The
Amazing Revkin of the
New York Times, that is, who at about 5:00 yesterday
posted a
reader response to the
whining of University of Chicago climatologist
Raymond Pierrehumbert, who also contributes to the alarmist
RealClimate blog. The responder is Geoff Smith, who is
mentioned a few times in the Climategate
emails. Smith challenges Pierrehumbert to overlook the
"cyberterrorism" (Waaah!) and instead question: the deletion of
emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests; the exclusion of
research that CRU scientists and their colleagues disagree with;
the "tricks" of playing with data to fit the scientists'
assumptions; and the desire to oust scientific journal editor who
published the works of their enemies.
So, good for Andy for posting those succinct thoughts by Mr.
Smith. But here are points deducted for Mr. Amazing:
1. He provides "balance" in his blog post by repeating verbatim
the latest defense attempt on the scandal by the University of
East Anglia. The spin includes, besides "out of context," blah,
blah:
CRU’s published research is, and has always been, fully
peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of
research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity
is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially
dangerous. CRU is one of a number of independent centers
working in this important area and reaching similar
conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned
debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are
willing to have their research and theories subjected to
scrutiny by the international scientific community.
"Peer-review" and "reasoned debate" were two issues that were
proven to be disregarded by Phil Jones and his henchmen. Why does
CRU want to surge even deeper into laughingstock territory?
2. Still waiting for Andy to do some of his own original
reporting, for actual stories in the newspaper rather than blog
posts, after
he said on Friday that repercussions "continue to unfold" and
"there's much more to explore." Does his curiosity extend only to
reader comments on his own blog posts?
3. He also posted yesterday a
regurgitation of the Times' position on global warming, which
is the same as the old position ("consensus!"). Perfect timing
Andy!
topics:
Global Warming, Environmentalism, New York Times, Climate Change
