The NYT Puts the Hit On
The New York Times has an article today ostensibly about clouds but which is really an extended hit piece on Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, member of the US National Academy of Sciences and well known climate skeptic.
Below I have excerpted a laundry list of phrases in the article used to describe Lindzen:
- Leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day
- Has drawn withering criticism
- Errors in his papers
- Proof is lacking
- Obliged [politicians] by assuring them that they are running no risks by refusing to enact emissions limits
- Contrarian scientist
- Gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction
- Wrong science
- [Not] intellectually honest at all
- Contrarian scientist
- Methods he had used to analyze data were flawed
- His theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts
- Most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited
- He routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers
- Dr. Lindzen offers little hint of how thin the published science supporting his position is
- He makes what many colleagues see as an unwarranted leap of logic
- Deeply unprofessional and irresponsible
This is “advocacy journalism” — it is not reporting, as there is absolutely no news in the piece.
Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: The NYT Puts the Hit On
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
Didn’t there used to be an old TV show called “Dopey Gillis” or something? I think the NYT editors are nostalgic for journalism that reminds them of old TV comedy. As the NYT gets funnier and funier in the nonsense they print about climate, I began using this handy digital laugh track sample. It realy works nicely with the NYT’s “Dopey Gillis” climate stuff. 😉
http://www.freesound.org/people/lonemonk/sounds/72842/
I personally do not know enough to comment on whether Lindzen’s scientific model is valid. I do know enough to conclude that the forecasts of accelerating warming, Arctic melting and sea level rise promoted by the “97% consensus” have totally failed to materialize. It is therefore high time to review contrary scientific points of view, rather than stay fixated on failed “consensus” science that is obviously flawed.
I wouldn’t go to the NYT to get my AGW info, or my medical info, or for that matter, my political info.
Two errors in the article are immediately apparent:
Paragraph 1: “small group of scientific dissenters.” Self-explanatory.
Paragraph 2: “polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.” Really? The author can’t even get his misinformation straight. I am aware of only one poll that had the number “97%” in it. Question #2 in this nonscientific poll from 2009 asked “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Seventy-five of 77 (97.4%) of a nonrandomized cherry-picked sample answered “yes” to this poorly-written question. “Significant” and “human activity” are not defined. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The question did not ask if global warming is a “serious risk.”
I didn’t bother reading further.
Why do I get an email from WordPress to subscribe to every post I write a comment on. The old website wasn’t like this. Anything I can to to sign up once and be done with it?
Is there a check box below the comment box?
Yes, I check the box “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.”
The difference is, I have to “subscribe” through WordPress for each thread separately, which was not the case for your old website.
John:
I subscribed to WordPress and any time I am on a WordPress site it gives me a list of any one that replied to me.
I actually get a wordpress task bar that has a Follow for each post.
If I am at WUWT and someone replies to a comment here, it appears on the task bar.
I do not even have to click the follow up box
Right, the guy from MIT is a crank but the dweeb from Penn State, he’s a genius !
Sheesh cogdis anyone ?