The Times Versus the Truth

The "hottest" topic in global warming has been the leaked files from Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. They reveal scientific fraud, suppression of debate and anything-but-objective researchers. Which makes "Climategate" a journalistic scandal as well, says Jonah Goldberg:

The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) "consensus." Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There's no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the "consensus" they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus.

True enough--but the New York Times tops them all. It first covered the scandal in an Andrew Revkin story last Saturday. On his NYT blog the same day, Revkin wrote:

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

Hilariously hypocritical, observes Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard:

This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case -- the documents were "never intended for the public eye," so the New York Times will take a pass. I guess that policy wasn't in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.

As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day -- though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived "consensus" on global warming.

Moreover, this comes only months after the Times tied warming to national in-security.

In the liberal media and especially at the New York Times, man-made climate change will continue to be "a consensus". Even by suppressing supported science as not fit to print.

(via TimesWatch)