NYT vs CRU and Leaked EMails.

I read the comments of the Public Editor (that would be Ombudsman to the rest of us) of The New York Times in his article, "Stolen E-Mail, Stoking the Climate Debate".  I think the Headline Writers for the NYT poison the well with the work "stolen", but it is their newspaper and not ours.

I thought it was OK.  I did think the failure of Mr Clark Hoyt to address the outrageous actions of CRU scientists in not only ignoring requests under the British Freedom of Information Act, but also destroying data showed that Mr Hoyt either isn't really engaged in the issue or is trying to soft-pedal what should be a three-alarm story.  I will send him an EMail.

Then I read (hat tip to Instapundit the Ann Althouse post on the same item.  She was upset, but tame compared to some of the commenters.  I will leave reading the comments to you.  Here is Professor Althouse's concluding paragraph:

They just interview scientists and don't actually try to understand the science?  Even when there is evidence of deceit, they don't pry themselves away from their dependence on interviews with scientists?  Drastic, mindboggingly expensive policy changes are proposed based on this science, making this potentially the biggest fraud in history.  Why isn't the NYT on fire trying to figure everything out and helping us readers see into the controversy?  The best we can do is to give our readers a sense of what the prevailing scientific view is...  Really?  That's the best you can do?  Just a "sense" of what "prevails" among scientists?  Then the best you can do is to be part of the very problem you ought to be studying:  The scientists' efforts to create an impression of consensus.

Regards  —  Cliff