Links tagged “gillis”
- NYT Reporter Justin Gillis: NYT Reporter: Quoting Global Warming Skeptics Perpetuates ‘A Lie
Posted February 12, 20155:16 PM by Marc Morano | Tags: consensus buster, debate, gillis, intimidation, media
- 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.'
Great Water Reset: The UN & WEF are coming for your water now! ‘Sustainable development’ water dictates – Aim to ‘achieve internationally agreed water-related goals’
Cheryl K. Chumley: The United Nations plans to protect water that’s used for bathing; water that’s used for developments; water that’s home to sea life; water that’s used for transportation. So the up-and-coming controls would likely focus on residential limits to water usage, and costly increases to access that water; on bans on agricultural usage, and costly increases on farmers; on strict controls on the types and numbers of ships that can sail the seas and rivers and channels, and costly increases for this form of transportation. ... as with carbon offsets, the U.N. water czars will demand trades of activities to offset the supposed pollution of the waterways.
So much for jet skiing. So much for fishing on the weekends with the family. It’ll be too expensive — and regulated.
“Natural resources crises, including for water and food, come within the top 10 biggest risks facing humanity in the coming decade,” the World Economic Forum wrote. ... “[A]s global warming continues to take effect, ordinary weather is becoming a thing of the past, exacerbating our water crisis,” the World Economic Forum wrote.
Flashback: Collapse of energy, food, transportation systems prompt calls for government nationalization of industries – Echoes 1930s push for Great Reset style reforms
Green Dictatorship? Netherlands Politicians Answering to the EU instead of Voters – Despite rejection of agriculture policies in recent elections
Lawyers Seek To Add Stock Of Lawyer Jokes By Demanding Oil Companies Be Prosecuted For Homicide
So if using oil is murder—and it has to be murder and not manslaughter, for our authors know of what they do—then lawyer Donald Braman and “public citizen” David Arkush are murderers. Perhaps they’ll turn themselves in? If it isn’t ink, it’s the gas they put in their cars, or the fuel in the planes in which they fly, or in heating or cooling their home, or running the electricity to pay for their Netflix accounts, or in manufacturing the clothes they wear, or in the plastic which surrounds them in their own homes, or in growing the food they eat. There is no way these sad individuals can remove the charge of hypocrisy, or escape the logic of their own argument. ...
If this “lethal harm”, caused by use of oil, is indeed “unparalleled in human history”, then our authors, who knowingly participate in this lethal harm, damn themselves. None of this can, or must, be taken seriously. The charge is absurd. It is asinine. It can only be the result of, as I said, lowly greed, or worse, profound stupidity and irresponsibility.
UN Advisor Sophia Kianni says the quiet part out loud! ‘Remember when we treated COVID-19 like an emergency? Well it’s time to do the same for climate change’