Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The poisonous influence of GuardianEco | Main | Harrabin: Climategate inquiries "inadequate" »

Hypocrite, moi?

Much amusement is being had over the New York Times' enthusiastic reaction to the latest Wikileaks revelations noting the sharp contrast to their refusal to publish the Climategate emails because they were "acquired illegally". As the PowerLine blog puts it,

Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. Perhaps something other than principle and logic were at work then, or are at work now.

To his credit, Andy Revkin has tweeted the Power Line critique, but regrettably offers no explanation for the inconsistency.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (11)

And those of us with longer memories still recall the NYT's equally hypocritical and even more enthusiastic publication of the "illegally obtained" Pentagon Papers.

Plus ça change...

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterMique

Informed opinion believes Assange is a CIA front.

Who watches WikiLeaks?

But the group ran in to problems even before WikiLeaks was launched. The organisers approached John Young, who ran another website that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the WikiLeaks website in his name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away.

"WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg.

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered Commentere smith

Interesting to contrast the BBC's pant-wetting glee over Wikileaks with it's own secretive attitude to FOI and leaks; see Balen report, salary details, junkets, pensions etc.

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

The verb ‘to leak’ has a strange irregular declension that never applies to the first person:

I reveal
You leak
He hacks
We expose
You (pl.) misinform
They obtain illegally


Nov 29, 2010 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

The hypocrisy of some of the MSM is astonishing. Witness the differnce in the way Climategate and WikiLeaksgate were/are being handled by some papers - The Guardian's gloating is particularly irritating.

Nov 29, 2010 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobB

Talking of amusement, I had to smile yesterday morning, when a weather station site in Wales, new to the Met Office’s sources, had inconveniently recorded -17deg.C. This would have upset the MO’s record books, but they wriggled out of it on the pretext that the site had no history and therefore couldn’t be included!

Unfortunately, someone else in Wales had recorded -18deg in their woodshed on the same night, and cheerfully described the experience on national radio...

Nov 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Hey Guys, the UN-scammers are all painting Cancun as a failure. The reality is they are going to use sleight-of-hand to pull something through. So watch out. The scammers have too much invested in the carbon swindle to pull out now. EU would crash overnight.

Nov 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterInsider

It is preposterous to believe that pillars of the Anglo American establishment like the New York Times or Guardian would publish military secrets from an FBI fugitive without permission. When Assange was on the run, he hid by convening a press conference in front of the world's media in London. You couldn't get away with a story line like that in a Batman comic or a Hollywood movie.

Nov 29, 2010 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered Commentere smith

@ James P
Last night was the coldest November night in Stockholm for 45 years, despite 2010 being 'warmest year ever'. Given the cold in February and now, the summer must have been 'scorchio'.

Nov 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobbo

James P & Robbo

The other night I watched a show on the tele (or TV as it is known in the US) about the "Little Ice Age" that ran from 1300 to 1850. It all started in a dozen or so years. Today, I have the coldest November 29 recorded in the California Sierra foothills. Yesterday, it was the coldest in 45 years. This past summer, claimed to be the warmest ever, was so cold that tomatoes took an extra month to ripen. Yesterday, I shoveled my driveway for the second time and it is still not December. It is much more like mid January already.

Perhaps we are going into a new Little Ice Age. I remember the panic people had 45 years ago when they ecoloons actually wanted to spread coal dust on the Arctic ice caps to "warm the world".

Maybe we should just learn to live with the variability. Me, I got my thick Irish knit sweaters out of mothballs two weeks ago and have a cat sleeping on my lap as I read these blogs.

Nov 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Let's get real. There is money, lots of it, in saying that AGW is occurring and getting stronger. There is no money in accepting the scientific facts, in fact there will be many personal losses. Only time can kill this nonsense.

Nov 29, 2010 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterferdinand

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>