that Times readers are still in the dark about: the climate change movement has taken a serious hit in recent weeks as allegations of misconduct and high profile errors undermine the credibility of the key institutions and figures in the movement.

The Times‘ behavior is increasingly hard to explain.  In the last month the paper has given away a huge story once again, this time handing it over to the British press overseas and, over here, to the blogosphere and, finally and belatedly, the Washington Post.  Coming at a time when the Times is on the defensive in terms of its journalistic reputation and its financial health, the impact of the current failure is likely to be significantly greater.  Authority is the Times‘ most important asset; by missing Climategate the Times is not only doing its readers a serious disservice.  It is reinforcing the narrative that the Grey Lady of the mainstream media is too slow, too hampered by inhibitions and bias, too close to its sources, to serve as a reliable source for news.

This Sunday’s “Week in Review” would have been a perfect place for the Times to give readers a thorough, balanced and informed account of the swirling accusations and revelations that promise to end the Obama administration’s ability to deliver on its commitment to pass comprehensive climate change legislation in 2010.  News of the political collapse of the climate change movement was deemed unfit to print; it would have upset too many people.  Instead, the Times ran with, among other things, two stories on the implications of the Greek crisis, a review of Victorian era personal classifieds, a piece on the evils of soda pop and a helpfully lighthearted introduction to Canada which included the information that the Maple Leaf stands for nature and growth while the beaver stands for loyalty and industry.

I am not sure how long the reputation of a great newspaper can withstand the consequences of this kind of news judgment; the steady (and to me, painful and unwelcome) erosion of the Times‘ influence and prestige is unlikely to end until its pages regain the reputation as the first, best place to learn about the vital events of the day. At some point, the Times will simply have to break down and let its readers in on the Climategate story.  When that happens, it will be interesting to see how it explains why it chose not to inform its readers, many of whom care passionately about this issue, of a series of vital developments unfolding one after the other on a matter of great concern. Was the newspaper so blinded by entrenched bias and assumptions that it was simply unable to see what was news?  Or did pro-environmentalist staffers actively work to block the paper’s ability to cover a major news story because they didn’t think publication would benefit an agenda they held was of enormous global importance?

Meanwhile, out in the real world, the multifaceted credibility collapse that is Climategate majestically and inexorably unfolds.  The IPCC and its increasingly embattled chair have taken another major blow; closer examination of IPCC’s claim that North African food production would fall 50 percent in the next decade reveals that there was no scientific evidence for the claim, that the IPCC itself had solid evidence against it, and that Dr. Pachauri was instrumental in publicizing the false but attention-getting statement.  The core temperature data that the IPCC used to establish the degree of global warming to date and on which it based its predictions for the future, is coming under tougher scrutiny. As if this wasn’t enough, Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, the source for much of the core climate data and the author of some of the most damaging e-mails revealed when stolen emails from climate scientists were made public, answered questions from the BBC.  His answers to some of these questions will give climate skeptics even more ammunition.  Examples:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Jones:  Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

Jones:  It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

What?  There is no statistically significant evidence of global warming for the last fourteen years, and the debate over global warming is not over in the opinion of “the vast majority of climate scientists?”  And this is what a defender of global warming now says?  No one who depends on the New York Times for information has a clue that any of this could be true.  For these faithful readers, the scientific consensus is ironclad, the discussion is over, and only flat-earthers and oil companies think otherwise.  And there is more. The UK’s Guardian, whose deep editorial sympathy for the climate change movement has not overcome its journalistic good sense, has published an investigation into Professor Jones’ handling of data which suggests that Dr. Jones himself may have messed up big time.  The Guardian story of February 9 reports serious allegations that vital data on Chinese weather stations used by Professor Jones as the basis for an important paper published in Nature magazine no longer exist.  Lost in the clutter of Jones’ poorly managed office records?  Skeptics claim that the data never existed and Jones is covering for fraud.  Either way, since the paper was cited as an authority by the IPCC on an important issue, the authority of climate science will take another nasty knock. The scientific consequences of all this are very far from clear.  It may still be true that global warming is an urgent planetary problem that should be addressed quickly to ward off catastrophe.  It may even be, as Bill McKibben stoutly maintains in The Washington Post, that ‘Snowmageddon’ is just another piece of evidence pointing to rapid warming of the globe.  Personally, I’m still clinging to the rebuttable presumption that global warming is real and it is serious, but I have to admit I wouldn’t be as surprised now as I would have been three months ago to discover that the truth turns out to be somewhat less dramatic, less categorical and less immediately actionable than what we’ve been led to expect.

But the story the Times cannot bring itself to print is not about belief.  It is a political story that the Times is failing to report.  Can it be that the editors and reporters of what for the last three generations has been America’s newspaper of record simply cannot the dots?  Is it so hard to figure out that the shift to the right in the US political climate since last summer and the loss of the Democratic supermajority in the Senate plus the political boost that Climategate gives opponents of comprehensive climate change action means that serious legislative action in the US this year on climate change is a dead duck? The Times doesn’t have to go this far to have a major story on its hands: what about “Prospects for Cap and Trade Dimming as Climate Skeptics Rally?”

But everything is political, even the news.  I gather from friends better connected than I that many top environmentalists in the US are still in denial, still hoping that somehow this will all go away.

News flash: it won’t.

