FINALLY! NEW YORK TIMES COVERS CLIMATEGATE

Ah, that MSM continues to be behind the curve. It took 'em a while but it looks like the MSM may actually be starting to relent and is once again being dragged - kicking and screaming - to stories that they should have been covering ahead of those pesky bloggers in pajamas. Some may have a problem with this piece by John Tierney at the NYT based on his giving the benefit of the doubt to Michael Mann, the professor from Penn State responsible for the now debunked "hockey stick" chart that shows skyrocketing temperatures at the end of the 20th century.

However, to Tierney's credit, that part didn't come until much later in his article. The first part of the article consisted of a decently objective critique of the scientists implicated in Climategate and the frantically frustrated attempts of "Harry" to get it to all make sense.

The fact that the deference to Mann didn't occur at the beginning is a major step for the Times. Actually, Tierney linked to the "Hide the Decline" video before appearing to side with Mann's contentions by outwardly and prematurely admitting to taking Mann "at his word" despite what facts seem to indicate. For the record, the "Hide the Decline" video was posted on little old Barrack's blog BEFORE Thanksgiving.

Tierney actually goes beyond the incriminating emails and tackles the Harry_Read_Me files which are expected to shine an even brighter light on this scandal. Harry's efforts are getting increased attention. He gives the appearance of someone tasked with putting a square peg into a round hole without being told to stop.

For example, take a look at the first few paragraphs from Tierney's piece:

If you have not delved into the thousands of e-mail messages and files hacked from the computers of British climate scientists, let me give you the closest thing to an executive summary. It is taken from a file slugged HARRY_READ_ME, which is the log of a computer expert’s long struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. Here is Harry’s summary of the situation:

Aarrggghhh!

That cry, in various spellings, is a motif throughout the log as Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ...”

Newspaper writing 101 states that the most powerful words come at the beginning. I know it requires reading between the proverbial lines but based on how Tierney started his article - and continued for some time - it's not far fetched to imagine climate change de-bunkers pumping their fists for several paragraphs.

Another example:

When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.

Again, Tierney seems to get it and is pushing the right buttons. It's refreshing to see this coming from the likes of the New York Times, albeit a bit late.

Be sure to read the WHOLE THING. If you can overlook the apparent attempt by Tierney to soften the blow to Mann, it's actually quite good. Also remember, there are trillions of dollars at stake here. The powers that be definitely don't want to lose the New York Times - I know, hard to believe - but I think it's important to look at how Tierney approached writing this article rather than focusing on what he wrote about Mann several paragraphs in. On the whole, this piece is more damaging to the likes of Al Gore and the Climate change fraud-meisters than it is helpful to the folks at the CRU.

When it comes to the MSM, Climategate is moving at the speed of a glacier but this article in the NYT is equivalent to a sudden shift. Let's take our victories where we can get 'em and not hope for more than what we've come to expect. In my view, Tierney's piece gave us more than we should have expected.

drip, drip drip........that's the sound of the Climate change glacier.

Patience is necessary when wanting something this massive to pick up steam.

h/t to BG