Environment

NYT Climate Change Article, Reporter Blasted by ‘Dissenters’ — Here‘s Why They’re Upset

Let’s start this story here: there are “warmists” and “alarmists” or there are “dissenters” and “skeptics.” Warmists/alarmists are terms used by those who don’t believe global warming is man-made — and they use the terms to describe groups who do and advocate for action to curb it. Dissenters/skeptics are terms used by those who believe there is enough scientific evidence to support man-made climate change — and they use the terms to describe others who are in “denial.”

Now that we have those definitions out of the way, here’s the latest in the warmist vs. dissenter battle. A story published on Monday in the New York Times has some — who would most likely be labeled as dissenters by warmists — lambasting its publication and the author as being “profoundly dishonest.”

The topic of Justin Gillis’ article in the Times is about a group of “scientific dissenters” who believe the effect of clouds on the environment is relatively uncertain in that they could “shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise.” Gillis includes information by MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen who is described as leading the charge on this theory. He also reports the flip side: that the clouds won’t change enough to reverse the effects of global warming.

Here‘s the crux of Lindzen’s theory as reported by Gillis:

Dr. Lindzen says the earth is not especially sensitive to greenhouse gases because clouds will react to counter them, and he believes he has identified a specific mechanism. On a warming planet, he says, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase.

With that hopeful prognosis, Gillis points out that some politicians and some organizations like the free-market think-tank The Heartland Institute have welcomed this theory. There is opposition though, including scientific evidence and opinions by climate experts, that clouds will not in fact have a mitigating effect o

Was a New York Times Article on Clouds and Climate Change Profoundly Dishonest as Some Claim?

New York Times graphic describing how clouds can trap and release heat. Data derived from NASA. (Image: New York Times/Jonathan Corum)

n global warming and that computer analysis in climate change research needs to be improved to understand just how clouds will influence the climate.

Much of Gillis’ rhetoric throughout the article though is what has some dissenter websites riled. For example, NewsBusters, a product of the conservative Media Research Center, writes “New York Times’s confessed climate activist (and journalist) Justin Gillis made Tuesday’s front page with a 2,500-word story on what he called the last line of defense for climate change skeptics.” The organization culls through Gillis’ article emphasizing some of the language it took issue with. Here are a few examples (emphasis added by NewsBusters):

  • For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.
  • However, politicians looking for reasons not to tackle climate change have embraced Dr. Lindzen and other skeptics, elevating their role in the public debate.
  • Among the many climate skeptics who plaster the Internet with their writings, hardly any have serious credentials in the physics of the atmosphere. But a handful of contrarian scientists do. The most influential is Dr. Lindzen.
  • Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

NewsBusters writes that Gillis in his article is “nodding” in agreement with “scare-mongering scientists.”

Steve Milloy on the blog Junk Science, which states we should be “more worried about the intellectual climate,” writes the attacks against Lindzen are unfair given he is “undertaking honest study on the role of clouds in climate.” One of the scientists criticizing Lindzen was University of Washington researcher Christopher Bretherton. Milloy writes Bretherton has “a lot of nerve” for questioning Lindzen’s “intellecutal honesty.” He points out:

About 10 years ago or so, Bretherton pitched the National Science Foundation to form a Climate Process Team (CPT) to research clouds/climate, even highlighting the great uncertainty in cloud understanding.

[...]

NSF did indeed fund a CPT project — so far to the tune of about $390 million — though its not clear how much of this Bretherton received.

So Chris, is it “intellectually honest” to sell cloud uncertainties and unknowns to the National Science Foundation and then attack another researcher for doing un-taxpayer funded work on the same issue?

Another dissenting voice is Climate Depot, run by the conservative non-profit Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). It issued a lengthy post attacking Gillis himself, stating he had “officially reduced himself to the equivalent of a newsletter writer for climate pressure groups” with his latest article.

Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, also questions Gillis’ motives. He put together a “laundry list” of the terms used by Gillis to describe Lindzen, calling the piece overall “advocacy journalism.” Pielke asks his readers, “Whatever one thinks about the climate change debate or Richard Lindzen, is it a good idea for the New York Times to engage in an over-the-top attack on a member of the National Academy of Sciences? Journalists, what do you think?”

Some commenters support Pielke’s thoughts, but he was met by another calling his post “melodramatic” and accusing him of not looking entirely at the facts in some of the “laundry list” he pulled out for the article. But here’s how Pielke responds to that:

Thanks for your comment, let me try to make this simple … for the purposes of our discussion, let me grant the truth of each one of the statements I excerpted. That is not the point of this post.

[...]

Since when is it appropriate for a major newspaper to attack an individual scientist? Where is the news here?

