NYT : "All The Soviet Style Propaganda That We Can Print"

The NYT Puts the Hit On

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. Lindzen’s 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.

Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: The NYT Puts the Hit On

 

About these ads