Statement on NYT Profile: 'Mainstream media appears to be realizing that climate skepticism has gone mainstream!'

Thursday, April 09, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

[Marc Morano of Climate Depot - Statement on April 10, 2009 NYT Profile:

Overall, not a bad article by the New York Times reporter Leslie Kaufman. The fact that the NYT has done this profile of a skeptic in such a balanced way, simply reveals that tide is turning. An article like this would not have been possible just two years ago. The mainstream media appears to be realizing that climate skepticism has gone mainstream!

The Times reports "Mr. Gore’s office said Mr. Gore had no memory of the encounter" with me in 2007 during a flight in which Gore rebuffed me. Yet, according to Joe Romm of Climate Progress, Gore appears to remember the incident after all.

Romm reports in an April 10 post: "I happened to be speaking to Gore today and he remarked on this Morano fable and said he just doesn’t remember it happening the way Morano describes."

Hmm. Gore tells NYT that he has "no memory of the encounter" yet Romm says Gore "doesn't remember it happening the way Morano describes."

Since Gore cannot seem to recall his encounter with me very well, I have – for the first time ever – publicly released the full report of our airplane encounter in 2007: ( The report was written during the flight. See: NYT Profile Related: Climate Clash: Gore Rebuffs Morano 37000 feet over South China Sea in 2007 - 'You all attack me all the time' [Also Note: Romm of Climate Progress (who I just debated on TV) appears to be apoplectic about the NYT article. Romm calls the Morano profile "a stunning journalistic lapse" by the New York Times and is calling on his readers to slam the paper with protests for doing the article. Romm concludes by stating: "Shame on the New York Times. Shame on Leslie Kaufman."]

The fact that reporter Kaufman scrutinized only two scientists out of well over 700 international scientists, shows how unassailable the Senate report of dissenters truly is. The fact they had to dredge up DeSmogBlog in an attempt to discredit the Senate report, reveals how unblemished the report remains. The NYT baselessly implies some of the 700 plus scientists lack credentials. I wonder if the NYT has ever been as scrutinizing of the UN IPCC scientists? (See: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ).

Greenpeace’s Kert Davies is quoted as stating: “Eventually, Morano will be held accountable, but it may be too late.” I wonder how Greenpeace plans to hold me “accountable?”

NYT's Kaufman fails to note that Meteorologist Chris Allen, the weather director for WBKO-TV in Kentucky, is a National Weather Association (NWA) certified meteorologist who holds the NWA Broadcast Seal of Approval. Allen has also won a National Weather Service Award. Allen's Full Bio is here: The New York Times article makes it incorrectly appear as though Allen’s sole objection to man-made global warming fears are due to religious reasons.

Here is Allen’s full entry in the report which includes several challenges to man-made climate fears: Meteorologist Chris Allen of Kentucky Fox affiliate WBKO dismissed what he termed "consensus nonsense" on global warming. "But, just because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. "All of this (global warming alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life," Allen explained. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association. "As I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen concluded. (LINK) "If there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming, then at what temperature would they all agree the earth should be before they say global warming no longer exists? The answer - there is not a scientific consensus and will never be. And if there were one, they would not agree as to what temperature the earth needs to be ‘normal' again," Allen wrote in another blog post on June 5, 2007. (LINK)

The New York Times also focuses on Steve Rayner of Oxford who initially claimed to the paper that he asked to be “pulled from [the report] numerous times. and despite being told he would be removed, he still remains." After I challenged that assertion, it appears Rayner changed his recollection. I told NYT reporter Kaufman in an email: “Can you ask [Rayner] to produce his request to me and the alleged assurance he would be removed? I can tell you definitively that I never made any such assurance to him.”

Shortly after my challenge, Rayner told the Times that his initial claim of asking to be removed "numerous times" was not accurate. “To be honest, I have never followed up, but assumed that they would comply. What is to be done?" Rayner told the paper.

Rayner was indeed included in the Senate report, but he never spoke with me – the only person responsible for the report -- to protest his inclusion. Rayner never asked me to be removed and I never told him he would be “removed."

Rayner was included in the report for several reasons. About half the climate debate today is predicated on the UN and Stern Review’s “it’s cheaper to act now than wait.” That is why the report includes a few economists. Rayner rejects the UN approach completely, which qualifies him as a dissenter of the UN approach. He has also written about ‘bizarre distortions in public policy” by downplaying adaptation to climate change. He has also challenged tropical disease risks from climate change. Rayner’s wholesale rejection of UN “solutions,” his focus on adaptation and his key debunking of alarmist points, qualified him to be in the report. There is obviously a wide range of opinion and views on man-made global warming, from Bjorn Lomborg and Pat Michaels to even complete skeptics of the greenhouse gas effect. The Senate report features the full range of views and unlike a “list” the actual quotes of the scientists were included in the report with web links for further reading. That is why it is a "report" and not a "list." Rayner was not misquoted or labeled in his entry, his words were complete and featured web links for further reading. Rayner clearly rejects the so-called “solutions” and much of the alarmism proposed by Gore and the UN.

The New York Times “focus” on Rayner and Meteorologist Chirs Allen, is ultimately a testament to the unassailable quality of the Senate report. The report is designed so that the scientists speak for themselves with their own words, complete with their caveats, subtleties and links for more reading. The report has grown to over 700 scientists (with 59 more added in March 2009), and a quick or comprehensive read reveals that these scientists are challenging the UN and Gore.

Below is Rayner’s full entry in Senate report:

Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner of Oxford authored a report prominently featured in the UK journal Nature in October 2007 calling on the UN to "radically rethink climate policy," and they cautioned against a "bigger" version of Kyoto with even more draconian provisions. Prins and Rayner's report in the influential journal bluntly declared "... as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions [Kyoto] has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth." Their report was titled "Time to Ditch Kyoto" and was highlighted in an October 24, 2007 National Post article. "But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change." The re port also noted, "Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United States and Australia, for its woes." The report continued, "But the Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job." Prins and Rayner instead urged investment in new technologies and adaptation as the most promising method to deal with climate change. (LINK) Prins and Rayner also strongly dissented from the Kyoto style approaches advocated by the UN IPCC in a December 7, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal. “This week in Bali, Indonesia, [UN] delegates are considering climate policy after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. We will witness a well-known human response to failure. Delegates will insist on doing more of what is not working: in this case more stringent emissions-reduction targets, and timetables involving more countries. A bigger and ‘better’ Kyoto will be a bigger and worse failure,” they wrote. (LINK) Earlier in 2007, Prins and Rayner warned of creating ‘bizarre distortions in public policy” by downplaying=2 0adaptation to climate change. “Similarly, non-climate factors are by far the most important drivers of increased risk to tropical disease. For instance, one study found that without taking into account climate change, the global population at risk from malaria would increase by 100% by 2080, whereas the effect of climate change would increase the risk of malaria by at most 7%. Yet tropical disease risk is repeatedly invoked by climate-mitigation advocates as a key reason to curb emissions. In a world where political attention is limited, such distortions reinforce the current neglect of adaptation,” they wrote in February 2007 in the journal Nature. (LINK)#