New York Times Science Section Editors Don't Buy Your Egghead 'Science'

[belpejic]

http://gawker.com/5494898/new-york-times-science-section-editors-dont-buy-your-egghead-science

Unreal. The NYT can't go out of business fast enough. Krugman can find a job anywhere.

From the Gawker post:

"Two sources at the Science Times section of the New York Times have told me that a majority of the section's editorial staff doubts that human-induced global warming represents a serious threat to humanity."

[TreasonousBastard]

1. How many idiots does it take to screw up a Times interview? The...

question was about whether warming is a serious threat to to humanity, not what caused it.

Did anyone bother to define "serious," as in maybe the extinction of the human species, or is this just another bashing of the Times by more people who are on the never-ending quest of justifying why they can't be bothered to read it?

[belpejic]

3. Some of us read it quite closely, and don't like what we see.

Check out this piece: "N.Y. Times and Elisabeth Rosenthal Face Credibility Siege over Unbalanced Climate Coverage." You can find it at http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/09/new-york-times-elisabeth-rosenthal-unbalanced-climate-coverage-ipcc-pachauri/

[TreasonousBastard]

5. That one again...

didn't it get enough attention around here a month or so ago?

If one bothers to actually read the offending article, it's primarily about the small, but possibly deadly, shitstorm surrounding Pachauri and perceived conflicts of interest. Fact is, a shitstorm does exist, and reporting on it breaks no sacred rules of journalism-- unless you really, really, want to scrape around for anything to trash the Times on.

The article clearly acknowledges that most of the charges are silly and without merit, instituted by the rightwing warming deniers and dilletantes, and doesn't take sides one way or the other, but it does discuss just how independant the head of a leading committee should appear to be. It's what's called balance, and I don't blame anyone for not recognizing it since it's so rare these days.

[belpejic]

6. Ah yes, quoting Christopher Monckton represents balance.

Either Rosenthal was too lazy to find a credible critic or she simply couldn't find one. But, if I didn't know any better, I might think from this piece that Monckton's opinions have merit and aren't completely discredited in the community of "mainstream scientists."

[TreasonousBastard]

7. She wasn't quoting Monckton for his expertise, she was quoting him ...

because he's part of the shitstorm, ergo part of the news.

Before complaining about bias in reporting, learn to read without bias.

[tom_paine]

2. "Doubt is our product." Lesson here: PR works, psyops work, advertising works

The truth never had a chance. Science never had a chance against the PR and ad men.

Our Democratic-Republic never had a chance, either.

Wave bye-bye to another one of those woefully brief periods where the truth even had half a chance. But that era died long ago, so maybe it's too late to wave bye-bye.

[mikehiggins]

4. The science doesn't matter

We are facing a mammoth threat to Western Civilization and only the most foolish of the rich think that they will escape unscathed to, oh, let's say Uraguay.

Soylent Green is people.