Can you give me another example of a major newspaper doing anything similar?

Sure, you expect this sort of thing from Climate Progress or Real Climate, but seriously, the NYT?

It should be noted that Gillis’ article appears on  the main Science section of the New York Times. It is part of the Times’ “Temperature Rising” series, which ”focus on the central arguments in the climate debate and examine the evidence for global warming and its consequences.” It does not seem to be attributed as a blog or an opinion, but do you think it should have been? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Read all of Gillis’ “Cloud’s Effect on Climate Change Is the Last Bastion for Dissenters” here. View more visual information about how clouds can influence the climate from the Times here.

Comments (50)

1 2
  • Beckofile
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:07am

    It’s a con job built on political consensus parading around as science.

    Report Post » Beckofile  
    • guntotinsquaw
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:17am

      Beckofile..I’m with you on this one..
      There was a time when science said, if I put a plow to the ground rain would follow. A time when the atom was the smallest particle. Science thought a heavy object fell faster than a lighter object. That DNA was not important and that germs couldn’t be spread by touch. Earth was the center of the universe, and the liver circulated blood (the heart wasn’t important). There was a time when light was fastest thing in the universe. Science now says I affect the world, Yet I know I can’t the stop wind, control water, prevent earthquakes or make the sun rise.

      Report Post » guntotinsquaw  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:59pm

      The eart is the center of the universe from our perspective as it’s infinitely surrounds us. All those liberal douches that say preception is reality must this they’re each the center of the universe to place it in an even small quadrant.

      Report Post »  
    • Leader1776
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 3:05pm

      The climate change hypothesis is flawed from the start. What is the outcome/data set/condition that their hypothesis states will disprove the hypothesis? The AGW proponents have never stated it. What they DID do is change their hypothesis when no evidence of warming was found. Now it is climate change instead of warming. Huh?? This is science? Not any scientific method I ever learned.

      So consider the beauty of their bogus claims: no matter what weather/climate we experience it is due to man-made greenhouse gases. Priceless ………….. and evidence climatologists were those not able to get into schools of engineering. Then partner with eco-fascists and you have a lucrative career.

      Report Post » Leader1776  
  • crazyoz
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:06am

    The New York Slime has become a liberal news sheet. Next step you will see it in the grocery isle.

    Report Post »  
    • G-WHIZ
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:26pm

      Most Lib-papers are trash…and all papers wich used to be called trash…are now actually giving real news! A shoe-shiner became a world-wide sensation with all [real] breaking-news stories…Drudge. He was sick-and-tired of all the “breaking” stories being weeks to a year old! So, he put down his pollish-and brush and actually did something!! Only in the U.S.A.!

      Report Post »  
  • Beckofile
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:04am

    A new science called. Conscience

    Report Post » Beckofile  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:53am

    I think when we were kids we called it ……… Springtime !

    Report Post »  
  • Glock31
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:29am

    there is no man made global warming

    Report Post » Glock31  
    • G-WHIZ
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:28pm

      Oh yes there is …You blow a phartt…and your pants get a little warmer…LOLOL!!

      Report Post »  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:17am

    It’s a scam to keep the cash moving from right to left….. Just like the re education industry….. The racism industry …..and the lazy public union industry….. And the Green industry…..they are moving the cash from. Right to left, by any means necessary, and whoever has the most cash, WINS, wake up people !!!!!

    Report Post »  
  • COFemale
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:13am

    The best predictor of false data is how many Democrats are trying to sell you something to offset them.

    The Climate has changed since day one, it goes up, it comes down. Clouds come in, clouds move out. It is a cycle. Sometimes you get hotter dryer days than others. It is not ALL man made. Volcanic eruptions cause the biggest changes, that is fact. I am not saying that car exhaust does not contribute some, but not to the degree Democrats say.

    Report Post » COFemale  
  • makeemstop
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:57am

    You all are just a bunch of skeptics trying to stifle the lies of the Liberal Left trying to control our lives. Good for you…

    Report Post » makeemstop  
  • ThePostman
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:54am

    The people who believe in global warming are the same people who believe Obama has made us a better people. Because he’s black. Even though he isn’t.

    Report Post »  
  • contkmi
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:46am

    First, is it any wonder why NYT’s subscriptions and revenue are down? That’s hardly investigative journalism when your story is written to support your version of facts.

