NYT: Climategate not a “three-alarm story”

posted at 12:00 pm on December 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

So what, in Public Editor Clark Hoyt’s judgment, would make a “three-alarm story”?  In his evaluation of the New York Times’ coverage of the Climategate scandal, he offers this example (via Jazz Shaw):

Why didn’t The Times put the e-mail on its Web site? And, most important, is The Times being cavalier about a story that could change our understanding of global warming? Or, as The Times’s John Broder, who covers environmental issues in Washington, put it, “When does a story rise to three-alarm coverage?” …

The biggest question is what the messages amount to — an embarrassing revelation that scientists can be petty and defensive and even cheat around the edges, or a major scandal that undercuts the scientific premise for global warming. The former is a story. The latter is a huge story. And the answer is tied up in complex science that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts.

Hmmm.  Hoyt argues that this qualified as a normal story, not the “three-alarm” variety.  He reached that conclusion even though (a) the University of East Anglia CRU destroyed its raw data, discuss at length how to destroy evidence for a Freedom of Information request, and dishonestly hid numbers that contradicted their insistence that temperatures were constantly rising.  Even Hoyt acknowledges the latter in his missive, even though the New York Times didn’t bother to report on the first two aspects of the story.  Hoyt seems to argue here that these do not undercut the scientific premise for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a term which he doesn’t even clearly specify.

Do scientists routinely get “petty and defensive”?  Probably.  Do they routinely “cheat around the edges” and still maintain credibility?  I would consider that a strange argument.  If science cheats, it ceases being science.  And in this case, it was hardly “cheating around the edges.”  It was a full-bore effort to professionally ruin anyone who challenged their imposed orthodoxy while conspiring to hide contradictory data and flat-out make up numbers to artificially support their case.  And the CRU destroyed their raw data, which for any scientific endeavor isn’t at the “edges” of their work, but is the central core to their work.

Even by Hoyt’s standards, that’s a three-alarm story.

Hoyt doesn’t fare much better when it comes to the question of publishing the e-mails.  Reporter Andrew Rivkin hilariously asserted last week that the Times refused to publish them because they were never intended for public scrutiny:

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.

Hoyt tries rescuing that statement:

As for not posting the e-mail, Revkin said he should have used better language in his blog, Dot Earth, to explain the decision, which was driven by advice from a Times attorney. The lawyer, George Freeman, told me that there is a large legal distinction between government documents like the Pentagon Papers, which The Times published over the objections of the Nixon administration, and e-mail between private individuals, even if they may receive some government money for their work. He said the Constitution protects the publication of leaked government information, as long as it is newsworthy and the media did not obtain it illegally. But the purloined e-mail, he said, was covered by copyright law in the United States and Britain.

That’s a rationalization on two fronts.  First, the University of East Anglia is a public university, not a private university.  Next, copyright law has a fair-use exception which newspapers and other media have used for decades.  No one questioned why the Times didn’t print every last e-mail in the set.  But they could have published the more substantial e-mails that showed the fraud and deception in order to better inform its readers, especially since other outlets showed more courage than the Times and had already exposed the internal messages.

The entire Hoyt article is nothing more than a series of rationalizations in this vein.  Rather than assign the story to a more objective reporter who hadn’t marinated himself in AGW hysteria, Hoyt defended the assignment of Revkin to the Climategate story — even though Revkin had at least a tangential connection to the story (which, in Revkin’s defense, he disclosed).  Rather than report that the UEA-CRU had destroyed its own data sets and conspired to blok FoI requests, the Times chose to run stories about how the AGW debate was mainly “settled.” As far as I know, the Times still has not reported on those aspects of the story, nor about how the UK’s Met Office has decided that they will have to rebuild the data the CRU destroyed before they continue to support the conclusions based on the CRU and the IPCC, to which the CRU was a major contributor.

There were a lot more than three alarm bells ringing over this story for the last two weeks.  The NYT chose not to listen, and Hoyt does nothing more than provide some weak rationalizations for those decisions.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air


Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.


Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

So what, in Public Editor Clark Hoyt’s judgment, would make a “three-alarm story”?

