As usual, what the partisans on both sides have in common is their certainty the other guy is wrong. Of course some people are snottier about it than others.

People can agree that something is noteworthy without agreeing what it means. When you cannot even bring yourself to admit that when the authors of the U.N. climate change reports and the sole providers of much of the historical record that other climate scientists and politicians making multi-trillion dollar decisions regarding the economies of dozens of nations rely on just might be fudging their reports and their basic data… then it doesn’t take an IQ of 175 or a doctorate in climatology to see THAT THIS MIGHT JUST BE A PROBLEM. All it takes is a pulse. Preferably one that extends as high as the ears.

Ryan Waxx:
Oh.My. God.Please, tell me you are a cartoon or some other form of comic relief.You cannot possibly be that blind, can you?I mean look, I do know that rabid partisanship can shut down brain processes that would otherwise lead one to a conclusion one doesn’t want to reach.But I used to believe there were limits to just how much of the brain could go dysfunctional to serve that purpose… now I’m not as sure there are any such limits.

As usual, what the partisans on both sides have in common is their certainty the other guy is wrong. Of course some people are snottier about it than others.

By contrast, look at the bland headlines from the NYT story and the blog entry on the CRU documents: “Private Climate Conversations on Display,” and “Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute.” The burden of both stories is that the documents are “causing a stir among global warming skeptics” – but not among those at the Times, or among sane people — and that the Times already knows that the “hacked material in unlikely to erode the overall argument” for AGW. So, nothing to look at here, folks, let’s move on.

Revkin does not quote from the most notable emails. Amazingly, he misses this one, where Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, tells Michael Mann (the “hockey stick man”), about other scientists who wish to examine the raw temperature data to see if they can replicate the work:

“The two MMs [two sceptical scientists] have been after the CRU station data [on which the AGW conclusions are based] for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Revkin also fails to mention that after a FOIA request was made for the raw data, CRU reported that it had been “inadvertantly deleted.”

Here’s another that Revkin fails to quote: Jones, again writing to Mann, with the subject heading “IPCC & FOI”:

“Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have with Keith re AR4? [ the U.N. IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report] Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

There is much more that goes unquoted in the Times, including CRU’s efforts to exclude the peer-reviewed work of less than compliant scientists from the IPCC reports, discussion of efforts to get a journal editor fired, efforts to massage the data to make the Medieval Warm Period look less warm and recent years more warm, the defense of tree-ring data as solid when it is suspected by them to be faulty, an exasperated admission that it is farcical that they cannot explain the recent cooling, etc., etc.

This is an explosive story that, with the vivid quotes available, practically writes itself, for any newsperson with an interest in the newsworthy, and a hand not stilled by self-censorship. Instead, the Times and Revkin seem strangely inert and uninterested. In the four days since his first post, Revkin has not posted any new story discussing or quoting from the e-mails, but seems more interested in playing defense for the CRU people. Here’s what Revkin says he’s doing to report on the story: “I’m running down tips and assertions related to the theft and hackings . . . . Needless to say, if anyone has information or ideas, feel free to email [me].”

It is in the interests of ‘scientists’ to publish research that bolsters what bureaucrats want in order to keep the money flowing. The more dire the scenario they can construct, the more money they can receive. It is also in their interests to suppress contrarian views as is evidenced by the CRU emails.

There is nothing that can be done about Sun spot activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit or variations in the rotational tilt of the Earth. Therefore, these causes are to be discounted and the only acceptable cause is to be Man’s activity which, conveniently, can be controlled by the Mandarin’s in various levels/types of government.

I ain’t much on conspiracy theories, but I can recognize the human lust for power and greed as well as the next. You can dress it up with whatever ‘research’ you want, but it is a Government-Science Complex that has driven this debate for their own ends and whatever it is they are doing, it is not science.

Or publishing an article about them, quoting the most notable ones, and then linking to unredacted versions of them — as it did! I’m still shaking my head trying to figure out what’s wrong with this.

I’m not sure what private industry documents you’re referring to, but it’s hard to see how the considerations involved in publishing leaked industry documents are analogous to those involved in publishing a trove of personal emails.