My guess is that some of the environmentalists are hoping that even if strong action can no longer be expected in Congress, President Obama can be lobbied to push through regulatory changes and other executive actions that get the job done.  This Times story gives the possibility some credence.  If you were the rattled head of a major green organization contemplating the possible meltdown of a decade long campaign to get a binding international agreement to stop global warming, lobbying the White House at this point could well look like your last possible hope both to save the planet and to avoid a devastating setback to a movement and a cause that has consumed your professional life.

Even that will be lost if the mainstream media picks up the Climategate story and really runs with it.  In the UK, a previously strong public consensus that agreed that global warming existed and was caused by human action has melted away since November.  Americans were always more skeptical about global warming than our more biddable British cousins; how will the polls move here as this stuff comes out? Could somebody or several somebodies at the Times hope they are saving the planet by keeping the Climategate story under wraps?

As long as this story was rumbling out there in the blogosphere, Fox News and other ‘below the salt’ media outlets, the environmental establishment can pretend to itself that nothing has changed.  The environmental groups and individuals in the President’s base can lobby hard to get him to push for legislative action or sign executive orders that advance the agenda. If that is the calculation, it is a very short sighted one.  Not only does it leave the Times looking unbelievably foolish when the Washington Post beats it to the story, the political strategy was always doomed to fail.

Comprehensive climate legislation was already a hard sell before Climategate; the recession had driven environmental issues to the absolute rock bottom of the public’s priority list.  If Congress, currently fumbling around with and so far failing to produce either a jobs bill or a health bill, now turns its attention to a big climate bill — even as the science behind it appears increasingly suspect to the public — how will that play in the fall?  If the President short circuits the legislative procedure and makes major energy policy by executive order or regulatory decree even as from the public’s standpoint the scientific consensus is becoming less solid and less reliable, where does that leave the White House?  As this Politico story by Jonathan Martin reminds us, Republicans are already using the climate issue to target vulnerable Dems.

Here’s a thought for the truly twisted conspiracy theorists to chew on:  could the New York Times be working for a Republican victory this fall?  Probably not, but the paper of record couldn’t be doing more to help the GOP on this issue if it tried.

show comments
  • No One Important

    The fact is, this was always a farce.

    Phil Jones is now ADMITTING that the “science isn’t settled” because of the incredible levels of fraud they have perpetrated on the nation, the taxpayers and the world.

    As more and more comes out, he HAS to admit the MWP was a global event (only that idiot Mann was the one who used 358 boreholes to dismiss it as regional, when 6,500 boreholes from every continent on the planet said he was WRONG.)

    Lets face it – the universities, and everyone involved in this “global fraud” like Pachurri who wanted India to wrench billions from us are guilty of trying to perpetrate a fraud, and now, Jones has to backtrack and make himself LOOK like a scientist, rather than a “con” man, a “confidence” man who bilked billions from the taxpayers.

    SOMEONE was gonna do jail time for the fraud.

    I still think they should. They used the ruse of “science” to try to swindle the US of billions, and redistribute our wealth.

    There is nothing more ugly than the abuse of power.

    How does Obama’s idiocy of declaring “there’s no debate” sound now, huh?

    If only Obama was willing to declare that about terrorism, rather than lefty religeous dogma based on fraudulent people, we might actually have a POTUS worth being proud of.

  • Increase Mather

    The TIMES is no longer the newspaper of record. It hasn’t been for at least a decade.

    The liberal media that brought down Nixon has to share the stage with blogs, Fox, and millions on the net.

    It’s like the first day of spring…stick your head out the door and smell the fresh breeze…the long dominent liberal monopoly of the media is finally over.

    Thank God.

  • Reasoner

    Good analysis and speculations.

    My take on why the NYT ignores the issue publicly is that they are raving moonbats in complete denial. They are ust as drunk on idiocy and ideology as a skid-row bum is to cheap wine and malt liquor.

  • David Becker, Ph.D.

    The fact there has not been any warming for 15 years during which time CO2 levels have measurably and substantially increased proves beyond doubt that CO2 caused AGW (as it is now framed) is incorrect, in the sense that one nullification of a hypothesis disproves that hypothesis. This is how the scientific method works, and all the hemming and hawing in the world can’t change this. It is time for good scientists, with high quality methods revisit the whole climate problem. The current state of this science is awful, starting with lousy and prejudiced data, moving to lousy methods of analysis, with a final terrible politicization of a scientific problem. It is time to start over.

  • Chavez

    “The Times‘ behavior is increasingly hard to explain.”

    Yep. The Times also had a shot at breaking the story of Nifong’s faux prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case; but it switched reporters (and slants) midstream and decided to join the cheering section for the DA instead. Why? Who knows? It missed a great possible story on DA corruption and was left with egg on its face (yet again). And it’s credibility took another hit as a result.

  • RockyRoad

    The Times has been irrelevant for years; they’re going down. How much are they in debt? Over $1 BILLION?

    That’s shows how little regard people have for them as a “news” organization.

  • JB

    Or did pro-environmentalist staffers actively work to block the paper’s ability to cover a major news story because they didn’t think publication would benefit an agenda they held was of enormous global importance?

    This.

  • Renfield

    If you want to find the specific gravity of iron, you can probably trust the figure given in the table in your science book. But that’s only because the specific gravity of iron has no political, theological, or economic consequences.

    Being schooled in the scientific method hasn’t stopped scientists from rejecting data, theories, or evidence that upsets their religious faith, their atheism, their emotions, their lifelong investment in a theory, their pocketbook, or their politics.

