Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The antidote to RealClimate | Main | Climate of fear »
Sunday
Dec062009

Old habits die hard

Another climatologist threatening dire consequences, this time for a journalist - Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Revkin's crime? Mentioning the views of two other academics whose views the Hockey Team see as not sufficiently orthodox.

Pielke Jnr (who is one of the heretics in question) explains.

I wonder how many other journalists have been threatened like this? Answers in the comments please.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (16)

These people are close to being shunned by the masses themselves. Does it count if an outcast shuns you?

Dec 6, 2009 at 10:40 PM | Unregistered Commentercrosspatch

Probably all of them, at least indirectly by their chief editors.
An example is the Swedish version of the BBC, SVT, that even openly admits that they have taken a policy decision to only support the warmist agenda.

Dec 6, 2009 at 10:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

Dear Bishop
I have been trying to get a debate going in this blog http://swanageview.blogspot.com/ I took some of your views as well as others, to try and stimulate some debate, I have been called a goon, rightwinger, exxon supporter etc etc. Dear friend I am struggling, I never knew Swanage (being ultra tory) had so many lefties here. Any advice kind sir, help and posting appreciated.

Dec 6, 2009 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustme

it doesn't even take that much of a threat. Just look at the coverage of environmental issues; most of the big journalists require lots of quotes for their stories on all the weekly nature/ science AGW thrills. If they start criticising those scientists who they rely on, you can guess how it is going to go...

Dec 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterper

Justme,

Sounds like you're doing just fine. Insults and ad hominems mean they're losing, because they don't have any better arguments. The best advice is to keep the tone of your own posts high - intelligent, contentful, polite - and allow the visible contrast to speak for itself.

Arguing with people who operate on the level of personal insults is easy. They sabotage their own case every time they touch the keyboard. You just need to politely point out that insults don't constitute a logically valid argument, maintain a thick skin, don't get distracted, and keep plugging away with the interesting facts. Take a quiet delight in each of their amusing amateurisms, and then lead by example.

Dec 6, 2009 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterPa Annoyed

Revkin hasn't got the balls to jump ship.

Expect normal service to resume shortly.

Dec 7, 2009 at 12:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris S

Bishop, I don't know about the threats of being cut off, but I know that no one from the non-mainstream press was allowed to ask questions on the Mann et al press call last week.

I also know Andy asked the only really difficult question that was asked.

Dec 7, 2009 at 2:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterCharlie Martin

unbelievable. uk times confirms bbc's paul hudson did receive the 'chain of emails' he claimed he got on 12th october, which allowed him to say the climategate emails released in november were 'authentic'. of course, hudson was virtually gagged after that:

uk times: Climate e-mails were hijacked 'to sabotage summit'
Almost a month before they were posted on a website popular with climate-change sceptics, the hacked information was sent to a BBC weatherman who had expressed his doubts about climate science on his blog. The BBC has confirmed that Paul Hudson received some documents on October 12 but no story was broadcast or printed by Mr Hudson or the corporation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6946281.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

bbc has a lot of explaining to do!

Dec 7, 2009 at 2:49 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

I am a journalist and have been "warned" in a manner similar to the one posted by a social economics professor.

The "offence" was a summary of Lord Monckton's opinion that AGW is diverting resources, causing food price hikes and adds to human misery.

The threat was that the mere reporting of information would be taken as a direct adoption of Monckton's views and the writer and the magazine would be seen as oil industry shills. The prof threatened by phone but refused the invite to write his own two page response in the form of an article, not just in the letters page.

My temper is very elastic, but not infinite. Having recycled (certifiably) my last car in March 2000 and being a 100 per cent bike commuter ever since, I got pissed at being called an oil industry shill.

The lesson- you will be surprised how quickly these people slink back into the darkness when told unequivocally to bugger off. They are also very vulnerable to humor, probably because they are humorless themselves.

Nik

Dec 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterNik

The problem that these people have is that they are used to a media which, to use stalinist terminology, has acted as the running dogs of climate alarmism. Perhaps they fear a Ceauşescu moment?

Dec 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterGordon Walker

What a pity Nik doesn't record phone calls. A post like that on YouTube would have gone viral overnight.

In all seriousness, the pomposity of this cabal is amazing to behold. No one who was not totally disconnected with reality, unless they had almost life and death control over someone, would make the threat. They would simply cut them off and say nothing. Must be all that shoulder rubbing with the carbon elite that gives them ideas above their station.

Dec 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheSkyIsFalling

Roger Harrabin, in an article that was very generous to Al Gore about the "nine errors" trial in 2007 once had the temerity to meekly asked some searching questions-

"And after the interview he [Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.

It is miserable when such a vastly important debate is reduced to this. The film and the High Court row are, though, products of their time."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

So with a powerless shrug of his shoulders he says "hey, ho". and carries on as before, apparently without once showing any curiosity about what these shrill voices are hiding.

No wonder these blowhards are having a field day with our gormless media.
Thanks to Harrabin et al's compliance, any journalists who may have more backbone to ask tricky questions can easily be ignored by the activist, who can pick and choose at their leisure a wide range of spineless drones to hand their press releases to.

Dec 7, 2009 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

Any doubts that these people are activists cloaked in the dress of 'science' should have been laid to rest with this report.

Dec 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Schlesinger has confirmed that the CRU emails, were not being misinterpreted by the skeptics (and I count myself as one). The Hockey team was engaged in an effort to monopolize the conversation, browbeat skeptics, and win by intimidation. Thanks Mike.

Dec 7, 2009 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterFat Man

Nik,

re the Professor. Out with it! Name Names
Now is the time. After the appalling collapse of Copenhagen, and an impending revolt over the 'con' of worthless £20k degrees, the Academic Stables are about to get mucked-out big-time. And your Prof needs to be recycled into something useful.

Dec 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterTonyN

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>