Some of the e-mails are clearly as newsworthy as private industry documents on climate change of questionable legal provenance that the Times has posted, so I believe there is ample basis for questioning their consistency, and it would be easy to post them without private info. Indeed, if the concern is not disseminating the private information, the Times could serve this interest better by posting redacted versions than by linking to the various document dumps.

JHA

Are they newsworthy on the scale of the other documents that the Times’ Dot Earth blog has posted on its site? They are far beyond that in newsworthiness.

You respond in a characteristically thoughtful way, but I still think you’re way offbase in suggesting the Times is announcing a “policy” of any sort against publishing illegally obtained materials, and, in fact, in criticizing the Times at all on this issue. As you acknowledged, the illegal provenance of the materials is only one of the considerations cited by Revkin. This strongly implies that the Times does not have a policy against publishing illegally obtained materials, but rather considers the provenance of the materials as one factor among others in the decision whether to publish. The other factors include the newsworthiness of the materials and their availability in the event the Times does not publish them. In this case, both of these factors weigh against publishing.

Incidentally, your argument that the Times could have posted a selection of emails misses the points that (1) the Times did quote select emails in the article, (2) the emails are not newsworthy on the scale of a secret surveillance program or the Pentagon Papers, (3) for this reason editing out the private information from thousands of emails is not worth the candle, (4) particularly since the Times can just link to them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html#%20articleTabs=article

The article above (from the opinion pages) does not include a link but includes extensive quotations. The following article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Includes one full e-mail text (which seems to be a scan of the paper, so presumably appeared in the full paper and not just online) and a link to the full download, as well as quotations.

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything, but someone wanted an example.

Hopefully their near-term demise will reduce the propaganda level of the media, but I fear it won’t.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jeffnolan: Extreme hypocrisy re the NYT Policy on Illegally Acquired Documents http://bit.ly/8fRxEO...

Because the OP has made a major post in the comments, I decline to continue to argue with you so as not to “clutter” the area below that post, as that’s an important part of this comments section.

Interpret that however your sense of self-impotence demands.

I think we agree on that last point. It would be totally reasonable for the Times to have a policy of linking to, but not re-posting, documents of questionable legal provenance. But that has not been their policy in the past, as the Times has posted other stolen documents that contained information not intended for public consumption.

JHA

While I disagree slightly with some of your characterizations, I appreciate the long and thoughtful update. Perhaps it’s because I don’t see the difference between linking to (or telling readers how to find) vs. actually hosting something from a news point of view- for example, a previous NY Times *blog* had a link to Wikileaks on a similar issue, but didn’t host the docs themselves, whereas I do see the difference from a legal point of view. And if I was advising the NY Times, I would say this-

Do you have to host the files? No? You can just link to them? Then link to them. Let somebody else deal with that headache.

I still don’t have a pony.

Because you eviscerated it.

I wouldn’t worry about your eyes falling out as I am not positive it would effect your reading comprehension.

You made two claims:
1. That the NY Times would not report on the issue.

That was immediately shown to be false. You have ignored that and changed the subject.

2. You have asked for one article from the NY Times that has the source emails.

It was explained that this was not common practice. But I love to learn, so I asked if you could show that it was common (or if it occured at all). I am willing to accept either a) articles from the NY Times on different subjects or b) articles from other papers on the same subject.

If my belief is correct, they are covering this story like they cover other stories, and in the same fashion other papers (including the WSJ) are covering this story. Which means the story isn’t that the NEW YORK TIMES is hiding the ball, but rather that the NY Times, and the rest of the media, aren’t covering this story exactly like you want it to be covered.

In other news, I still don’t have a pony.

Several commenters believe that I jumped to conclusions in my initial post. Perhaps I did. I believe all of my inferences were reasonable given what the Times posted – certainly no less reasonable than alternative hypotheses some have put forward. And at this point, contrary inferences is all that anyone has put forward. Let’s review.

Is there a “policy”? The post in question did not simply decline to post any of the relevant documents. Rather, it announced that the documents would not be posted on the site and provided an explanation for the editorial decision. Specifically, noted that the documents a) “appear to have been acquired illegally” and b) “contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye.” Presumably, these rationales are the basis for the editorial decision – i.e. they are the basis of a “policy” of some sort, either the Times’ or Revkin’s.

