Trend Of Normal Sea Ice Continues: ‘Arctic sea ice has been at or above normal for over a month now’
…
Prof. Pielke Jr. Rips Gillis: ‘The NYT Puts the Hit On…an extended hit piece on Lindzen…Since when is it appropriate for a major newspaper to attack an individual scientist?’
…
NYT reporter Justin Gillis: ‘Among the many climate skeptics who plaster the Internet with their writings, hardly any have serious credentials in the physics of the atmosphere’
…
Maybe NYT’s Gillis should investigate his fellow warmists: Flashback: Warmist William Schlesinger admits that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate!
…
Report: ‘New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal
…
Watch Now: Weather Channel Founder John Coleman’s Special Report on climate change and cosmic rays
…
Watch Now: Climate Depot’s Morano on Canadian TV with Charles Adler: ‘Warmist James Lovelock recants — Warmist movement cooling
…
Warmists’ throwing Lovelock under the bus! Alarmists Now Trying To Disown Their High Priest James Lovelock
…
Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark ‘is single-handedly blowing away the alleged ‘consensus’ on what drives the climate’
…
NYT Reporter Justin Gillis Does it Again! Author of ‘Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever’ — gets even worse!
Climate Depot Editorial – Serving as the Media’s Ombudsman
New York Times global warming reporter Justin Gillis ([email protected]) has officially reduced himself to the equivalent of a newsletter writer for climate pressure groups. Just when you thought his reporting cannot get any worse, he surprises us again. Gillis has previously been named the author of the ‘Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever?’
And he revealed why he produces ‘journalism colored with a heavy tinge of yellow’. (Click here for more on Gillis. Update: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Rips Gillis: “This is ‘advocacy journalism’ — it is not reporting”)
Gillis is a far worse reporter than the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin. Gillis may be worse than even AP’s Seth Borenstein or Bill Blakemore of ABC News!
Gillis latest article appeared on May 1 and claims that “Clouds are the ‘Last bastion’ of skeptics. Poor Gillis, the obvious question instead should be: Far from skeptics’ having any “last bastions” what is actually going well for warmist claims? See: Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check — Sub-Prime Science Exposé: ‘The claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing’ (For more on clouds, see Climate Depot’s round up of the latest cloud studies here)
Gillis’ citing of the alleged 97% of scientists agreeing about man-made climate fears in his article, is simply more nonsense.
97% of people quoting this figure are wrong
Seventy seven anonymous scientists asked questions almost all skeptics would agree with, make up a 97% consensus? Is Gillis intentionally trying to test the limits of his editors at the New York Times with his tripe?
Even more journalistically wacky is what one astute reader of Bishop Hill blog noted that Gillis added the phrase “serious risk” in relation to the 97% “consensus” silliness. Gillis made pulled the “serious risk” phrase from thin air. The reader at Bishop Hill accurately noted: “With that fabrication right at the start of the article I see no reason to read any further.”
In any respectable publication, this would be corrected, but who really cares if the …