This Week in Conservative Media: 'ClimateGate' and a Media Cover-Up

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents by climate-change researchers were stolen from a server at a British university and circulated among global-warming skeptics last week, fanning the flames of the debate over global warming just ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen to hammer out an international climate accord. The scandal over the e-mails, some of which appear to show scientists trying to manipulate data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming and cover up data of declining temperatures, “keeps going–and growing,” writes Michelle Malkin. “There are calls on both sides of the pond for an investigation into data manipulation. A former British lord is demanding an independent inquiry.” The British lord she writes about is Lord Lawson, who is already a leading climate-change skeptic, but she lists off others who are going for the jugular.

Michael Goldfarb on the Weekly Standard blog assails The New York Times for not printing the news he and skeptics say is fit to print. Goldfarb writes that the Times wouldn’t publish the e-mails because “it might hinder the liberal agenda.” He adds: “Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case─ the documents were 'never intended for the public eye,' so The New York Times will take a pass.” He’s referring primarily to the writing of Andrew C. Revkin and grabs a quote from him about how the hacked e-mails won’t be posted in Revkin’s article. However, Golfarb doesn’t include Revkin’s immediate next sentence, which says, “But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.” In addition, Revkin updated his blog Monday to point out that quotes and inflammatory sections of the e-mails have appeared in the Times's reporting of the story and are being further investigated.

Chris Horner, in the National Review’s blog Planet Gore, compares the media’s response to ClimateGate to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “It turns out that the BBC has for over a month had the information constituting 'ClimateGate'— the latest one, anyway, and one that should serve as the global-warming industry’s 'Blue Dress Moment' when the media can no longer ignore the fraud we have been detailing for years to scribblers and producers largely uninterested in pulling the curtain back on this most politically desirable and useful of all story lines.” The media, he writes, sat on the story, and, conservative bloggers argue, continue to sit on it.