Climate Daggers
The seething anger directed at Andy Revkin (and the NYT) from climate scientists and climate advocates continues to amaze me. On Saturday, Eric Steig at Real Climate vented through gritted teeth. On Sunday, Joe Romm got back in touch with his old self and let it rip.
That same day, we saw the, ahem, unauthorized disclosure of an email from Michael Schlesinger, who warned Revkin that he was in danger of being shunned by climate scientists for his “gutter reportage.”
One of Andy’s supposed transgressions is that he’s been quoting too much from Pielke Sr. and Pielke Jr. of late. So if that’s really it, which is quite an incredible charge, then I can only imagine the paroxysms triggered by today’s NYT story co-authored by Andy. The piece not only dares to again reference a Pielke, but it also dares to suggest that “climateagate” may complicate the Copenhagen talks. I have a feeling that this story will gall some especially for its timing–it comes on the summit’s opening day.
LOL –
I suspect you may have missed this little piece – http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/7/another-journalist-threatened.html
As I said (very) recently here – it’s about CONTROL.
And while this may be news to many people, I worked with scientists who were caught in the same trap – toe the Party line or lose your job and career. It happens in a lot of occupations, but the GW gang has been particularly vicious about it. This is one of the many reasons I question consensus.
Andy seems to be acquiring your habit of not letting facts stand in the way of a good narrative, Keith. This jumped out at me:
“Yet the intensity of the response highlights that skepticism about global warming persists, even as many scientists thought the battle over the reality of human-driven climate change was finally behind them.”
Name one.