Revkin is CC'd on this email.
Andrew Revkin's attempt to smear skeptics detailed! Implies Skeptics should rally around one explanation other than CO2! – March 9, 2009
Your NPR interview is pure nonsense!
Climate Skeptics Gather In New York City
Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other
But it is exactly what your New York Times audience and NPR's audience expects -- a thorough discrediting of those pesky skeptics who don't agree with the UN IPCC or the “civilized" world.
Why do skeptics need a “consistent" explanation of climate shifts other than CO2? That is your chief contention and it is completely bonkers!
Your article in NYT was woeful! Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other
(BTW: Here is a good breakdown of the “bias” in your article. New York Times Wishful Thinking
) To see how your article is being used as designed by the promoters of man-made climate fears, see here: Climate Deniers Gather In Times Square
The point is there are hundreds of factors influencing climate. So Richard Lindzen is pooh poohing the Sun. This somehow means other skeptics better get the memo and go along? This is absurd. Other skeptics and peer-reviewed research reveal it could be ocean circulation patterns, the tilt of Earth's axis, solar system, etc.
You entire premise that skeptics should rally around one cause is fraudulent and you are using this horribly misguided concept to spread drivel about the Heartland event. If you take a moment to think about this, you will realize you are way off base! I would be shocked if the skeptics all said, it's not Co2, it's this ___ (fill in the blank) The burden of proof is not on skeptics. The idea that there is any bickering among skeptics is overstated in your article and to the extent that bickering exists -- it is healthy. What is abnormal is "agreement" like the UN IPCC produces.
Repeat: There are hundreds of factors influencing climate, the most discrediting thing is that the UN IPCC and the "mainstream" community has rejected that and instead "agreed" that it is CO2 that is the key driver. The "only CO2 can explain" hypothesis is what lacks "credibility" and your journalism training should sniff that one out, but your agenda appears to have overwhelmed you. Joe Romm would be proud.
Your article is being cited by the opponents of the skeptics today, particularly your extremely misleading ExxonMobil funding reference. Your implication is that ExxonMobil funded last year, but this year, the skeptics could not agree on a alternative cause of change, so no funding.
Also, you’re acting as though Russel Seitz is in any way relevant. As as far as I can tell Seitz was accidentally invited last y ear, spent the entire time writing blogs trashing the event. You then imply that Seitz "chose" not to come back this year. Newsflash: He was never invited back! The fact you bring Seitz into this can only be designed to play into a biased agenda.
I guess what bothers me most about your article and this NPR interview, is that you have somehow convinced yourself that you are being fair in your coverage of this event. That is deeply disturbing. The fact you defend this article and this NPR interview is perhaps the most distressing factor.
Andy, you need to do some real deep thinking on this one. We all have our biases, but your article and NPR interview have knocked you down several notches and you should come clean and admit you erred!
See also: Challenge to Andrew Revkin of NYT From Marc Morano – January 15, 2009 - My note to Andrew Revkin of New York Times: January 15, 2009