Links tagged “gillis”
- NY Times Justin Gillis: ‘It is a lie to say that global warming poses no danger’
Gillis: 'Journalists care about the truth—that’s my only care in life, to find the truth. To act as if the evidence is half and half is to tell a lie. I refuse to perpetuate that lie.'
His own preference was to describe the “deniers” as “people who oppose climate science.”
Gillis acknowledged a tacit pact among print journalists to stop giving credence to climate skeptics. He called this an “enlightenment” that began ten or 15 years ago. American television, he noted, still lets a few skeptics onto the air; broadcasters have yet to come out of the Dark Ages.
Gillis responded: “99.9 percent of climate science is funded by the government.” That means, he explained, that each grant is disclosed by number to the public, making every transaction transparent and trustworthy.
Emily Southerd, campaign manager for the advocacy group Forecast the Facts shared that her organization is petitioning news stations to quit booking “deniers” like Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, one of the “merchants” shown in the film.
- New York Times Targeting of Climate Alarm Skeptic Misfires
- ‘NY Times, Greenpeace Smear Warming Skeptic Dr. Willie Soon’
- Sick Side-Show: Justin Gillis & NYT Attempt To Cage-Burn Distinguished Professor’s Reputation
- Author of NYTimes skeptic smear Justin Gillis ADMITTED he is a crusader for warmism
Gillis explains to CJR how he came to work on the climate beat while on a fellowship at MIT and Harvard:
'I started taking classes and the more I learned, 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: ‘Collusion’: Emails expose NYT reporter Justin Gillis ‘as an activist posing as a journalist, sneering at [MIT’s]Lindzen’
- ‘Why is it government money is seen as ‘pure’ and industry money ‘tainted’? – Scientist Fires back at media hypocrisy on climate funding
Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: 'What effect do you think the billions of government money flooding into the system has? Why is it government money is seen as 'pure' and industry money 'tainted', especially when the government far outspends industry. The government is, after all, an interested source. Just think of EPA grants. What will you say of the common practice whereby scientists review grants and also receive them from the same agencies (not simultaneously of course)? Tremendous conflict of interest! Do you recall Eisenhower’s speech where he not only cautioned against the military-industrial complex but also about the corrupting influence of government money?'
- What to call a ‘doubter’ asks Justin Gillis. NY Times agitprop: is namecalling ‘scientific’?
- NYT’s Justin Gillis on ‘phony skeptics’ who are guilty of ‘cherry-picking studies, manipulating data, and refusing to weigh the evidence as a whole’
Gillis: 'In other words, the climate scientists see themselves as the true skeptics, having arrived at a durable consensus about emissions simply because the evidence of risk has become overwhelming. And in this view, people who reject the evidence are phony skeptics, arguing their case by cherry-picking studies, manipulating data, and refusing to weigh the evidence as a whole.'
- ‘The Most Dishonest Year on Record’ – Hottest year ‘claim dissolves on contact with actual science’
By Robert Tracinski: 'A more accurate first sentence to sum up this story: 'In the tiny little blip of geological time for which we have accurate surface temperature records, last year was pretty much the same as 2005 and 2010, continuing a plateau of global temperatures that has lasted nearly 20 years.'
