As Roger Pielke Jr. rightly notes, this Times story about lost temperature data is "old news." It also quotes Roger from one of his old blog posts, without attributing it as such. This is not cool, because it looks like a fresh quote in the story. In a comment over at Roger's site, I mention that this is highly misleading. He agrees:
Advertisement
Yes, the entire story is kind of odd, as the "news" is 3 months old -- hence my post.
Nonetheless, it's fresh news to Andrew Sullivan, who is not aware how the Times story itself was "massaged." UPDATE 1: Jeez, as I was writing my post, Sullivan had already corrected himself and even added essential context from other sources. UPDATE 2: Sullivan now realizes that the Times story is manufacturd "news."
