10 Years Late: NYT Puts Climate Above The Fold, Then Promptly Screws Up The Headline

[hatrack]

"Challenging" implies there is a debate. There is no debate. The science is clear and has been for years.

"Skeptics" implies there are scientists who honestly have grounds for doubting the research.

There are no such scientists. There are only paid denier cranks who have no research to back up their nonsense.

Long past time for the media to stop using the word "skeptic" to describe them!

Long past time to stop quoting fossil-fuel paid Patrick Michaels, non-scientist Judith Curry, professional obfuscator Roger Pielke, Jr., and perennially wrong John Christy.

Long past time to stop giving them a platform in the name of [false] balance.

EDIT/END

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2015/01/10-years-late-new-york-times-puts.html

[Fred Sanders]

1. There isn't fucking debate! Is evidence the planet is round "challenging" round Earth skeptics?

And this is the same NYT that gave prime space for a French neo-fascist and bigot to spew her hate?

It is an uphill battle to truth when all the media are in the hands of white privileged corporations.

[GreatGazoo]

2. Everytime I see "debate" and "deniers" in an article about climate change I wonder why.

My second thought is: Who gives a shit about skeptics now? -- We don't need unanimous consent to move forward so why is progress (or at least the public conception of climate change) being held back for a small minority which includes those who know the truth but are financially incentivized to say otherwise?

Saying there is still a "debate" excuses the lack of action.

[rock]

3. Agreed, headline should read

"2014 Breaks Heat Records, Deniers Look Like Douche-Bags"