Monday, November 23, 2009

No Smoke - No Fire

NYTimes: We Won't Publish "Statements That Were Never Intended For the Public Eye."

The security of the country never stopped the NY Times from leaking sensitive documents, but all of a sudden they're getting morals?

Move along, sheep. There's nothing to see here.


This is a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that anthropogenic global warming is, and always has been, a hoax.

The Chicken Littles are coming home to roost.


Right Truth said...

This could be a big story for the media, but it goes against their agenda so they don't want to touch it.

They are saying something like, " this doesn't mean that global warming isn't real" Oh brother.

Right Truth

Jan said...

How anyone thinks global warming is anything but a scam should not breed.

cube said...

Debbie: You are right. This could be a huge story, but, because it goes against their agenda, they will under report it and basically stress the data theft angle rather than the information included within the data.

It's just shameful that we no longer have a free press.

cube said...

jan: Let's hope they listen... but you know they won't.

WomanHonorThyself said...

hoax and a huge political agenda Cube..sick!

DaBlade said...

So you mean these "scientists" like Algore have been manipulating data to advance their communist agenda? This information was never intended for my public eye, which happens to be inexplicably sore since January.

Chuck said...

This is what happens when blogs don't include the entire quote. The NYT quote continued on to say "...unless the information embarasses George Bush."

Just another example of a right wing blogger trying to distort the intentions of the fringe media. ;)

Brooke said...

Cube, you are dead on. The press is controlled by those in power who stand to profit greatly by the global warming agenda.

dmarks said...

It's completely indefensible that scientific discussion should be treated like a trade secret.

Science thrives and advances due to the unflinching glare of scrutiny. If it has to be hidden like this, it's not really science, is it?