I admit it: I was wrong. The NYT has not only reported on the hacked files from the East Anglia CRU, it has confirmed that some of the emails being reported are valid. But as might be expected, the NYT also serves as an apologetic for alleged misunderstanding the use of the terms "trick" and "hide the decline" as descriptions of data manipulations to eliminate the medieval warming problem and presumably the recent anti-warming decade.
Most telling is the absence in the NYT article of the most damaging information, that of collusion to destroy information and the attempted collusion to attack a peer-reviewed journal for allowing dissenting articles to be published.
Yet the fact that the NYT even addressed the issue this early in its media career is also revealing: they realize the damage that the truth can do, and they must move quickly to mute its effect.
This story has traction.
No comments:
Post a Comment