Posted by
Catmman on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:06:47 AM
Andrew Revkin, global warming propagandist for the New York Times, appears to
still be covering for the 'Climategate' scandal. He is still reporting alarmist 'climate change' stories, while conveniently ignoring the scandal from the e-mails from East Anglia University, UK.
On Friday the New York Times‘ house global warming author Andy Revkin, reporting on the breaking (Revkin would prefer it be braking) global Climategate scandal, said repercussions “continue to unfold” and that “there’s much more to explore, of course.”
So what has Sherlock Andy, Warmth Detector focused on since then? Yesterday he noted a study on Antarctic ice loss that comes with “substantial uncertainty” and a “CO2toon,” and then he elevated from Reader Comments
at his original post the views of University of Chicago climatologist
Raymond Pierrehumbert, who bemoaned the CRU “cyber-attack.”
Mr. Revkin initially reported on the CRU incident last Friday, but has been silent since. His initial reporting also wasn't in an objective form, defending the CRU scientists for what occurred. Interestingly, Mr. Revkin is a subject himself in some of the e-mail exchanges - exchanges in which CRU scientist were speaking to an obvious supporter of their global warming alarmist viewpoint - while discussing avenues to suppress the 'skeptic' viewpoint in the press as a whole. As
Steve Milloy as JunkScience.com says, perhaps Mr. Revkin should recuse himself from any reporting on the CRU incident, being a party to it himsaelf
This however doesn't excuse the Times from doing
ANY reporting on the CRU incident, nor the continued alarmist reporting of Mr. Revkin on other 'climate' issues. Until such time as the full impact of the CRU document release and Mr. Revkin's part in it is know, Mr. Revkin should refrain from
ANY climate reporting. His obvious bias in favor of the warming viewpoint clouds any attempt at objective reporting and calls into question the source he uses for any of his climate stories