New York Times spins climate even as house of cards collapses

The climate scandal the whole world's covering -- hacked emails reveal true nature of climate change debate -- gets interesting treatment in the New York Times. I'm glad I read the NYT story first because I knew it would downplay the damage done to the doomsday crowd.

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

Rather than read the information themselves, and then making an assessment, the Times hides behind the "skeptics."

Here's a sample of what is contained in the emails, via Air Vent:

K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

More:

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.

Here's an email posted at Climate Audit:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Hide the decline. These emails show that blaming "climate change" on human activity instead of natural cycles is a socialist ploy to halt industrialization. I understood the nature of this left-wing swindle when Miles O'Brien of CNN said that the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was realistic and would likely occur in 15 years if we didn't take drastic action. (And newspaper reporters think CNN is centrist.)

As for the New York Times calling "skeptics," I'd like to point out that this label is offensive. It's too serious. If somebody came to me and explained, in seriousness, that the Easter Bunny is real, and I replied that I don't believe it, I would be put off if I was derisively called a skeptic. One can't be a skeptic of something absurd, though the word may be technically accurate.