A Free And Independent Press?

Not when it comes to "saving the planet" it seems. Notice this from New York Times science "reporter" Andy Revkin: Private Climate Conversations on Display

A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon....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.

Oh, the poor dears! Heaven forbid if their little egos get bruised.

Of course, we should expect nothing more from Revkin whom seems to be so chummy with the AGW crowd that he should really be considered a lackey and not a "journalist" at all. For example there is this email from Revkin:

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, broccoli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Andrew Revkin
Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this
singer/christy/etc effort

hi,
for moment please do not distribute or discuss.
trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction
with this at all.

ANDREW C. REVKIN
_*The New York Times / Environment / Dot
Earth Blog

So Revkin needs a "scrub" of a skeptical paper, eh? And whatever this "scrub" is, it can only be provided by the folks at CRU and their good friends.

What is the difference between this and Revkin simply taking marching orders from these people? Probably just semantics.

After all, if this wasn't the case, why should Revkin be concerned if Singer and Christy could "get any traction with this at all"? One would think he was concerned about keeping up plausible deniability or something.