    For many years, scientists who suggested that a celestial catastrophe might have had something to do with the disappearance of the dinosaurs, or with sudden changes in climate on the earth, were ridiculed and ostracized for upsetting the conventional wisdom of “gradualism” and threatening the career interests of scientists who had invested in other theories.

    The stubborn hysteria we see today with regard to AGW is just another in a long list of refusals to acknowledge possible error even when the house of cards has fallen. What is unique, however, about this particular case is that it has—now I’d say “had”—the potential to destroy economies and to constrain liberty on a massive scale.

    So we can expect the NY Times, the Al Gores, the Barack Obamas, and the “scientists” with a big stake in AGW to keep trying to teach the horse to talk until there’s no possibility of milking anything further from the scam. Then the subject will quietly fade away, and eventually they’ll claim they always had their doubts but didn’t want to take any chances.

    It has been said that “history is the lie generally agreed upon.” Unfortunately, when politics enter the picture, the same can be said for science.

  • Brian W. Loss

    It is now glaringly apparent the the “emporer” is in fact naked; global warming was always a hoax and now, to use their own expression, everyone knows it. It was nothing but a new redistributive plan by the old socialists who saw their philosophy fall into disgrace but were not willing to give up. What will be facinating is the “what’s next” of all of this. Obama has shown a profound inability to change course when he has been wrong; rather he doubles down and pushes harder to force far left policies that the country doesn’t want. He cares little for the fate of those who will face the wrath of the voters in November. So the question is: is he smart enough to understand that he may soon become the first president to be a lame duck in two years?

  • Renfield

    Good post, Chavez. The NY Times to this day won’t publish the name of the accuser in the Duke phony rape case. You see, it’s the policy of the Times not to reveal the names of “victims”!

    Increase Mather is correct, though. The Times, once the best newspaper in the world, has long served simply to reinforce the political beliefs of its aging readership of Upper West Side liberals. Nobody reads the paper for actual news.

    It will be a glorious day when that propaganda rag finally goes under.

  • Banjo

    There are any number of stories the NYT has chosen not to cover. My personal favorite is Van Jones. A crackpot green czar deep in the Obama administration is discovered to believe the World Trade Center disaster was engineered by GWB and his ee-vil cohorts. Days come and go with the Times steadfastly ignoring the embarrassment to the White House. Then Jones resigns, forcing the NYT is acknowledge the story it had ignored entirely. If you relied exclusively on the Times for information, you said, “Whoa, where did THIS come from?”

  • GregO

    Since late last year with the breaking of the Climategate email scandal I have been following this story while simultaneously going through speed-learning on Climate science. I am simply blown away that American MSM has not picked up the Climategate thread. It’s a great story no matter what your persuasion; and it is the height of dishonesty to support the position that “the science is settled” as Sharon Begley of Newsweek recently repeated. Thanks for your story – and let’s all keep the heat (sorry for the pun) on American MSM and American leaders to look at this whole Man-Made-Global-Warming (Climatology) Religion a bit closer and see just how real it may (or may not) be and just how horrific the cure would be.

  • JohnRDC

    The explanation for the Times’ decline from respectability is simple: third generation management. Grandsons typically do horrible mischief to their inherited empires.

    Just ask Toyota.

  • DeeBee9

    True, the NYT is just a left-wing rag. But, the Sunday crossword puzzle is great! Too bad it comes wrapped in all that other stuff.

  • Jack Davis

    The New York Times lost its credibility a LONG time ago. Even so, I was astounded how far in the tank they were during the Obama “Phenomenon.” Ergo, their sleeping through Climategate comes as no surprise.

  • dan1138

    Who cares what the NYT does or doesn’t do about anything ? They have not been an arbiter of the nation’s agenda for decades. The Times has lost its credibility in so many ways, it is simply a leftist mouthpiece.

  • Brian Moore

    This points to another aspect of American journalistic lunacy: a paper like the Times won’t run a story because it doesn’t want to go out on a limb. So another paper eventually runs the story. Then the first paper continues to ignore the story because doing otherwise would be a tacit acknowledgement that it got scooped.

    I’ve no doubt that this explains part of the Times’ thinking. It may be completely disingenuous, but it’s the excuse that’s running around the daily editorial meetings.

  • RonS

    A very good article. And a shame about the Times remaining in denial about the fact they were taken in by the warmists. When you consult the investigative blogs that have uncovered the truth in this issue over the past couple of years, the layers of “dodgy” information are being peeled back a layer at a time and the British press have picked up on it and started to make their contribution to investigative reporting.
    It is also a shame that here in Canada, two of the top three Toronto newspapers, the Star and the Globe remain in denial like the Times. Only the National Post has consistently run stories on the deceptions the IPCC and CRU unit have been carrying out.

  • kim

    Could be why Revkin’s leaving. I suspect him of burgeoning skepticism.
    =========================

  • Pingback: ClimateGate update: “Phil Jones fesses up” edition « Spin, strangeness, and charm()

  • Pingback: The Anchoress | A First Things Blog()

  • roger f

    Way back, around 1982 or so, I happened to be taking a drink at Gough’s Chophouse, a smoke-stained bar on West 43rd Street where Times reporters often imbibed (This was back in the days when drinking remained a vestigal newsroom presence). It was a Saturday night after the paper had locked, and a trio of young Timesmen, fresh from their labours and all in the weekend uniform of khakis and collars, were singing three-part harmonies.

    Well, an interloper dared to join them, which brought the trio to an abrupt halt and inspired one of Times snots to sneer that the unwanted singer was out of tune. He protested that he wasn’t, and by my ear I believe him to have been correct.