The Times and the Dot Earth blog are certainly under no obligation to post the documents. Had Revkin not announced the decision not to post the documents, it would not have caught my eye. Yet Revkin did announce an editorial decision, and provided reasons for the decision. In such a situation, I think it is perfectly reasonable to scrutinize the decision and rationale. It would be one thing to not post the documents because of space concerns or something else. Quite another not to post them for reasons that are over-inclusive or that would have applied to other documents the Times has posted in the past.

If there is a policy, is it new? It appears so. The NYT has posted illegally obtained documents on a wide range of subjects, and Revkin’s blog has itself posted documents of questionable legal provenance. While some e-mails appear to contain “private information” – that is, information that is of no real public interest – this would explain selective posting of documents, not a refusal to post all of the relevant documents.

Is this a Times policy, or simply Revkin’s own choice? I assumed the former because Dot Earth is hosted by the Times and is almost certainly subject to the paper’s editorial control at some level. Moreover, as I have already noted in the comments, when challenged by a reader about the decision not to post the documents, Revkin replied that “it’s a lawyer thing.” This clearly implies the decision was not his alone to make. From this, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is a Times policy of some sort, but I would welcome evidence to the contrary.

If, as some suggested, Revkin was simply running the question by the legal department before making a decision, perhaps because he just lacks authority to make such a decision unilaterally, there would have been no reason to declare that the documents “won’t be posted” on Dot Earth. It would have made more sense to provide a link to other sites (as he did, on both his blog and the on-line version of his news story) and say nothing more.

For the above reasons, I believe I drew fairly reasonable conclusions from Revkin’s initial post. None of the comments I’ve read present any contrary evidence or demonstrate any of my inferences are unreasonable. If presented with such evidence, however, I will note it in an update to the original post. Revkin has updated his post with the following statement:

The line above has been widely interpreted below and around the Web as implying that The Times is laying off looking into these documents even as the paper has been quick to publish or report on other documents of uncertain provenance. A quick scan of the original news story and these posts shows that we’re actively reporting on and citing these documents. And of course there’s more to come.

There are two issues here. Some have claimed, in the comments above and elsewhere, that the Times has failed to cover the story. As Revkin notes, that is clearly false. The issue in my original post, however, is the paper’s decision to post other documents of uncertain legal provenance while declaring it will not post these documents. That decision – not alleged selective reporting – prompted this post.

While I questioned the stated rationale, and its consistency with prior conduct, I never suggested that the NYT or Revkin was trying to conceal anything – and my original post notes that Revkin reported that the documents were widely available on other websites.

Several of the other attacks on Revkin in the comment thread are also unjustified. He has been quite upfront about his involvement in some of the e-mail exchanges. Further, he has encouraged discussion of the documents’ content on his blog. See, for instance, here and here.

One final note. As regular readers know, I believe that the balance of evidence suggests that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to atmospheric warming and that such warming is a serious (if sometimes overstated) public policy concern. Many skeptics – too many in my view – appear to have let their ideological preferences cloud their assessment of the science (a point I made here). Though I discount most apocalyptic scenarios, I believe there are ample reasons to adopt reasonable policies to reduce GHG emissions. Among other things, I support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, measures to accelerate energy-related innovation, and developed nation indemnification of more vulnerable, developing nations. At the same time, I believe many of those who advocate conventional climate change policies routinely exaggerate the relevant scientific evidence and are particularly intolerant of reasonable debate on climate change issues, going so far as to engage in character assassination of those who do not toe the line (see here). The CRU documents disclosed this week provide the latest evidence of such bad behavior – behavior that ultimately undercuts the case for a reasonable and responsible policy approach to the threat of climate change.

JHA

Are my eyes failing me or did your post simply restate your position, with my responses conveniently left out?

*looks again*

Yep. Well, its not as if listening to your excuses for an inexcusable situation was going to get anywhere anyway. Arguing with a fanatic is much like wrestling with a pig.

I meant real Belgians. I’ve had some absolutely amazing ones. Worth the price. And you can never go wrong with Delirium Noctornum.