Sarah Palin getting some free flowers and salmon, John McCain’s illicit affair that never happened, that sort of thing.

ddrintn on December 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM

So what, in Public Editor Clark Hoyt’s judgment, would make a “three-alarm story”?

Levi Johnson gets magazine spread?

scalleywag on December 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Now careful what you climate change wingnuts say, lest you find yourselves on the cover of Little Green Lefty’s page again. The man behind the curtain over there is really incensed with HA commentors. Again.
scalleywag on December 6, 2009 at 1:53 PM

On the plus side, you get to see beautiful pics of beaches, that is if you enjoy looking at hazy, unfocused, boring photos.

Bishop on December 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM

This may not be a “3 alarm” story for the NYT………

……but you just wait for the first time Sarah Palin’s pen runs out of ink at a book signing and that will be above the fold material, buddy. Yes sirree……

JoeinTX on December 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM

…Holy smokes… is there an annual award for Most Defensive Blog? If so, LGF wins hands down. Since it’s become the accident I can’t look away from, I find myself checking in and, wow… I’ve never seen someone of CJ’s earned stature spend so much time defending himself. Why does he care if he’s so right?

princetrumpet on December 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I think Chucky thought that by pretending for awhile to be a “conservative” then suddenly veer hard left because of a staged “attack of conscious” that he’d end up with the “cred” and the funding Ariana Huffington got.

I don’t think it’s working out too well for him. He’s burned all his bridges and appears insane.

wildcat84 on December 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM

So what, in Public Editor Clark Hoyt’s judgment, would make a “three-alarm story”?

Sarah Palin bad anything. Duh.

Bruno Strozek on December 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM

It’s simple……………….. It’s bambi

They don’t want to hurt the mentally challenged boy king.

bluegrass on December 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Well the times printed this about the plans for Climate Protesters in Copenhagen. It would be interesting to see how many folks turn out to protest this summit of deceit.


Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Remember me?…don’t get me started on the media bias again or “there will be blood”

royzer on December 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM

The Media is corrupt
Science is Corrupt

Kini on December 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Didn’t appear to bother the NYT in revealing a way that intelligence services were LEGALLY monitoring terrorist group money transfers.

They came onto that LIKE IT WAS A 3 ALARM FIRE.

Just more of the liberal double stardard at the Old Grey Prostitute.

Hey Pinch! How’s those stock numbers looking?

GarandFan on December 6, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Cj was never a conservative. People mistook him for one after 9/11 because of the subject matter of his original blog. But, as that event receded, the hard leftie that CJ is became clearer to see with each passing day when the news stories were not about 9/11 anymore, but about everything and anything else. He may have been spooked by those arab hijackers, but that didn’t last long. His site punked a lot of conservatives who got suckered in by the logo.

keep the change on December 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM

The first mistake was assigning this to The Times’s John Broder, who covers environmental issues in Washington.
All “Environmental reporters” are “fundamentally retarded” on environmental issues.

J_Crater on December 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM

The next time some one calls you a Flat Earther for being skeptical about global warming just call them a Fart Earther.

They think that cow f@rts are going to put us on the road to extinction.

Geochelone on December 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Yesterday we got copied on this message Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:

Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?

Any questions why the MSM has been so quiet ?

J_Crater on December 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM

By God it’s up to people like Palin, Romney, Steele and the GOP movers/shakers to make and keep this a “3 alarm story”. That is if they and the GOP expect support and votes on 11/2/10. I, for one, am extremely weary of the GOP’s timidity in dealing with this global warming hoax. DD

Darvin Dowdy on December 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Geochelone on December 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Farthead Dogmatic Flatliners (FDF)

maverick muse on December 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Well this is going to be an Embarrassing Souvenir.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Please Ed do a golden oldie we can solve this together with Newt and Nancy on the Sofa….in light of recent emails Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich have begun TWITTING each other. LOL!

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM

I reacted the same way when I found out Santa wasn’t real

Daveyardbird on December 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

What exactly are you saying; that somehow Santa is not real?

Geochelone on December 6, 2009 at 3:58 PM

For those who have yet to read what the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has researched and published, do yourselves a favor and link over to American Thinker. Below is a mere sampling of the topics he details. Of course there’s much more.