    But then a second Times prig piped up with a comment that perhaps explains the attitude which has seen Climategate go largely unreported and investigated hardly at all.

    “You’re not in tune until the Times says so!”

    It’s not the Times that is wrong, you see, or that its reporters are indoplent and editors blinkered.

    It is that everyone else in the world is wrong and deserves to be ignored.

    I often think these days of that quote and wonder if Carlos Slim might like to have it engraved on the Sulzberger Era’s headstone.

  • Robert Sendler

    So while I’ve been reading about this weeks in the English newspapers our newspapers are just now getting around to reporting it?

    Yeah..newspapers in this country are going under because of ad revenue. Not because they stopped being newspapers.

  • njns

    Good post, “No One Important”, with one notable exception. You repeatedly spelled “trillions” wrong.

  • R. L. Hails Sr. P. E.

    The Gray Lady died a long time ago. What we are currently watching is the death throes of organized science. Both institutions are founded, and were respected, for the objective search for truth. The world, except the readers of the NYT, now know that the IPCC, EPA, NASA, and NSF positions on climate change lie somewhere between fraud, and incompetency. There certainly is no firm basis for abandoning combustion, the bedrock of energy, and our standard of living. The upcoming political decision will not be cap and trade, but whether funding self serving scientists is in the national interest. A number of PhD rice bowls just cracked, but if they only read the NYT, they are blissfully ignorant of the end of their careers.

  • Don Jacobson

    Good article. Though I’m biased against the NYT. I’ve believed for the last couple decades that the “Grey Lady” is a whore.

  • craig

    By admitting that the science isn’t settled, Jones in fact is admitting the opposite. There is no such thing as man made global warming.

    This has been a epic fraud, and should be a required history lesson taught in all our schools. Maybe it can be used as a tool to teach our children how to think for themselves.

  • DoItAgain

    This is just a racket that needs looked at under RICO laws. Its the biggest swindel created to setup another useless gambling pot where speculators can gamble with WORLDS population funding them in perputity. When its goes bust and it will as it is a useless activity tax payers will be found holding the bag with TOXIC GREEN DERIVATIVES . As per the sacmers even with their fraud science the max damage caused by AGW may 1 trillion U$D . So their solution is to spend 45 Trillion USD to try prevent something that is not real. So all involved can pocket 44 Trillion $.?…LOL

  • http://ui2.com Ui2

    @RockyRoad: The Times just posted their quarterly results, which showed a total debt of $769 million, a 27 percent drop from $1.06 billion in 2008.

    They even turned a profit of over $90 million this past quarter, due to drastic cost-cutting measures (layoffs).

    But given that circulation is estimated at just over 1 million, they owe a whopping $769 for every subscriber they have,

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jz77aw23lG9JFyX9KbFRBCDUtmJgD9DPI68O1

  • Robert

    Mr Mead you are as deliberately ignorant as the NYT as it pertains to AGW. All supporting data is now at the very least suspect as are all its proponents. Those who did not know the CRU and IPCC were falsifying the data should now be re-evaluating their positions by determining the origins and validity of their data. Believing falsified data is not bad science, however, continuing to believe false data is junk science, by junk scientists. There is considerable evidence that earth’s climate has changes quite radically over its habitable existence. These changes have have continued apace during the time of humans. There have been several Ice Ages. Science has no definitive cause of their beginnings or ends. All the responses I’ve received begin and end with the Sun’s activity, humans are not mentioned. CO2 makes up less than 1/2% of earth’s atmosphere and the estimates I encountered indicate that 99.8% of that is naturally occurring. Also, CO2 is active in about 1% of the Infra Red spectrum. Water vapor is immensely more effective in trapping heat. Human caused deforestation would be a more likely cause of global warming.

    Mr Mead, be skeptical educate yourself. It really isn’t that difficult. Also, demand proof you can check from your friends as well as everyone else.

  • Rod

    Like the NYTimes, the Wall St. Journal also has failed to cover this dramatic breaking story. Few people appreciate the extent of the liberal bias of the news section of the WSJ, but here it is on display for all to see.

    Apart from the editorial pages (which are obviously dominated by conservative viewpoints) a search of the WSJ online for Climategate and the many revelations since yields little.

    I’ve emailed their editors and a reporter or two with the suggestion that they are missing the story of the decade, but nothing appears. Maybe they’re working on it, but I doubt it.

    One thing is sure. If either the WSJ or the NYTimes came out with an 8 to 16 page special section on how the Global Warming Scam has come undone in under 90 days, and almost solely due to the influence of the internet at that, it would put the entire shabby episode to rest for good. The facts are there to be reported; the will to report them is absent.

    So, the internet will continue to take over the longstanding roles of the papers of record (NYT & WSJ) tossing another shovelful of dirt on their graves in the process. For current developments, climatedepot.com is a great news aggregator on this subject (from the sceptic’s viewpoint.)

  • pottfullofpith

    “But the story the Times cannot bring itself to print is not about belief. ”
    Of course it is; it is all about belief. Where there is no knowledge, belief fills the vacuum, and if the recent events have proved anything, it has proved that there is no knowledge, no scientia. The promoters of AGW may have been motiivated by good intentions or by bad, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the what they have been doing is not science, it is crap; and the scientists are unworthy of that title.

