NY Times: Hacked E-mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

NY Times ^ | 11/20/2009 | ANDREW C. REVKIN

[PapaBear3625]

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

[milwguy]

Revkin is referenced in some of the emails as being an allie of these fraudsters.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Landru]

Skeptics?

HA!!
The New York Slimes, at it again.
Too bad fewer & fewer people read their dreck, eh? LOL

That rag's not long for this world.
Simply allow 'em to blow around the room 'til their air's finally exhausted. LOL

[PapaBear3625]

To all who thought the MSM would not touch this:

NY Times covering the fraud means the dam is now officially broken.

[FastCoyote]

“The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. “

Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of Global Warming, not even the truth.

[RatRipper]

Why would scientist care that their work is subject to greater scrutiny? ALL science is subject to peer review and validation of the proof. Only if your methods and data is flawed are you concerned about the scrutiny.

It is not up to us to prove that global warming does NOT exist. It is up to them to prove that it DOES EXIST AND THAT MAN’S ACTIVITIES ARE THE CAUSE. Apparently, they have been cooking the books for some time.

[rbosque]

The NYT is sounding like Baghdad Bob.

[b4its2late]

The NY Slimes is so YAWN............................

[tired1]

I plead guilty. I’m amazed that it happened overnight!

[PapaBear3625]

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence showed a effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

[spodefly]

"Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics ..."

But causing no stir among the mind-numbed sheep still worshiping at the altar of Master Deceiver Gore and the Eco-bots, or invested in one of the companies our venal politicians will reward with their Cap and Tax scam legislation? Only skeptics, huh, NYTimes?

[Tawiskaro]

[P-Marlowe]

NY Times covering the fraud means the dam is now officially broken.

No they are simply covering the "skeptics'" reaction to the e-mails.

They are NOT covering the e-mails.

They are NOT investigating whether or not there was fraud; they are simply reporting that "some people" will use these e-mails to say there was fraud.

One would think they would have 11 reporters scouring the e-mails to determine exactly who was falsifying information and what information was being falsified. But they are too busy looking for spelling and grammar errors in the Sarah Palin book, which they will categorically refuse to actually review.

[hoosiermama]

mmm mmm mmm!Guess author of the NYT article is in the CMA mode.

Revkin is referenced in some of the emails as being an allie of these fraudsters

[Alberta's Child]

The problem is that "climate studies" by definition are impossible to conduct under scientific standards. For one thing, the whole issue is so complex that it's nearly impossible to identify all the variables. Secondly, there's no way to actually control most of these variables in a way that would lend to scientific experimentation. And thirdly, it's impossible to replicate tests under real-world conditions when the "science" in question involves meteorological events that have taken place -- and are supposed to take place -- over thousands of years.

This last point is a very important consideration. Just think about this for a second: "Climate studies" are supposed to be based on trends that take place over thousands (and even millions) of years, and yet nobody can say with any degree of certainty what the ambient air temperature or barometric pressure was in Philadelphia when the Declaration of Independence was signed only 230+ years ago.

[fhayek]

The New York Times apparently believes that evidence for global warming is fake but accurate.

[Minn]

But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.

Sure it isn't. Sure it isn't.

[GrannyAnn]

Someone needs to follow the money. There’s got to be tons of money to be had with this scam. Why is GE pushing “green” so hard? I have a feeling that the tons of money to be had will actually come from US - the taxpayer.

[PapaBear3625]

Revkin is referenced in some of the emails as being an allie of these fraudsters.

He's been active in providing pro-Global Warming coverage.

Over at ClimateAudit.org, the server seems locked up, but this was in the Google cache: "Revkin on the Hansen Fiasco"