Articles By Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

October 12, 2009
Climate Myths and National Security

…The national security advisor would at that point advise his head of government that there has never been any security threat less grave, or more expensive to prevent, than the non-problem that is “global warming”. It is the fearmongers that are the real national security threat.

October 18, 2008
An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy
By Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
[in 4 parts]

Part 1, Science and the climate: the facts

The facts about “rising temperatures”–Despite rapidly-rising carbon dioxide concentrations, there has been no new record year for global temperature in the ten years since 1998; and, in the United States, there has been no new record year for national temperature since 1934 – a record set almost three-quarters of a century ago, and well before humankind could have had any significant influence on temperature.

The facts about carbon dioxide concentration–a far greater degree of scientific certainty as to the effects of minuscule increases in carbon dioxide concentration on temperature would be advisable before strategic damage on any such scale is inflicted upon the US economy from within, and by a Republican

The facts about the basis of the imagined scientific “consensus”–
The facts about “rising sea levels”–
The facts about “receding glaciers”–
The facts about “disappearing Antarctic ice shelves”–
The facts about “melting polar ice sheets”–
The facts about “reduced snowpack”–
The facts about “sustained drought”–
The facts about “extreme weather events”–
The facts about “sudden changes” in animal habits and habitats–
The facts about “polar bears” responding to “new dangers”–
The facts about “more forest fires”–
The facts about “changes in crop production”–
The facts about “heat waves afflicting our cities”–
Science and the climate: conclusion

Sir, every one of the reasons that you have advanced for alarm and consequent panic action has been demonstrated to be hollow and without any scientific foundation or merit. Yet, if your proposal to close down three-fifths of the economy of the United States is to be justifiable, then not only the false scientific propositions but also the false policy propositions that you have advanced must be shown to be true. Here, then, are ten propositions, with each of which you appear to agree, each of which is actually false. All of these propositions must be proven true before any action is taken to tamper with the climate, still less the fatal, self-inflicted wounds that you would invite your nation to make to her economy:
1. “The scientists, politicians, and media behind ‘global warming’ are honest”: They are not;

2. “The debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed”: They are not;

3. “Temperature today has risen exceptionally fast, above natural variability”: It has not;

4. “Changes in solar activity do not much impact today’s global warming”: They do;

5. “Greenhouse-gas increases are the main reason why it is getting warmer”: They are not;

6. “The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is clearly present”: It is absent;

7. “Computer models are accurate enough to predict the climate reliably”: They cannot be;

8. “Global warming is to blame for present and future climate disasters”: It is not;

9. “Mitigating climate change will be cost-effective”: It will not;

10. “Taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course”: It would not be.

We have examined the scientific propositions that you have advanced, and found them wanting. We now turn to your policy prescriptions and the basis for them.

Public policy and the climate

Global intervention: your proposed remedy for “market failure”

maverick muse on December 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Well this is going to be an Embarrassing Souvenir.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Ouch! Newt may want to save his time and our money and stay off the campaign trail, because this could be a very popular ad for other Republican campaign hopefuls.

yoda on December 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM

The times completely misses the most important story; the separation of church and state and a state sactioned religion (AGW).

Johan Klaus on December 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I forgot the sarc.
scalleywag on December 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Gotcha… ’cause I couldn’t give two hoots what they fthink or post.

ya2daup on December 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM

I forgot the sarc.
scalleywag on December 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM

The Branch Carbonians are closing in on a full-blown meltdown, it appears.

ya2daup on December 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM


Johan Klaus on December 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Why no it’s not — It’s three alarm outright fraud.

It’s amazing to watch the lame stream media lie, “fake but accurate” … The entire fraud of AGW has been exposed for the fraud it is.

tarpon on December 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM

They can try to minimize it and rationalize it all they want, but that horse done already left the barn.

Alana on December 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM

All the news that fits the liberal agenda, they print.

Jim Treacher on December 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM

the University of East Anglia CRU destroyed its raw data, discuss at length how to destroy evidence for a Freedom of Information request, and dishonestly hid numbers that contradicted their insistence that temperatures were constantly rising.

