The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.
Sounds like wishful thinking from the Times, especially at a time when more people believe in ghosts than global warming. The evidence is neither broad or deep (not that the Times article uses any facts or citations to buttress their argument); and the empty boast made by Times writer Andrew Revkin here is more self-reinforcement than reporting supported by facts.
Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to sinister interpretations...
...says the NYT, then goes on to do a contortionist's act in order to explain away the obvious, including ridiculous explanations by the scientists in question. Explanations that, of course, naturally go unquestioned.
This may not be the" Berlin Wall moment" when the climate change game comes tumbling down, instead, it is a severe crack, one that runs to the foundation of climate science itself. But the whole idea of "global warming" has now been severely weakened, making it vulnerable to collapse with just a few more blows.
And they will come, and most likely climate change will be destroyed by its own hand. Con men fall when they can't quit the game or when they go too far; it seems as if this bizarre left-wing branch of science is tottering on a precipice right now. Too full of pride to turn back, the fall is thus preordained, and is only a matter of time...