    “could the New York Times be working for a Republican victory this fall?”
    A bizarre suggestion, but an interesting underlying admission: The NYT has a political positons, tries delberately to influence political outcomes through its reporting. And an intriguing parallel: in the world of journalism, NYT is up to the same tricks as UEA in the world of science, to begin with the conclusion and work backwards to support it. In the same way that UEA and IPPC are not practitioners of science, NYT is not a practitioner of journalism. They both deserve to be ignored.

  • ncarrizo

    I’m sorry, but it can’t come as a suprise that the nyt can’t publish anything remotely resembling a “questioning” piece regarding the “left’s” position on anything…so why is their position here so suprising? They still can’t come to grips with the fact that MA was a referendum on Obama’s policies and proposed legislaiton.

  • Joe Archer

    I guess Bush wasn’t as dumb as he looked about MMGW at least. Or perhaps I should use the term as corrupt as congress and the left. I hope those few rational lawmakers make as much mileage on this issue as the pinkos did on the lack of WMD in Iraq.

  • Pingback: “Climate Change’s” death spiral? « Global Warming Follies()

  • Xdem

    The NYT conforms to the agenda demanded by the narrow audience it serves. It ceased to be a leader years ago. To be liberal/progressive in America today requires adherence to the group-think. Any deviation is held to be intolerable.

    Their freedom to report factually is less than TASS enjoyed in the heyday of the Soviet Union. There were always some at TASS who were eager to exploit any relaxation of their bonds. Not so at the Times.

    We should hope that the Times doesn’t fail. It’s demise would disseminate the disease with which it is infected to other news outlets.

  • The Ranter

    You nailed it. The problem at NYT is that they forgot that editorial and opinion belongs on its own page and should seldom if ever cross over into the journalism sections. Couple that with a biased reporting selection process (do I report on this or on that?), and you get an increasingly irrelevant “media” outlet that has as much to do with journalism as Survivor does with reality.

  • Alan Reed

    Environmentalist support for the Climate Change scenario, including Al Gore’s activity, has always denied the 95-0 vote by the U.S. Senate in July 1997, every Democrat including John Kerrey and Jeff Bingaman included, against the Kyoto Protocol (SR 98). Pres. Clinton had three years to submit the Protocol for ratification and didn’t because he (and Gore) knew Senate Democrats were unanimously opposed to it. Democrats have systematically misled everyone, with devoted and knowing support from environmental leaders. President Obama has no intention of ratifying Kyoto or doing anything equivalent in this country. Wake up!

  • Wintoon

    The damage to the Times is only incidental (although welcome). More importantly the warmists are unmasked as the mendacious, dangerous frauds that they are.

  • Fred Garvin

    Not much of a surprise. The NYTimes peaked with the Pentagon Papers and it’s been downhill ever since. Losing the “of record” mantle due to biased reporting started when a NYTimes journalist, asked about Nixon’s re-election, famously responded, (paraphrasing) “I can’t believe he won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Talk about living in a bubble.

    The NYT has not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower; thus, they have been out of step with the American electorate more than 50% of the time.

    The irony is that the NYTimes, in conjunction with the other left-leaning-but-in-denial-media-outlets, helped to create the very things they lament: conservative talk radio, Fox News, and Drudge.

  • Christopher Fotos

    That Post story isn’t much of an achievement; its point is that some unfortunate, essentially minor errors sadly undermine the public’s trust in the solid scientific consensus of AGW. Not a single scientist questioning AGW is quoted; we get brief mention of *political* opposition to emissions limits.

    The scientist/researcher quotes include lines like:

    . “The underlying science is certainly there,”

    …”There’s a real risk that the public perception could swing [toward greater disbelief in climate science]. Even though the reality is that the science — the underlying science — hasn’t changed.”

    Eilperin/Farenthold write:

    “Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it.”

    Ah, but which climate researchers? The only ones that matter to the Post–the ones pushing AGW. Opponents of that view are described by UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth as part of the “industry of climate-change denialists;” elsewhere, another public figure says AGW has to be defended just like evolution has to be defended, a magnificently subtle way of characterizing AGW opponents as scientific illiterates.

    Let’s not throw a parade for this story. Its purpose is to defend the IPCC status quo, like everything else I’ve read in the Post on this subject.

  • mhr

    Clearly the NY Times did not consider the global warming/climate change story “fit to print.” Many of us no longer consider the once-great newspaper fit to read.

  • Enzo

    The reason why the Times won’t publish dissenting opinion about global warming is that they are owned by GE, and GE (along with the “expert” Al Gore) has positioned itself to make a ton of money from Cap & Trade and other GW initiatives.

    The Times long ago ceased being “the paper of record” and became a shill for whatever causes the Left deemed correct – even when the facts showed otherwise. Don’t expect that to change any time soon.

  • William Walsh

    The use of the word “climate” and “science” in the same sentence is usually a clue that an ideolog is about.

  • PhilinAZ

    I suspect that intelligent folks in New York are reading other news sources and do not rely on the Times for their sole source. I find the Times interesting sometimes, but certainly not leading-edge investigative reporting. At least not until the Democrats are out of power again.

  • http://go-galt.org/Galt_Pledge/ C. Jeffery Small

    If you wish to understand what is actually going on with the New York Times and other main stream media outlets, then read Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead’ and study the character of Gail Wynand, the owner of “The Banner”, the novel’s New York newspaper. As publisher, it was Wynand’s belief that he controlled the thoughts of his reading public by what he chose to print in his paper. However, by the end of the book The Banner is destroyed and Wynand discovers that, in fact, he never had any real control over the public and had traded away his integrity for the illusion of power.