    Second, since when is anything scientific based on consensus? I thought it was based on trial and observable, repeatable conclusions. Call me silly. Guess that’s what a non-public school education does for one…

    Report Post » contkmi  
  • Athinkerinaseaoflibs
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:42am

    The whole global warming (GW) thing is maddening to a person with any scientific training what so ever. The validity of science is determined by facts not by the number votes if it is true or not. Scientists do not use the applause meter to determine facts. May I refer you to Galileo and other “heretics” who were correct?
    I have at times in my career I have been involved with people who are believers in GW. There are technologies that make sense AND are viewed by the GW people as good. When they would find that I was skeptical of the “evidence” that supports GW, they considered me a traitor.
    Computer models are not evidence; they are calculations subject to verification. It is also expected that all computer models be subjected to sensitivity tests that determine what invalidate the models. It would appear that most of the GW calculations have not been subjected to this treatment. If they have been tested for parametric sensitivity, the results were not published. Any scientific paper MUST be viewed with a skeptical eye. That is what scientists should do.

    Report Post »  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:53am

      Consensus does no make good science but in the public understanding of science, consensus should rule the day. The general public does not have the domain specific knowledge in order to hold a valid position against the consensus understanding.

      Report Post »  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:33am

      the general public learned the basis of science is to question everything…we all even in public school learned this by 6th grade. I would say that those that blindly accept MMGW should remember back to grade school and question why few scientists question the “consensus”

      Report Post »  
    • Athinkerinaseaoflibs
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:37am

      wvernon1981
      The end goal of the GW people’s agenda is to fundamentally change the economic system in the country. We presently have an economy where the success is nearly completely tied to energy use and availability. If the general population is unable to grasp the issues, then the effort is to change that, not shout louder. The issue is that important. I have faith that the people are not that stupid that they can’t understand the issues.
      Within the scientific community on this issue, the GW people are treating scientist as the general public as well. The papers that I have read, while they are replete with conclusions, they often are sketchy with evidence and typically violate many of the expectations that a true scientific paper require. At times I could come to no other conclusion than the paper was simply an opinion paper published under the guise of a scientific paper.

      Report Post »  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:47am

      Vernon-
      the problem here is the“consensus” was a purchased one. They locked on to one possibility that they could profit from and block and deride other theories as to the cause and effect. Basic science, heat rises, and gases dissipate and break down. Change is the ultimate law of nature.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
  • Rightallalong
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:41am

    Just follow the money. Mr. ‘I Invented the Internet’ ALGORE (also known as ManBearPig) positioned himself to make billions out of the carbon credit exchange … he also flys around in private jets, own a large home way below his predicted sea-level rise and a mansion/estate that uses more energy than 10 normal family homes.

    There is also the matter of the leaked emails from the UK research http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

    NASA backs away from climate models http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/07/28/nasa-exposed-global-warming-hoax/

    Report Post » Rightallalong  
  • rf_in_va
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:39am

    It never ceases to amaze me that the World’s population does not seem to understand that we are nearing the end of a glacial cycle that lasts around 10,000 years. Of course we will have warming until the cycle goes the other way again. And to presume that humans (with their cars and cows) have the power to change the climate is the height of self importance. This whole global warming thing was nothing but a ploy by those who want to create a new world order to control all of our lives by creating a rallying point to anchor their goals to. See https://picasaweb.google.com/rwf0701/Politics

    Report Post » rf_in_va  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:59am

      First, we know that carbon dioxide is a green house gas. We’ve known that for over a century. It’s basic science. Second, we know how much atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over the past century. We therefore need to determine the extent of mitigating and exacerbating factors on warming. For example, how much sulphur dioxide pollution from coal burning power plants has mitigated the warmin effect or how much decreasing polar ice caps reduce reflected energy into space, exacerbating warming.

      Report Post »  
  • rich43068
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:38am

    99.72% of the greenhouse effect is due totally to natural causes. Even if we wanted and there was some scientific reason to do so, any attempt to remove all human activity from the equation (least wise CO2 with its 0.117%), would have little impact on climate change or AGW.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

    Report Post »  
    • exegete
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:32am

      I add to that that the slash and burn activity of primitive humans has been replaced by an agriculture that keeps massive areas green, removing CO2 from the air. Humans use tremendous amounts of wood in buildings, locking up carbon even as more trees are planted so we can continue doing it. The lage flatulent cow populations can only be a partial replacement for the massive herds of methane producing ungulants that once roamed the earth. Firefighters today keep enormous burnoffs which once were frequent, from happening. And people are the problem!?

      Report Post »  
  • DavidNutzuki
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:32am

    Occupy does not support climate change. (bank-funded carbon trading markets)
    Canada voted in a climate change denying prime minister to a majority.
    Gore is the most ridiculed man in America next to Bush.
    Canada’s Al Gore; David Suzuki has stepped down from the foundation that bears his name.
    Nasa’s scientists have all but revolted against climate blame policy.
    Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two state of the unions.
    The world of science watches dozens of climate change protesters. Exaggeration perhaps?
    *And most of all, 26 more years of fear mongering the CO2 exaggeration will leave neocons in power forever.*

    Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:40am

      “Climate Change” happens. Man- Made Global Warming is a Liberal, Progressive, Socialist ,Redistributionist, DEMOCRAT ” hoax.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • oicu814me2
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:30am

    i think the earth could use some globle warming. plants grow bigger and faster in warmer weather. there would be more area to grow food. the temp may have risen a little in the last 100 years but i think it has more to do with that big fire in the sky called the sun.

