I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.
Of course, he points out that in the story he wrote for the Times, bits and pieces of the emails are quoted.
And when I say “bits and pieces,” I mean “bits and pieces.”
Michael Goldfarb blasts Revkin’s rationale:
As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day — though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived “consensus” on global warming.
If Revkin’s position is that he will not reproduce publicly available emails simply because they put the authors — whom he happens to agree with and whose increasingly questionable agenda he happens to support — in a bad light, than he ought to consider another career.
Why should he? He works for the New York Times, where suppressing truths inconvenient to the liberal agenda – and publishing distorted (and in all too many cases classified) “facts” they believe will aid it – is a job requirement.