    The New York Times, and all of the other failing media outlets, are now discovering the same lesson. The article above wonders if the Times’ editors simply could not connect the dots in the climate story. Of course not. They, and the other media editors consciously choose not to print stories that do not support their political agenda, operating in Wynand-like belief that they control their hearts and minds of their readers. And now, having squandered their professional integrity, their readers abandon them in droves, leaving them to their own self-made destruction, the reasons for which they will evade right up until the end.

    Maybe the reading public is not a docile and as stupid as some believe?

    Today, if you still believe that bloggers, and other new media sources are “below the salt”, then maybe that’s because you are standing at the wrong end of the table.

    Regards,

    C. Jeffery Small

  • Bill Kruse

    Although the NY Times has not given any space to ClimateGate, they HAVE significantly turned down the rhetoric since the story(ies) broke and Copenhagen flopped.

    My favorite example is Paul Krugman, who in neither his NYT blog nor op-eds has said anything about the subject for 2 months now. Prior to mid-December, he had been good for at least 1 or 2 postings per week, making frequent use of Unabomber-ish rhetoric–e.g., that opponents of Waxman-Markey are “traitors to the planet.” At least the explosion of ClimateGate stories has pretty much shut up Krugman and the NYT on the subject.

  • JohnR22

    The NYT hasn’t been a credible newspaper since Watergate. It’s controlled by ardent Leftists; marxists from the 60s who have morphed into neo-marxists of the new century. They decide what/how to print based solely on the degree to which the story will advance the cause of World Socialism. Of course, sometimes a story gets so big that even the NYT can’t continue to ignore it. My bet is the NYT will remain silent on Climategate until the last possible moment…and will the bury the story in the middle of Section C.

  • trafamadore

    “Meanwhile, out in the real world, the multifaceted credibility collapse that is Climategate majestically and inexorably unfolds.”
    No, not the real world, that’s in the blogosphere. In the real world the Arctic is melting at record levels and we just had one of the warmest Januarys on record. So what happens in Climategate doesn’t seem to be affecting the real world at all.

    And it is clear that Mead is misrepresenting what it means to be statistically significant or not. Not having a significant increase since 1995 does not mean there is no increase. It means that a few years in a noisey record are hard to compare. Duh.

  • Norm

    The Alarmist camp has been maintaining the science is settled when the science was far from settled. With unsettled science, the basis for undertaking massively expensive mitigation efforts is weak and legitimately subject to partisan argumentation over priorities. True believers may use political power on lease from the voters to enact changes, but if that lease runs out the policies will be subject to change. Before Governor Napolitano went to Washington to try and prevent “man-made disasters” she was an enthusiastic proponent of the Western Climate Initiative, a regional compact to get ahead of Washington on addressing AGW issues.

    Now Jan Brewer is in the governor’s office. (In Arizona the Secretary of State succeeds the Governor in succession and they are often of different political parties). She’s with the GOP and a sour economy is the top issue. So she’s issued an executive order than no action from the WCI will be implemented if it has any adverse effect on the costs to business or jobs. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/02/11/20100211climate-brewer0211.html

  • John D. FroelichB

    I understood the bias in the NYT when I saw how badly it twisted news from Viet Nam when I was on the ground there.

  • mark l.

    phil jones has dropped several atomic bombs on the global warming movement:

    “for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

    the problem:
    EVERY SINGLE ANECDOTE that the environuts offerred that has demonstrated global warming has now been DISMISSED. Climate change sans global warming?
    (I could spend the next year pouring over nyt’s archives with scads and scads of anecdotal evidence that contradicts reality. Think judy miller, on more roids that mark mcguire…)

    lost his data.
    problem: every single person who declared the science is “settled” must now admit that the chief scientist behind their movement, couldn’t offer the proof, of which they had already interpretted as a sign of certainty.

    middle ages v. present day…
    this was the wooden stake thru the global warming movement. It was a simple test:

    if skeptics(armed with a history of scientific belief) were correct that it was warmer in the middle ages, carbon would lose out as an agent of cause and effect. It had already and seperately been proven to be independent of global warming by ice core samples, but then this wasn’t about the history of the planet, just the history of man.

    the middle ages gave a precise date, which was too small to fall under the domain of the knowledge obtained from ice core samples, and the warming nuts were off to the races.

    this final admission, that the middle ages could have been warmer than present day?
    careers have been built, and millions spent to prove that it was hotter today, than during the middle ages. Settled science aside, we still don’t know…

    in one corner we have scientist who came up with a theory that had no hidden agenda. in the other corner we have scientists who dispelled the previous understanding for the pursuit fo careers and cash.

  • David Doney

    First, whether global warming is a farce or not shouldn’t stop us from doing the right thing, which is competing in the clean energy arena, a key technology for the future. Cap & trade provides incentives to do that.

    Second, a properly structured cap & trade bill shifts money from those that produce a lot of carbon to those that produce less. Would you prefer a graduated tax system that penalizes all behavior equally? The bill is deficit neutral per CBO.

  • mark l.

    the one thing I could never reconcile about the agw movment…

    they picked a very open system, weather, and sought to set their forecast 100 years into the future-using graphs, statisitics, and calculus.

    using the SAME tools of analyzing a far simpler system, world economies, and rate of debt for the top 30 countries, and only projecting 30 years into the future, is beyond their grasp?

    100 years from now?
    I can’t tell you the temperature, but I can tell you that the current economic system we live under is over, long before a 100 years. I’ll never get to see the warming apocalypse, but I will have to live with an economic apocalypse.

