Politics, Politicians, and Current Events Examined

See No Evil: The Times Tries to Ignore the Global Warmist Scandal

with 2 comments

By Spartacus Thrace

If you do not think that the liberal media is devoid of altruism or that they do not censor the news that they provide you in accordance with their political agenda, consider how the St. Petersburg Times has treated the ongoing “ClimateGate” scandal.

Today, newspapers run by liberals are all about power and influence through the control of the flow of information to the public.  In that regard, it seems the Times would like to ignore the inconvenient truth that someone broke into one of the motherships of the global warmists, stole several thousand emails and other documents, and spilled their dirty little secrets on the internet.

The Times is a liberal newspaper and has, over the years, enthusiastically and uncritically taken the side of the global warmists.  It has even used its PolitiFact project — which the Times claims exists “to help you find the truth in American politics” — to denigrate and discredit critics of anthropogenic global warming and declare their arguments to be false and promote the false impression of a “consensus” on the topic.

The essential facts of the scandal are as follows:  On November 17th someone hacked into a server used by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and stole more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents dating back to 1996 and as recent as November 12th.  The CRU is an extremely important hub in the international community of global warmists.  Two days later, on November 19th, the emails and other documents were uploaded to a Russian server and copied to numerous locations across the internet.  The stolen materials give the appearance that the CRU and its political allies have long been engaged in a deliberate effort to manipulate the data about anthropgenic climate change, suppress by various means those skeptics who opposed them, and foster the appearance of a world-wide consensus on the subject when in fact the debate among scientists is quite vigorous.

If newspapers are supposed to be social watchdogs protecting the public by revealing the objective truth about matters of general public concern, the Times is the dog that should be barking but isn’t.  Since the news broke about what could be the greatest scientific scandal in a generation — namely that science has been politicized to promote a very costly hoax on the world’s population — the Times has remained almost mum.

While the major national and international news outlets have been treating this as a major story, an on-line search reveals that the substantive coverage of the St. Petersburg Times to date has been limited to publication of a short Associated Press wire story that ran on November 22nd and the reprinting on November 27th of an editorial that appeared on Wednesday the 25th in the Washington Post.

The editorial, titled “How not to fight climate of denial” in the Times reprinting, was a leftist global warmist apologia that quickly (1) questioned the authenticity of the documents, (2) asserted that critics are “taking them out of context and misinterpreting at least one controversial e-mail exchange,” and (3) summarily pronounced that “[n]one of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change.”  The editorial concluded with the broad diktat that:

“By our reckoning — and that of most scientists, policymakers and almost every government in the world — the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.”

This is a pathetic demonstration of agenda-driven pseudo-journalism.  The uncritical reprinting of a wire story and an opinion piece from a leftist newspaper, in particular, is not a substitute for critical reporting, and certainly does not lift the virtual blackout imposed by the Times on this very important issue.

But is there really anything to report and discuss?  To get a sense of the huge extent to which the Times is ignoring or minimizing the importance of this story, consider the following sample of the immense coverage of ClimateGate that has been published in assorted news organizations and blogs all over the world during the past two weeks, organized by publication date from most recent to least recent, and compare it to the coverage given by the Times:

