Watch ‘Disruption’ video here.
Background on People’s Climate march:
‘Collusion’: Emails expose NYT reporter Justin Gillis ‘as an activist posing as a journalist, sneering at [MIT’s]Lindzen’ – Of another prominent skeptic, Gillis wrote, ‘I sense you’ve got him in a trap here … can’t wait to see it sprung.’ — ‘Texas A&M email production shows the academics actually forwarding their email discussions…To New York Times reporters, for example. They even often copy reporters on the very exchanges they otherwise insist represent an intellectual circle that must remain free from violation by prying, nonacademic eyes. Awkward’
Prof. Pielke Jr. Rips Gillis: ‘The NYT Puts the Hit On…an extended hit piece on Lindzen…Since when is it appropriate for a major newspaper to attack an individual scientist?’ – Pielke Jr.: ‘Where is the news here? Can you give me another example of a major newspaper doing anything similar? This is ‘advocacy journalism’ — it is not reporting, as there is absolutely no news in the piece…is it a good idea for the NY Times to engage in an over-the-top attack Sure, you expect this sort of thing from Climate Progress or Real Climate, but seriously, the NYT?’
For NYT Enviro Reporter Justin Gillis, It’s Always ‘Apocalypse Now’ – New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis declared yet another “global warming” emergency in his latest monthly “By Degrees” column, “Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate,” on the front of Tuesday’s Science Times section. The text box read: “A stark new report is intended to awaken the public to the urgency of the threat to the planet.”
Bjorn Lomborg: ‘NY Times Gillis is wrong. Claims sea level rise 3-6ft. UN 2013: 0.95-2.69ft. His ‘lowest’ higher than UN highest’ – Lomborg: Gillis tells us the one end of the spectrum is 3 feet and the highest 6 feet, while the the UN says 1 foot to 2.7 feet. His *lowest* estimate is higher than the *highest* of the UN Climate Panel’s new, higher estimate. Yet, he justifies his numbers with “experts.” Justin Gillis seems to listen to an extremely skewed set of experts. In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Justin Gillis has clearly indicated that he writes about climate because he wants to push for action: “the more I learned [about climate], the more I thought to myself, “This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?” From there, the question was, how do I get myself into a position to work on the problem?”
Flashback: NYT Reporter Justin Gillis Does it Again! Author of ‘Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever’ — gets even worse! — ‘Gillis has officially reduced himself to the equivalent of a newsletter writer for climate pressure groups. Just when you thought his reporting cannot get any worse, he surprises us again’
NY Times warmist Justin Gillis on CO2 sensitivity: ‘The fate of the earth hangs in the balance’ – NYT’s Gillis: ‘The topic under discussion is a number called “climate sensitivity.” Finding this number is the holy grail of climate science, because the stakes are so high: The fate of the earth hangs in the balance’
Climate Depot Response: ‘Hopefully Justin Gillis will come to the rescue and figure out the answer and save mankind!’
He don’t need no stinkin’ data: NYT warmist Justin Gillis tries to convince us that we need ‘expensive climate initiatives’ so trace amounts of CO2 don’t wreck our crop yields – NYT: ‘Can we muddle along without expensive climate initiatives, & go on living – & eating – as before?’ authors of new paper ask. ‘Not for long.’
Climate Depot Response: The moral, ethical & informed thing to do is ‘muddle along without expensive climate initiatives.’ Imposing meaningless climate regs & costs will not alter global temps, or the weather or crop yields.
How sad that the NYT employs this activist! NYT warmist Justin Gillis on trace amounts of carbon dioxide: ‘This is the biggest problem out there…we are already out of time’ – ‘Gillis left The Post and joined the Times where he felt he could cover the issue the way he thought it needed to be covered. ‘I was frustrated with some of the coverage I would read’ — He laments that the media supports ‘false balance’ and ‘often give equal weight to fringe groups and minority viewpoints…it also lends credence to theories that have been scientifically discredited’
NYT warmist Justin Gillis: ‘Perhaps the biggest single question about climate change is whether people will have enough to eat in coming decades’ – Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball rebuts NYT’s Gillis, notes endless eco-scares: ‘Chronologically, it was overpopulation, environmental collapse, global warming, climate change, catastrophic climate change. Now they are back to collapse of the food supply’
