Revkin and Goode

October 14, 2009

New York Times journalists Andrew C. Revkin and Erica Goode respond to reader questions all week long. Write in with your thoughts.


  1. The bitter alarmists at DotEarth started calling it DotKim last year. Andy’s had an earful from me. You will too, soon enough.

    • double-dash-ungood

      • double-plush-polar-polity

  2. Hmm, come to think of it, have kim and Danny Bloom (no relation) ever been seen in the same place at the same time? They share an almost Roger Pielke, Sr.-like persistence in the face of ennui and low-grade hostility.

  3. Fortunately, I know nothing about these ghost personalities who comment on blogs. Everyone is new to me. I’m learning something, of course, so appreciate your candid participation.

    And Kim, I’m happy to take it in the ear if you’re willing to give it. May not always respond, but I’ll read what you write. But what is up with the double-dashes?

  4. Revkin is exceedingly uncomfortable with the undeniable fact that Michael Mann [of the famously debunked hockey stick] has been caught using upside down proxies. His blundering paper was easily passed by the climate peer review clique, which obviously didn’t even give it the once-over. Merely bearing the name of Mr Hokey Stick was sufficient to wave it through.

    There is no way to deny Mann’s enormous blunder, and it is further proof that climate peer reviewers simply hand-wave through any papers by their cronies, while at the same time AGW skeptics are forced to jump through flaming peer review hoops — and they still find it inordinately difficult to get their work published. And then, with the ultimate chutzpa, alarmists argue that their pals get published more often than scientific skeptics!

    This is a monumental scandal coming on top of the Mann hockey stick scandal, and it explains why people have lost trust and confidence in climate peer review; it has devolved into an outright scam, manipulating the process in order to corner the $Billions in taxpayer dollars allocated for climate studies. And it has largely succeeded.

    Today climate peer review is all about grant money, and how the alarmist contingent can keep both front feet in the public trough, shouldering aside anyone who doesn’t drink their Kool Aid.

    Think I’m being extreme? Just read the link & comments. If anything, my comments here are the soul of moderation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: