We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The NYT drank the Kool-Aid years ago - for political, not scientific reasons. They know nothing about science or math (how much stats did Pinch take in college?), but they do know that they approve of any kind of authoritarianism of the elites and the experts as long as they and their Manhattan pals are the elites and experts.
I think that it is notable that they have finally admitted that Climategate exists. They have not quite gone so far as to admit that a debate about the science - or about the hysteria in which they have participated in avidly - exists.
It is important that scientists behave professionally and openly. It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.
They did not decide to mention that those emails go to the heart of all of the hysterical pronouncements of the IPCC. The CRU is the beating, seemingly duplicitous, heart of the entire movement.
Rather than being the cynics and skeptics that we expect of hard-nosed journalists, the NYT predictably drinks the Kool-Aid because it suits their authoritarian politics. Pathetic, limp - and unprofessional.
You know what bothers me most about this whole issue?
It's really not about science. It's about money - grants - big bucks for producing a desired outcome - ignoring reason and common sense. There does not seem to be any sort of limit to what these AGW believers will do to keep the money flowing.
There are more important social and financial issues to solve, but nothing but AGW seems to matter. All that money thrown down the AGW rat hole that could have been put to use creating construction jobs, fixing infrastructure, upgrading rail systems, the energy grid - it is frustrating.
The EMails are bad enough (showing overstepping from "I wish that guy would shut up" to the more sinister "I will shut him up").
But it is the "Harry" file that may be truly damning. Data sets with almost entirely "guess" figures, programs with wierd code, on and on. Any program or data set in this shape dealing with financial figures would probably end with the accountant who set up the data and defined the program specs going to jail.
Perhaps a somewhat bad analogy, since financials are meant to be specific/exact, while "climate" basically cannot be determinate. After all, modern "Chaos Theory" ("Butterfly Effect") stems from a meterologist's attempt at climate modelling (Lorenz).