Can you even imagine anyone doing this kind of thing in a drug trial? The FDA, if they found out, would never approve the drug being tested and those who did this kind of thing would probably be prosecuted. Or how about the airline manufactures or airline companies doing this kind of thing with their performance and safety data? Or Enron or Bernie Madoff doing this kind of thing with their financial data?

MB4 on December 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Well the times printed this about the plans for Climate Protesters in Copenhagen. It would be interesting to see how many folks turn out to protest this summit of deceit.


Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 3:07 PM

But Goracle is not coming so all this expense to protect the planet’s savior from his overzealous fans is unnecessary.

Annar on December 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM

I wonder if Bernie Madoff’s e-mails, had they explicitly detailed his multi-billion-dollar fraud and been exposed in a similar secretive way, would also qualify to the New York Times as “not a 3-alarm story.”

Go ahead, tell me that the Times wouldn’t have published analogous e-mails by Madoff.

Edouard on December 6, 2009 at 5:09 PM

From the Blog Legal Insurrection

56 Newspapers to Sing As One About Copenhagen
Despite mounting evidence that key climate researchers were less than honest, and other indications that the science is not settled, tomorrow 56 newspapers will run a common front page editorial saying we have ‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation‘:

Tomorrow 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency….

The graphic at right, reprinted from The Guardian in Britain, show the newspapers which will be participating. Here’s what’s really motivating the alarmism, from the editorial:

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions…. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

Social justice and fairness? I thought this was supposed to be about science.

Thankfully, we still have the internet, and bloggers who still care about uncovering the truth as to climate change. We certainly can’t rely on the mainstream newspapers anymore, if we ever could.

CWforFreedom on December 6, 2009 at 5:21 PM

NYT reaction to 9-11

“Why all the fuss over a minor crash?”

MaiDee on December 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM

So if a private company, say Phillip Morris, had its not for public emails of its scientists, wherein they allegedly conspired to doctor evidence of carcinogins and cancers allegedly attributable to smoking and sought to punish scientists with conflicting views and destroyed hard raw data that could compromise the company’s public advocacy, the NY Times would not publish those emails because of privacy concerns? If you believe that I have a building in Times Square to sell to you real cheap.

I seem to recall that the NYTimes also published transcriptions of an illegally intercepted cellphone call between Rep Boehner and Newt Gingrich about a dozen years ago without any breastbeating about the sanctity of those private communications. Wonder why this miraculous policy didn’t exist then? The NYTimes can’t make the government policy argument–that because something was done by the government the press can publish it at will. The law of national security is much higher than the right to privacy of emails by scientists on the public payroll discussing matters of public interest and/or criminal or potentially criminal activities.

If this is not a three alarm story then why did the Australian Gov’t defeat capntax immediately after this revelation? Why did the director of UEA take a leave of absence? Why is U PA investigating Michael Mann? Why isn’t the NYTimes investigating whether other scientists have been destroying their raw data on climate change-agw? Why is the UN investigating this supposed non story? Seems like a lot of consciousness of guilt is present in the NYSlimes and in the radical leftwing climate ‘scientist’ community that a muckraking paper would love to investigate (but I guess if its global warming that’s being Gore-d, the NYSlimes will close its eyes and pretend that nothing has happened.
But the Slimes and the WashComPost have a problem. Now that they’ve reported even tangentially and disingenuously about the story, their readers (mostly sheeple though) may get off their arses and actually investigate the story themselves on the internet. Then you will hear another giant sucking sound of the paper’s losing whatever remaining credibility it had with its readership.

eaglewingz08 on December 6, 2009 at 5:36 PM

How do you get government agencies to create a crisis via “consensus” and then come up with a “solution” that can only be “solved” by government agencies? Easy. It’s been done before.

Enjoy a good laugh over this one, whic goes back to the ’70’s: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTA4MDQ3ZWRjNzI4NzgxYzZmMzQxYzlkZjVmOTdkM2M=

onlineanalyst on December 6, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Scientific debate rarely titillates the masses. But this one — involving computer espionage, ancient tree rings and a Penn State global warming professor — has sparked a worldwide firestorm.