Michelle Malkin, All the president’s ClimateGate deniers, MICHELLE MALKIN, December 2, 2009
James Delingpole, Climategate: it’s all unravelling now, TELEGRAPH (UK), December 2, 2009
John Ingham, Climate Change ‘Fraud’, DAILY EXPRESS, December 2, 2009
Declan McCullagh, Fallout Over “ClimateGate” Data Leak Grows, CBS NEWS, December 2, 2009
Juliet Eilperin, Climate scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down WASHINGTON POST, December 1, 2009
John Fund, The Great and Powerful Climate Oz, WALL STREET JOURNAL, December 1, 2009
Bret Stephens, Climategate: Follow the Money, WALL STREET JOURNAL, December 1, 2009
Jeff Greer, Penn State Will Investigate ‘Climategate’, U.S.News & WORLD REPORT, November 30, 2009
L. Gordon Crovitz, The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths, WALL STREET JOURNAL, November 30, 2009
Richard S. Lindzen, The Climate Science Isn’t Settled, WALL STREET JOURNAL, November 30, 2009
Kyle Smith, The end of cap-and-trade, NEW YORK POST, November 29, 2009
Jonathan Leake, The great climate change science scandal, TIMES (UK), November 29, 2009
Jonathan Leake, Climate change data dumped, TIMES (UK), November 29, 2009
Christopher Booker, Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 28, 2009
Robert Mendick, Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 28, 2009
Mark Steyn, CRU’s Tree-Ring Circus, NATIONAL REVIEW, November 28, 2009
Noel Sheppard, ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State, NEWSBUSTERS, November 28, 2009
Gordon Rayner, Who’s to blame for Climategate?, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 27, 2009
Kurt Schlichter, Cross-Examining the Climate Change Scammers, BIG GOVERNMENT, November 27, 2009
Vincent Gray, Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’, PAJAMAS MEDIA, November 27, 2009
Gerald Warner, Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barck Obama’s Cap and Trade laws, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 26, 2009
Editorial, Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’, WALL STREET JOURNAL, November 27, 2009
James Delingpole, Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 26, 2009
James Delingpole, Climategate: five Aussie Mps lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 26, 2009
Carol Driver, Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent leaked emails six weeks ago, MAIL (UK), November 26, 2009
New doubts on warming, but most favor action, WASHINGTON POST, November 25, 2009
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., Global Warmists Caught Red-Handed, AMERICAN SPECTATOR, November 25, 2009
James Delingpole, Climategate: how they all squirmed, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 25, 2009
David Warren, The Skeptics Are Vindicated, REAL CLEAR POLITICS, November 25, 2009
Jeff Poor, ClimateGate Ignored, Again – Broadcast Nets Go With State Dinner Menu, Sea Lions and Pete the Moose, NEWSBUSTERS, November 25, 2009
NRO Symposium, Climate of Fraud, NATIONAL REVIEW, November 25, 2009
Willis Eschenbach, Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion, The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE, November 24, 2009
David Derbyshire, Scientists in climate change ‘cover-up’ storm told to quit, MAIL (UK), November 24, 2009
Editorial, Global Warming With the Lid Off, WALL STREET JOURNAL, November 24, 2009
Robert Tracinski, Climategate: The Fix is In, REAL CLEAR POLITICS, November 24, 2009
Editorial, Hiding evidence of global cooling, WASHINGTON TIMES, November 24, 2009
James Delingpole, Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 24, 2009
Juliet Eilperin, In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes, WASHINGTON POST, November 22, 2009
James Delingpole, Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?, TELEGRAPH (UK), November 20, 2009
Ed Morrissey, Do hacked e-mails show global warming fraud?, HOT AIR!, November 20, 2009
Ian Wisehart, Climate Centre Hacked, INVESTIGATE MAGAZINE, November 20, 2009
Andrew Bolt, Climategate: Warmist conspiracy exposed?, HERALD SUN (AU), November 20, 2009

Plainly, there is no lack of material to write about or refer to in attempting to get at the truth of the global warming story, if that is indeed what a newspaper is supposed to do.

The Times does not have an excuse for ignoring this scandal, and ignoring it won’t make it go away.  It is indeed saddening, for when one of the largest newspapers in the state effectively blacks out a story of this magnitude, the community is ill-served.  In the meantime, those who are concerned about this issue will have to look someplace other than the Times to get their facts and analysis.

UPDATE 12/06/09:  Today, three weeks after the scandal hit headlines all over the globe and the hacked materials became available to anyone in the public who cared to download them, the Times has finally discovered ClimateGate and has republished a pro-global warmist article about it that appeared in the Washington Post.  Apparently, this is all the reader is going to get from the Times.  Pathetic.

Written by Spartacus Thrace

December 3, 2009 at 11:23 am

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.


    December 13, 2009 at 5:15 am

  2. Sorry Harleigh!

    You wrote a lot but apparently you haven’t actually investigated the evidence yourself. If you had, you might be aware that there are actually more climate scientists & other qualified scientists who do not believe that man is responsible for any increases in global temperatures. In fact, if you were really interested in the facts, you might have heard of a fellow named Anthony Watts. He managed to get volunteers to photograph & document the weather surface stations in the United States. It is called the USHCN & consists of 1221 stations. So far the have documented 1003 of them which is about 82%. If you go to this web site,, you’ll see that only a very small percentage of these stations are in compliance with the guidlines that are supposed to be followed to insure accurate temperature measurement.

    Read the literature on this site & you’ll see why our record keeping here in the US cannot be trusted to prove that there is even any actual warming occuring. There are even pictures so you don’t have to take someone’s (can we say Al Gore) word for it. You’ll see weather stations on rooftops, next to parking lots, air conditioners(you know, the part that is outside & removes the heat from the unit, thus exposing the station to this heat), by airport runways & large bodies of water. These are all no-no’s, as NOAA is well aware of. One other thing. In case you haven’t heard, Al Gore’s hockey stick graph that he showed in his movie doesn’t really prove CO2 causes temperatures to rise. If you remember, in his movie he shows the two graphs & then wants you to believe that the CO2 is going up or down & the temperature is following it. Notice that he doesn’t place on graph on top of the other. There is a reason for that. He says later on in the movie that their relationship is very ‘difficult’ to explain. That’s probably the only true thing he says in the movie. The ‘difficult’ part he was referring to is that, if you place one graph on top of the other, you’ll discover that, in fact, it is the temperature that rises or lowers with the CO2 following later on. Lime about 800 years later on. GET IT???? Temperature goes up, 800 years later CO2 rises. Temperature goes down, 800 years later CO2 goes down. Yeah, I guess that would be ‘difficult’ for Al to explain. Then he wouldn’t be making all of these millions that he has been making from all of the Green companies that he is involved with.

    Check it out Harleigh.

    I Dare You!

    Mark Field

    March 4, 2010 at 1:23 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: