Author Of 'Worst NYT Story On Climate Ever' Outdoes Himself
New York Times global warming reporter Justin Gillis has officially reduced himself to the equivalent of a newsletter writer for climate pressure groups. Just when you thought his reporting could not 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.)
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.
- Warmists oft repeated claim of 97% 'consensus' Is Not What You Think: 'The 97% figure from survey comes from a whittling down of accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79'
- The Embarrassing Facts: 97% of Climate Scientists Equals Only 75 Anonymous Persons Who Answered Online Survey
- 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 journalisticaly 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 New York Times corrects the woeful reporting of Gillis?
See more "Right Views, Right Now"