World’s most biased Climegate article

The climate gate issue is mentioned in the NY Times, but it’s one of the most shamefully biased articles every printed in the mainstream media. Only pro-warming “scientists” are quoted and a lot of them are quoted. The bogus explanation for why global warming is happening is given and stated as the absolute Truth, while the more valid reasons for why it’s not happening are completely ignored.

Journalistic truth is dead at the New York Times.

Comments

[Kevin K]

Roger Pielke Sr. and Steve McIntyre are quoted and are generally considered "climate non-consesus-ites" or whatever.

Besides the slightly misleading "speghetti" temperature chart, I didn't see anything incorrect in the article.

[Kevin K]

Sorry, I was thinking of this article which was published on the 6th.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/science/earth/07climate.html?scp=5&sq=pielke&st=cse

[Stopped Clock]

I would like to see you do a post that actually tackles the science of global warming instead of just ad hominems against the scientists. You're really doing absolutely nothing to convince *non-skeptics* like me. I would like to hear a detailed explanation of exactly what the non-believer's explanation for global warming really is. Previously, I had been planning to create a site listing exactly why conservatives should believe in global warming, but I was too lazy to get around to it. Thus I'm not going to fault you if you'd rather focus on other things and not get into the science of global warming, as it is pretty intense reading, with not much room for emotional value judgments. But I would like to see your arguments nonetheless.

[sabril]

"I would like to hear a detailed explanation of exactly what the non-believer's explanation for global warming really is"

Obviously I don't speak for HS, but I think a good synopsis of the skeptical position can be found here:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html

[Alex]

"

I would like to see you do a post that actually tackles the science of global warming instead of just ad hominems against the scientists. You're really doing absolutely nothing to convince *non-skeptics* like me. I would like to hear a detailed explanation of exactly what the non-believer's explanation for global warming really is. Previously, I had been planning to create a site listing exactly why conservatives should believe in global warming, but I was too lazy to get around to it. Thus I'm not going to fault you if you'd rather focus on other things and not get into the science of global warming, as it is pretty intense reading, with not much room for emotional value judgments. But I would like to see your arguments nonetheless."

The warrant for AGW that has been presented to the public is itself an appeal to authority. It's reasonable for Half Sigma to try to show that the authority is biased and self-interested.