Author of 'Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever' Gets Even Worse
- Post 03 May 2012
- By Copy Editor
NYT Reporter Justin Gillis 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'
New York Times global warming reporter Justin Gillis ( This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. "> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) 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 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.” ...continues...
"Question all which is 'taught,' dig deeper, think clearly, respond profusely. Conformity is the antithesis of free thought and self-determination." -- Standard Pearls