  • SC Mike

    The Times website will soon require payment for access. The Grey Lady must have a deficit of grey matter if she thinks folks will pay to be poorly informed.

    I don’t mind paying for value. I currently pay big bucks for dead-tree and on-line versions of the Wall Street Journal and do hit the tip jar of bloggers I enjoy.

    Now I would pay not to have access to Krugman, Dowd, Rich, et. al., so maybe we can work out a deal…

  • Mike O

    It’s been a long, long time since The New York Times was an authoritative source on just about any topic.

  • http://none Herb J.

    Two words: Tom Friedman.

    If the NYT covers this story it’s tantamount to saying that their star columnist doesn’t, and hasn’t known what he was talking and writing about for the past decade. Can’t have that.

  • David

    Amazing that congress thought it important to investigate baseball over steriods but in the face of overwhelming evidence of fraud they remain silent and even as late as the State of the Union Address still act as if the science on climate change is settled. There needs to be a large turnover in congress and then trials to determine guilt and mete out punishment. Restitution should also be required from those found guilty. I would love to see Al Gore and his ilk raked over the coals like they have the baseball players and others.

  • http://radamisto.blogspot.com Steve J.

    There is no statistically significant evidence of global warming for the last fourteen years,

    Correct. Statistical significance means less than 1 chance in 20 of being a fluke. (95%). The warming trend for the last 14 years has about a 1 in 10 chance of being a fluke.

  • Danram

    The AGW crowd reminds me of a 5-year old throwing a temper tantrum, covering his ears and screaming as loud as he can “THERE IS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING, DAMMIT!!! THERE IS!!! THERE IS!!!” Thankfully, the obvious truth is now starting to dawn on the general public. This whole scare has been a manufactured attempt to use public hysteria to force a massive redistribution of global resources and political power along leftist ideological lines.

  • Robert Hahn

    Let’s not dismiss the possibility that no one at the Times knows about Climategate. Where would they learn of it? From their conservative friends? By listening to Rush Limbaugh? By visiting Drudge? They could just be awakening to it now; they probably do peek in on the WaPo, just to see what the enemy is up to.

  • Rose

    Roger F: Thanks for that. It explains a lot.

  • Victor Erimita

    To be “shocked!….shocked!” at the Times’s faillure to cover the collapse of the AGW narrative is to be naive or in deep denial. there are two simple reasons for the failure:

    (1) The Times has made its mission to propagandize, and
    (2) They imagine they still control a significant portion of the national/world narrative.

    Reason (1) is theirs to choose. Reason (2) is no longer true and hasn’t been for years. They cling to the fiction that they still matter for the same reason they cling to the rest of their outdated, fantastical world view. Because they cannot face the fact it has collapsed.

    As others have said in this thread, the NYT doesn’t matter much any more. It can no longer kill the truth. The fact they still routinely try is the principal reason so few bother to care what they print (or don’t) any more.

  • http://www.daveinboca.blogspot.com daveinboca

    The NYT’s climate houseboy Revkin and its juggernaut with a million barnacles Friedman are both compromised beyond any redemption.

    Remember when Mging Editor Jill Adamson said that the NYT was a “few news cycles behind” on various breaking scandals like John Edwards and a lot else and said that they would appoint a “top secret” ombudsman to scour their output, but wouldn’t give out an e-mail address lest the guy/gal be inundated with possible leads.

    I give the NYT with its sinking circulation [versus the WSJ’s more than doubling its daily circ over the tortoise run by Pinch & Keller] about ten years and then it will sink into the past like the World and the Herald Tribune as NY dailies with a real readership.

  • http://go-galt.org/Galt_Pledge/ C. Jeffery Small

    Above, David Doney states (2-15-10 @ 2:39 pm):

    “Cap & trade provides incentives to do that.”

    Another euphemistic use of the word “incentives” to actually mean “forced”. Like all others of a totalitarian mindset, Mr. Doney is prepared to have his personal view of the “right and the good” forced upon all others whom is is unwilling or unable to convince to follow his enlightened path voluntarily.

    He then states:

    “a properly structured cap & trade bill shifts money from those …”

    Ah yes, merely another wealth redistribution scheme.

    And finally:

    “The bill is deficit neutral per CBO.”

    I have serious doubts that, in reality, it would be deficit neutral, but what I can say with absolute certainty is that the proposed cap-and-trade bills, in all varieties, are not neutral when it comes to violating the individual rights of American citizens.

    Sorry Mr. Doney, but three strikes and you’re out!

  • http://americandigest.org vanderleun

    You might want to read the recently recorded Revkin quote:

    Revkin says: “One thing that’s interesting to note…in this administration shift is that all the coverage that I did of all those obfuscations, editing, censorship and stuff that the Bush administration got involved in was a no-brainer getting that on the front page of the New York Times… Now, theoretically, should I be just as aggressively writing about these revelations? [nervous laugh]. There’s total..complete differences between what was going on then and some of the things you’ve heard about recently in terms of the scientific integrity of the IPCC… The bottom line is , there was a predisposition at my newspaper to say hey, that’s a great get; there’s a major front page story… when Phil Cooney… editing climate reports and all that stuff… it fit a very comfortable theme that all environmental stories for the longest period of time had, which is there’s bad guys and good guys. Heh. Shame on you. Shame on you.”

    That’s on my page at:

    http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/political_corrections/the_new_york_times_truth.php

  • http://americandigest.org vanderleun

    Last December 5 Hoyt, the public editor, tried to handle the Climategate story by saying “”I think The Times has handled Climategate appropriately — a story, not a three-alarm story.” He might want to revisit that issue if his masters let him.

