A week of surprises from the New York Times.

First, there was the confession from the public editor that they screwed up the ACORN coverage because they acted like jackasses.

Now, comes word that the New York Times is revealing that the Obama EPA appears to have stalled a report that made climate change conclusions look bad when the President was going for Cap and Trade.

Where did we hear this before? Why, right here at the Big G! Back in late June, the Czar covered this story.

The New York Times screws up by decidedly taking the side of the pro-climate change folks: instead of asking where the outrage is that the Obama administration is acting exactly like the anti-science, pro-suppression Bush administration, the Times elects to go on an ad hominem, because the report’s author, Alan Carlin, is an economist, not a real scientist, and that some real scientists disagree with him.

One: Carlin did not attempt to write a peer-reviewed refutation for Nature. He merely questioned the statistics of the original data, which an economist (or even a freshman psych major) is qualified to do.

Two: Despite this, he was indeed routed away as shown by internal emails. The Czar believes that Al McGartland (the EPA department director) responded professionally and appropriately. However, it is also clear that McGartland had no intention of discussing the report at a later date. That constitutes suppression.

Three: Not all scientists have disagreed with Carlin. Indeed, a body of scientists are gaining recognition for annihilating the research that Carlin was also questioning. That could be a great news story for the Times if they wanted to spent a few seconds looking into it.

Four: The New York Times fails to acknowledge the suppression of his report. Mr. Carlin is not a climatologist—he is an economist who has been with the EPA for decades, and his job is to identify economic risks to the country with EPA programs. So when a guy with decades of experience in preventing embarrassingly bad ventures says that the EPA is embarking on an embarrassingly bad venture, that becomes the story.

Five: Clark Hoyt, call your office. This is one of those items you believe your newspaper could do a better job covering.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.