[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.

[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............................

[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]

[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.

[skeeter]

We are in the real news reporting window now. Soon the MSM will get their story line down & the only reporting on this you'll see will be concerning the political affiliation of the hackers, and who funded them.

At that point not a word will be ever again spoken about it being solid proof of the global warming scam conspiracy.

[Tublecane]

Don’t we have enough evidence of this already? Including from the Grand-High NASA Poo-bah, whatever his name is?

[Gator113]

“..... climate scientists conspired to overstate ..”

Overstate ? Overstate! Give me a break. They weren’t trying to “overstate” a damn thing.

Motivated by greed, political persuasion and their twisted desire for recognition and advancement, these so called scientists conspired to deceive the world.

A lie is not an overstatement... it’s a damn lie, period.

[Jackknife]

[randog]

“Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of recent climate studies were included in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

And Mussolini kept the trains running on time...

[Billthedrill]

...global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

"Overstate"? No, they show that data was being outright falsified, that this was done deliberately and knowingly, and that the people involved attempted to cover up their paper trail on it. This is not a case of exaggeration as the author implies, it's a case of fraud.

This is poison in the well. Not a single report these individuals have produced is now without serious doubt. Not a single project any of them worked on is trustworthy. Not a single paper they peer-reviewed and passed is to be considered credible.

The author of the article is attempting to frame this as a matter of interpretation. It isn't.

[Lancey Howard]

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.

The above statement is not a quote attributed to some scientist or any other party mentioned in the story. The above statement was made by the "reporter" himself in the middle of his "report".

That's today's New York Times for you...
When is that toilet tissue going to hurry up and die?

[jveritas]

The truth finally won as it always does, sometimes it just takes longer time.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

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.

"Conspired" is the NYT's way to trying to discredit those who say the emails show instances of scientists talking about massaging data to fit their pre-conceived analysis. Was there a grand conspiracy involving dozens of scientists? Nope - but there is funding pressure, publication pressure and peer pressure to find evidence of global warming, and the email excerpts so far sure seem to bear that out.