  • AndaO

    an excellent overview that would make compelling newspaper copy — if anybody at The Times would be interested — can be found at

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html

    Yes, the powerpoint video is long but it is fascinating.

  • http://americandigest.org vanderleun

    It’s also important to note that the Climategate collapse has ramifications that extend well beyond “climate science.” The collapse of this effort and this field will also send out rings of skepticism that will effect all of legitimate science and finds from various fields for years to come. It goes to trust and the distrust that will spring from this will contaminate biology, physics, astronomy and…. oh yes… evolutionary theory. In this CRU and the environmentalists have done a great deal of lasting damage to all of science. For this alone they should be condemned.

  • Alan F.

    Why haven’t the major papers reported that Kenneth Lay was the original champion for the whole concept of carbon credits? Yes, the same Kenneth Lay responsible for the Enron fiasco.

    So what makes carbon credits such a good idea now? For eco-warriors and politicians, it is a means to the end they desire. Implementing carbon credits will give them the power to dictate terms to the companies who provide it for us and increase the price of electricity/gas for the average citizen, which they hope will drive down usage.

    Eco-Idealists fail to understand that for most people it would just raise the cost of living and there would be less money to buy other things in life. (AKA, how to kill an economy)

  • Sam S.

    RE: David Doney

    Ah, thank you for playing the final card left for environmental crazies bent on destroying what’s left of the western economy.

    That said, the CBO is a poor choice to reference. They categorize the whole carbon credit monitoring fiasco “deficit neutral” because it’s an additional TAX, which is classified as a revenue source. They don’t calculate what the tax would cost to the country as a whole in terms of lost consumer spend and business opportunities.

    Rebuttal: A (very) quick lesson on taxes such as carbon credits in Economics 101:

    Every kind of tax is an drag on the economy which hurts new products and services from coming to market.

    Taxes, including the purchasing of credits in order to do business (AKA, taxing operations), effectively takes money out of circulation from the private market. The government then decides on how those taxes are to be spent.

    Governments, by definition, are not efficient. There is no requirement that Governments make a profit at the end of the year. In business terms, they are cost-centers. Cost-centers can cause organizations to go bankrupt when they’re not controlled properly, therefore they must be only created when required and be closed

  • Max R.

    Carbon credits are an ideal solution for the eco-first fanatic idealists.

    To those who are trying to push their personal beliefs on the American public: Examples of people who pushed their ideals on others before went by the titles of Kings, Queens, Barons, Lords, and Earls.

    This country was founded from the very start to prevent people who would force things to be done their way from gaining power over the freedom of the individual citizen.

    The people must be allowed to vote with their dollars directly for what they want. If they like the concept of carbon friendly companies, they can show it by buying products from providers who are. Government does not have the Constitutional power to take our money and spend it on our behalf. [Reference: The 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”]

    No matter how hard one looks, carbon credits and energy taxes aren’t powers listed in the Constitution.

    Hug a tree all you like. Do what you want with your life and your money. Now stop pushing your ideals on the rest of us. There are no Kings, Queens, Lords, or Earls in America and that’s the way we like it.

  • LoachDriver

    The “Times” is a joke as a source for honest & serious news.

  • mistermoose

    If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and it goes “Quack!” then it almost certainly is a duck.

    If it pushes certain stories while ignoring others, even if that means public ridicule and loss of revenue, then it almost certainly is staffed by true believers who almost certainly have a political agenda that they are pushing.

  • Andrew

    “the editors and reporters … simply cannot the dots”

    Delightful. (As was a comment a few days back mentioning “ad homonym.”)

    “If Congress … now turns its attention to a big climate bill — even as the science behind it appears increasingly suspect to the public — how will that play in the fall?”

    Apres nous le deluge. So to speak.

  • Pingback: State-run media desperately trying to save global warming « Da Mook()

  • http://go-galt.org/Galt_Pledge/ C. Jeffery Small

    Quoting vanderleun (February 15, 2010 @ 6:37 pm) above:

    “It’s also important to note that the Climategate collapse has ramifications that extend well beyond “climate science.” The collapse of this effort and this field will also send out rings of skepticism that will effect all of legitimate science and finds from various fields for years to come.”

    Skepticism is a very good thing. Nothing should be accepted as fact solely upon an argument of authority, but must always be validated against the facts of reality. This is what the peer review process in scientific circles is supposed to do, when it has not been perverted by those who hold a political agenda as being more important than the truth. What we have learned from Climategate is the necessity for stepping up our vigil and keeping watch on the claims of all scientists – especially if the science is funded by governments in service of an ideological purpose.

    But this is all good and will have no serious repercussions on valid scientific inquiry, because reality and truth are their own best defense and can stand up to all measure of scrutiny.

  • Pingback: Fun with numbers as the planet goes forum shopping « Green Gang 青帮()

  • Pingback: Klimawandel um den Klimawandel « Aus dem Hollerbusch()

  • reverter

    Still no concrete evidence about the science being phony, just more feces-flinging monkeys here.

  • Pingback: Still Clueless in Australia « NoFrakkingConsensus()

  • http://myshoku.jp/page/jump?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fdoppelkopf-spielen.info Doppelkopf Spielen

    super gleit mit isligelat und eibung aftle, sehr barugragu und horenu. vemoren schon eitsgrahl hat seewiden, marenden und kallt mit tungen.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2014 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service