Saturday, March 14th 2009, 2:08 AM EDT
I think we're all being a bit too hard on Revkin. He is, after all, only doing his job... to support and defend the liberal editorial policies of his employers. In case you haven't noticed, the New York Times - once arguably one of the premier news sources on the planet - is slowly dying. It hasn't had a genuinely honest journalist on it's staff in more than two decades, and anyone who attempts to put the Genie back in the bottle at this late stage of the game would likely find himself out of a job.
It's also important to understand that Revkin lacks the in-depth academic background in physics and math necessary to genuinely understand the molecular radiation absorption/emission phenomena associated with the mis-named "greenhouse effect". Undergraduate biology students aren't typically handed a large plate of coupled 2nd order partial differential equations. Can you imagine the scalping knives that would come forth if Revkin were to write, "Golly, it looks like CO2 doesn't really play any serious role in the heating of the atmosphere, and the so-called "greenhouse effect" really only affects the speed with which the air cools after the sun goes down." The NYT would drop him faster than the ball in Times Square on new year's eve.
If the latest Gallop poll is any indicator, we "self-professed climate skeptics" are making great progress in bringing scientific fact to the forefront in debunking the great Global Warming Hoax. ( Are AGW hysterics "professed" by other than themselves? ) Just a couple of years ago, the AGW mantra was "the science is settled, the time for debate has ended". With 41% of the population now believing that the AGW hype is overblown, my math suggests we are only 10% away from a majority of our citizens now taking a serious look at the difference between scientific fact and computer modeling.
Always remember this: about 85% of our general population can be intellectually classified ........meaning that they fall within or below the 1st standard deviation from the mean of the normalized Gaussian distribution of human intelligence. "Very Bright" would be those in the 2nd standard deviation on the positive side, and "Exceptionally Bright" would arguably be in the 3rd. But the 2nd and 3rd SD on the positive end combined only constitute about 15% of the general population. It is this large group to which the adage "repeat a lie often enough and it will become the truth" applies... and this is the primary goal of the AGW alarmists, including Revkin and his employers. We should not fault him for doing the job he is being paid to do.... brainwash the part of our population....The AGW Hoaxsters should be proud to have him on their side, and we must all admit he is a really good writer. Just don't confuse good writing with good journalism.
I note our numbers are growing daily, now numbering many thousands of "real scientists", and literally millions of "AGW converts" and it is my strong belief that we can "repeat the truth often enough and it will remain the truth". The power of the internet is behind us, and the power of the printed press like the NYT is slowly fading. Remember, the Piltdown Man Hoax lasted more than 40 years with "all the world's scientists" believing "the science is settled", and presumably, "the time for debate has ended". We're way ahead on the time scale compared to that one.
Time on on our side, friends. The planet is indeed cooling a bit, and it appears will be for several more decades. It's going to be hard for Revkin and the rest to successfully continue the warming hoax with frostbite on their noses.