    Report Post »  
  • PATRIOTMAMA
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:29am

    OK Novel Idea here: How about we all take a breath and admit we don’t know EVERYTHING there is to know. The arrogance of people to be able to claim that MOST of the scientific community is consensus with global warming is outlandish. Since the importance of “science” and “reasoning” came into “power” (seriously) and started with this idea that it was able to dissern absolute truth better than religion or common sense and that uneducated people just simply didn’t know as much as they the arrogance in scientist and the so-called educated elite has been atromonical!!! They say coffee is bad, then they say it’s good, scientists ridiculed people for believing the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, scientists KNEW that babies were blank slates at birth and couldn’t learn anything before then. Look the more scientists learn, they more it is made clear that they don’t really know squat. The problem is that they don’t want to admit that because then it leaves room for God to come into the picture. Which then in turn reminds them that they themselves aren’t HIM. Something they just cannot handle. We all need to admit we just have no idea if what we’re doing is affecting the climate in adverse way or not. We need to reach for being good stewards but also beign humble enough to admit WE really don’t know anything and open it up for HONEST not arrogant debate.

    Report Post »  
  • term limits for congress
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:28am

    Wow. Apparently my coffee has not kicked-in yet. Just blah blah blah to me. Written in circles. Might as well have been written in Japanese.

    Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 9:18am

      Compare the climate model of the earth to an energy audit of your house.

      The atmosphere is equivalent to your house walls. The clouds are equivalent to drapes/curtains & blinds or eaves. Scientists are arguing about the latter.

      Scientists are wrong often enough that it counts.
      Social Scientists were wrong about romantic love in the 1980s. The Blaze ran a story ab out how 2% of scientists lie about their data & results. I have seen to many pictures of weather stations near heat sources like next to airport taxi ways or diesel generator exhausts.

      And Scientists love their money (grants) just like any other human. Go to an economics blog like Marginal Revolutions & they will have a name for it. It is called RENT SEEKING.

      Report Post »  
  • 13th Imam
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:27am

    Dobie must be friends with Maynard G. He forgot to factor in Cows. And Manatee. It is a well known fact that Cow and Manatee Farts are the major factor in Man-Made Global warming. And Four-Flagellate Protzoa from Norwegian Lakes, have now been found to directly melt Cloud Covered Glaciers. Leave it to MIT eggheads to discover these causes. Al “ Chicken Little ”, “Carbon Credit” Gore concurs.

    Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • rickroland
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:22am

    “For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.”

    Funny, decades ago, “The Next Ice Age” was all the rage (70s).

    And, it is hardly a “small” group at all. And, HUGE GAPING holes have been shot through global warming proponent‘s and and climate change ideologist’s pet notions.

    So, of course, such ilk would be a bit put out by an article that shoots even more HUGE GAPING holes in the shreds of what is left of their theories.

    Report Post »  
  • MotoMofo
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:21am

    The clouds know.

    Report Post » MotoMofo  
  • cemerius
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:20am

    Can’t have a say on “climate change” unless you are collecting millions of Government funding?!?! Would be interesting to track the funding bases of the Man-made to natural crowds!

    STOP global warming eat more steaks!! Thats my motto and my path to correcting this cow flatulence…..

    Report Post » cemerius  
  • Wakeup Maggie
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:18am

    Climate change happens, the left use it as a way to shame us and redistribute wealth, shame on them

    Report Post » Wakeup Maggie  
    • EqualJustice
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:39am

      Yup, as THEY all get rich off of the backs of the working class.. sinful.

      Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • conservativejon
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:15am

    first, I use the term global warming truther. second, isnt dessenter a term mostly used for someone who is speaking out against the government.

    hmm using the same term, for someone speaking out against global warming and government, interchangably.

    Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:12am

    Man made global warming is a myth; and a proven myth at that fabricated via the UN.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • FightingBear
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:21am

      Of course it is….the only problem we have left to solve is how do we get the libs to open their eyes and see (understand) what they refuse to look at.

      How do we get them to remove the blinders and see the light of day….the truth.

      Report Post »  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:28am

      Quite correct, Snow, but it still keeps popping up, doesn’t it.

      The UN and its supporters never seem to tire of flogging this dead horse.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love