But I agree with you on Stone’s and Dogfish- I used to (somewhat) enjoy the super-hopped IPAs. Now, not so much. Bitter and complex is not the same as enjoyable.

I have avoided American-brewed Belgian-style products lately — the alcohol-generated astringency is often too pronounced for me (disclosure: I don’t like Stone’s Arrogant Bastard or Dogfish’s 90-century IPA, either).

They have.

Ryan, again:
“none of you! have one link to a NYT article that prints even one of those emails.”

We point out that this is similar to other papers. We ask Ryan for an example of a paper that has correctly pursued the story- like, say, the WSJ. Still waiting. Ryan’s complaint was above- here was my response:

“Please show me (other than blogs, which have different policies) the many *articles* the Times has done recently linking to the original source documents.”

Ryan makes the bold prediction that the Times will not have an article with the emails. It is patiently explained that, well, of course they won’t, because they normally don’t. But hey- I love to be edumacated. So I ask for any (ANY!) counter-examples- either a recent article (as Ryan delineated) from the NY Times where they publish the source documents OR coverage from another prominent newspaper where they have done so.

Good thing I don’t hold my breath.

(PS – ArthurKirkland… I’ll have to try the MadElf…. been on a Belgian kick lately)

Next post — Arthur Kirkland: “’ll give [geokstr] $50 to lick that floor and another $50 to lick the restroom doorknob….”

I guess not. Have a nice evening, gentlemen.

Given that Revkin appears maybe a dozen times as author, recipient, or reference in these e-mails, I would think it would be a sensible, badly needed confidence-building gesture by the Times. At this point, it is not unreasonable to assume that, the more minor this scandal is, or can be made to seem, the better it is personally for Revkin, who was, it appears, a congenial correspondent with, and go-to disseminator for, but not a questioner or uncoverer of, the alleged wrongdoers.

ChrisTS: Ryan:Do you deliberately misspell ‘whether’ as ‘weather’ to be cute, or are your spelling skills in line with your reasoning skills?

What a devastating comeback. Do you practice being obtuse in front of a mirror?

Loki: Were you in my neighborhood, I would award a six-pack of excellent pumpkin and other holiday beers. Under the circumstances, I offer a tip: Mad Elf Ale.

Regarding a substantive matter: Is there evidence that Mrs. Palin does not consider “The Flintstones” to have been a documentary whose premise merits a place in the curriculum of public school students? If so, I will think better of her.

Do you deliberately misspell ‘whether’ as ‘weather’ to be cute, or are your spelling skills in line with your reasoning skills?

loki13: Please show me (other than blogs, which have different policies)

Really, this is like whack-a-mole. Smack down each argument, the troll just pops up in another hole, with another demand.

Erm, Loki… free hint: read the OP. If you had, you would have noted that the NYT item in question was a blog. Hence, requiring any counterexamples to not be a blog is… a very carefully rigged demand, indeed.

We shall have to see how this plays out, but right now I’d say the Times, via its newspaper reporter and blog writer Andrew Revkin, is fairly soft-pedalling the CRU document story, especially in comparison with the way the NYT and Revkin treated what they thought was a major scandal involving a pro-industry group, Global Climate Coalition, and its supposed suppression of the advice it got from its scientific advisors re AGW.

In that instance (see my first post above) there were accusatory headlines, front-page treatment, jumping to conclusions (later proved wrong, as the Times had to admit) and, in the blog, more of the above, and links to — and screen-shots of — the likely illegally obtained documents. Now its all quiet, discrete coverage, shrinking violet placement, bland, yawn-inducing headlines, and no connecting of dots.

And no documents. Oh, I forgot, that might disclose personal information of the people who deleted raw government data rather than produce it to other scientists who might see what “adjustments” they have made to it. Too bad that lady whose name, and picture in an evening gown, were splashed on the Times’ front page, because of some unfounded rumors linking her to McCain, didn’t work at CRU. Her privacy would have been well protected then.

As Michael Mann, e-mailed to Revkin a few weeks ago, assuring him he need not take criticism of CRU’s work by the scientist who had earlier pointed out the errors in Mann’s “hockey stick” seriously: “Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?” Revkin replied: “Thanks heaps.”