2 thoughts on “NYTimes editorial: The Latest Attack on Climate Science”

  1. “The re-examination of previous conclusions, which Mr. Smith casts as nefarious, is merely an example of the scientific method at work.” ABSOLUTELY!!! Yet, they never say this, or even allow this concept to be mentioned, when a scientist wishes to discuss the possibility that global warming has been less. That is “settled science.”

  2. Let’s see; the lead author on this paper was DEFINITELY one of the Climatic Research Unit e-mail correspondents who had been exposed in the Climategate information dump (November 2009) as colluding in the corruption of peer review in order to prevent climate alarmists’ publications from coming under adversarial error-checking (which is what peer review is supposed to perform), and the editorial board of the New York Times thinks it’s odd that the Congress should want to secure all of the e-mail communications of this FULL-TIME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE and his fellow employees and collaborating contractors who had prepared this flatly strange new way of assessing surface temperatures with an obvious intent to “keep up the skeer” about catastrophic global climate change in the run-up to the Paris conference.

    Not that there’s the least little hint of a breath of scandal in Dr. Karl’s past history to warrant such scrutiny, no, siree….

    So the New York Times has given up on the principles of investigative journalism in precisely the same way that Dr. Karl and his associates have given up on professional integrity and scientific method, eh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.