J_Crater on December 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Its a grand tax creativity scheme scam,and
government grant gravy train!!

Sneaky,clever and ever resourceful Leftys
got caught cook’n da books!!

Move it along,nothing to see,its Liberals
business,and don’t stop the neverending
cash cow!!

canopfor on December 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Wouldn’t an alternative solution lower the price of oil and reduce the funding to terrorists? Also, wouldn’t it decrease the strategic importance of the Middle East, and, because of that, our military presence?

Windmills won’t solve the problem, but nuclear fission (and eventually fusion) would be more substantial.

dedalus on December 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Good post; you’re on to something here.

Here’s my take – a simple “5 point energy independence plan.”

1. Drill for oil wherever we own it.
2. Nuclear
3. Any alternative source gets “fast-tracked,” (reduced permits, streamlined approvals, etc..)
4. Build more refinery capacity, so that crude doesn’t have to be refined elsewhere, and then moved to the point of use. The closer we get to putting supply/refinement/consumption in the same place, the less energy we use moving fuel around.
5. Negotiate discounts in exchange for any aid or consideration to an OPEC member. We help you; you owe us.

All of these would reduce our energy importation. And, it’s greener, by virtue of being more efficient.

massrighty on December 6, 2009 at 5:54 PM

The New York Times has and aways will be an anti-American force to deal with. I’m sure they would support the criminal punishment for those involved with releasing the e-mails detailing the climategate scam that would have effected the whole world. The more severe punishment the better so an example of what happens to those that expose the lies and deceptions of the elite who wish to be in control of the masses. Barbara Boxer would like to lead that fight, but her insanity has been as obvious as the Goracle’s. Liberalism is a mental disorder and they are in the latter stages. It will only get worse.

volsense on December 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM

“But they could have published the more substantial e-mails that showed the fraud and deception in order to better inform its readers,….”

Why start now?

This isn’t a “three-alarm story”…

It’s the fricken ‘Towering Inferno’!

“I’ll be back with whole fire department…!”

Seven Percent Solution on December 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM

What more could they have done to be dishonest about the whole thing.

trubble on December 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM

They could have been burying bodies in the countryside. Have all the scientists who are/were dissenters been accounted for, recently?

Yoop on December 6, 2009 at 6:17 PM

A 5th grader can debunk Global Warming propaganda, oh that’s right, leftists flunked 5th grade earth science.

nelsonknows on December 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM

NYT: Climategate not a “three-alarm story”

Pfff. I guess they were too busy pimping teh greatest health care bill evah!

SG1_Conservative on December 6, 2009 at 6:28 PM

If 9-11 happened again, that wouldn’t be a “three alarm” story for the NYT. It might hurt the Messiah.

faraway on December 6, 2009 at 6:46 PM

faraway on December 6, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Normally, this would be comical, but now I wouldn’t be surprised if this is exactly what happens…

SG1_Conservative on December 6, 2009 at 6:53 PM

If these WERE emails which made Climate Change “deniers” look bad, they would be a NY TIMES front page, all week, FIFTY ALARM FIRE! level of a story.

These lame weasels can’t even get their laughable lies straight.

profitsbeard on December 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM

That’s okay, the NYT is not an actual news source.

argos on December 6, 2009 at 7:13 PM

NYT and WPO – Missing in inaction once again.

docdave on December 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM

South Korean scientist lie about creation of new Stem Cell lines …

People highly regard science but they fail to understand that 1.) there are egos involved, 2.) it involves some people that won’t be honest even under a affidavit and 3.) other so called “studies” that exist “proving” truth of Global Warming are based on CRU’s corrupt studies.

As for the last point, the “New” authors of new studies don’t go back to prove wrong ideas. And don’t forget this, if I’m a scientist and my paper doesn’t get published by a good journal I can going in with a buddy (combined $50k) to create my own journal. Some have done it.

Also, things have to be reproducible.

Who is the world deletes original data? What kind of scientists do that?

Every one around those scientists should abandon them like the plague.

Fake but accurate, take 2!

