It is well-known that RealClimate.org is one of the premier websites for global warming scare-mongering. For more than six years, several of the most infamous characters in the global scandal have pumped out politically laden junk science articles attacking “skeptics” and offering model arguments and defenses for the propaganda effort.
The bloggers at RealClimate.org are difficult to satisfy. They play a high pressure game and do not tolerate dissent. They are drowning in their own self-destructive, well over the top nature, and from the looks of it may take many of their followers with them when they finally unceremoniously go under for the last time. In the latest, they have provoked the Guardian into an admittance that damages the newspaper's credibility.
It surprised me to find a blog comment at RealClimate by Dr. James Randerson, the editor of the Guardian’s environmental website. It wasn't merely that the editor would stoop so low as to participate in the site, it's what he has to say about the Guardian's relationship with RealClimate.org.
I should say first that we hold RealClimate in very high regard. The site is part of the Guardian Environment Network, a collection of more than 20 hand-picked websites including Grist and Nature’s Climate Feedback blog with whom we have a mutual content sharing agreement. Under the arrangement, the Guardian website republishes RealClimate blogs regularly.I didn't know that. Let me offer some advice to newspapers for their defense when caught using RealClimate.org propaganda. Do not detail your relationship with RealClimate.org and other global warming propaganda sites. To emphasize balanced coverage, no matter how slim, simply say; We're not as bad as The New York Times.
Dr. Randerson's RealClimate blog posting : The Guardian responds
I have been calling for years for a full and complete forensic audit of the federal government to weed out these people.
ReplyDeleteThe conspiracy of "peer review" to propagate falsehoods and lies for federal funding around the globe.