And from :
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog
The NYT Puts the Hit On
"A cartoonist adds to the Alarmist attack":
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. Lindzens 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.
Two years ago the Boston Globe did a very similar story on Lindzen for its Lifestyle section, which covered the same ground, but as a profile rather than as hit job.
Whatever one thinks about the climate change debate or Richard Lindzen, is it a good idea for the New York Times to engage in an over-the-top attack on a member of the National Academy of Sciences? Journalists, what do you think?
With Anthony Watt's coming up with own :
Catastrophically cartooned
Posted on May 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Josh writes:
There is a lovely cartoon over at Roger Pielke Jrs which, delightful though it is, helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics. It isnt. The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic, and specifically that singularly caused by CO2, Global Warming and the alarmist hype surrounding the lack of science and the punitive energy policies that have been pursued in response to a non problem.
So I decided to do my own version of the cartoon with apologies to the other cartoonist.
Cartoons by Josh