– Well those other studies are based on the

father on December 6, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Ouch! Newt may want to save his time and our money and stay off the campaign trail, because this could be a very popular ad for other Republican campaign hopefuls.

yoda on December 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM

He has been trending really badly This Sofa appearance with San Fran Nan over what amounts to a the hoax of the century and he endorsed Dede he was for her before he was against her. Wait till he sticks his finger in the air over Climategate….he’s done stick a fork in him. His time has come and gone. That’s two down this week, Huckabee for his pardon and Newt for always picking the political side NOT the principled side. Too bad because he isn’t a bad speaker.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 9:04 PM

CNN has been running pro Global Warming Folks, all day on their network…if only anyone actually watched their network. They “Global Warming Hypers” are still being dismissive and derisive. I hope the British start offering deals because I think this goes all the way back to the UN. Imagine when people start giving each other up so they aren’t prosecuted for trying to perpetrate what amounts to trillion of dollars scam. They will have them all recorded from their various segments on cable news channels….they aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 9:09 PM

It’s obvious there is a conspiracy of omission from the LSM to not make a big deal of this before Obama goes to Copenhagen. I don’t know if this came about because of one of Rahm’s coffee klatches with the LSM or what, but it certainly does seem to be a plan that’s been agreed upon. I just can’t imagine all of these news outlets avoiding a story with such obvious implications. I certainly can’t explain how so many outlets could avoid this story.

Amazingly, some of the story has managed to make it’s way into the media. As much as they want to justify it, they seem to be holding back just enough to maintain what little credibility they have left.

One thing’s for sure, if the Democrats try to push through cap and tax, I don’t believe there will be damn few left, in Congress, next year. This story is only going to get worse. Just wait until our agencies have to release their records, oh is it going to be exciting.

bflat879 on December 6, 2009 at 11:35 PM

But going to into Iraq for the sake of increasing the health of the Bush family’s bottom line and that of their cronies was “hard news”.

God almighty.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 7, 2009 at 12:49 AM

The devil is in the details and we will see what he has to say in Copenhagen. Maybe we will also see how tied to this fraud effort the media really is!

bluegrass on December 7, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Too bad Texas had to cheat the clock to win.

Everyone keeps complaining about undefeated teams not getting a shot, so why on earth is TCU and Boise going to play each other? If you have a legit complaint, go play an SEC team and show us you can win against REAL competition instead of the bums they all play.

Go beat Auburn, Tennesse, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia. If you come out of the game winners then next year we will give you national recognition.

Playing each other proves NOTHING! It does not show you can beat a team on another level.

patriotparty1 on December 7, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Weather advisory after snow falls throughout Bay Area

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/baycitynews/archive/2009/12/07/weather07.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0Z13JhGLU

galvestonian on December 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Or, as The Times’s John Broder, who covers environmental issues in Washington, put it, “When does a story rise to three-alarm coverage?” …

And therein lies the problem. The Times just can’t seem to understand that they are not the arbiters of what is news or what is deserving of “three alarm coverage.” This story has caused a huge worldwide political and scientific controversy over the very foundation of the warmist’s argument.That is NEWS, whether the Times thinks it’s justified or not. It’s their job to just report it, not to arrogantly decide whether or not it’s worthy of the attention.

But they won’t learn. The Times will keep strutting around like they’re too cool for the room, not realizing their fly is open.

RadClown on December 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

It is not amazing, but if AGW doesn’t exist, you will need fewer reporters covering Climate Issues.

And fewer:
Climate institutes
Climate researchers
Climate publications

barnone on December 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

The NYT (aka Gray Lady) has gone senile. The Rathergate story was ignored until it went viral. Ditto for GLOBULL WARMING. Pearl Harbor–Dec. 7, 1941, would have been “buried” on page D47 under “man caused disasters” today by these “reporters”.
Two young people with a video recorder outed ACORN–low cost, effective reporting. NYT gives you the “politically correct” Jayson Blair! This “news”paper is due for euthanasia–not a bailout. There aren’t enough cats or birds in the country to use their product anymore.
John Bibb

rocketman on December 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

They want their government subsidy and they want it now!

kens on December 8, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2