Climate Depot 
May 2, 2012
New York Times global warming reporter Justin Gillis (firstname.lastname@example.org ) has officially reduced himself to the equivalent of a newsletter writer for climate pressure groups. Just when you thought his reporting cannot get any worse, he surprises us again . Gillis has previously been named the author of the ‘Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever?’ 
And he revealed why he produces ‘journalism colored with a heavy tinge of yellow’ . (Click here for more on Gillis.Update: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Rips Gillis: “This is ‘advocacy journalism’ — it is not reporting” )
Gillis latest article appeared on May 1 and claims that “Clouds are the ‘Last bastion’ of skeptics . Poor Gillis, the obvious question instead should be: Far from skeptics’ having any “last bastions” what is actually going well for warmist claims? See: Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check — Sub-Prime Science Exposé: ‘The claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing’  (For more on clouds, see Climate Depot’s round up of the latest cloud studies here )
Gillis’ citing of the alleged 97% of scientists agreeing man-made climate fears in his article is simply more nonsense.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Seventy seven anonymous scientists asked questions almost all skeptics would agree with, make up a 97% consensus? Is Gillis intentionally trying to test the limits of his editors at the New York Times with his tripe?
Even more journalistically wacky is what one astute reader of Bishop Hill blog  noted that Gillis added the phrase “serious risk” in relation to the 97% “consensus” silliness. Gillis made pulled the “serious risk” phrase from thin air. The reader at Bishop Hill accurately noted: “With that fabrication right at the start of the article I see no reason to read any further.”
In any respectable publication, this would be corrected, but who really cares if the New York Times corrects the woeful reporting of Gillis? Climate Depot certainly does not care. It is simply amusing to point out the reporting Gillis regularly engages in and laugh at him for taking himself seriously as a climate reporter.
Gillis laziness as a reporter is obvious. How else could he manage to get Grist Magazine’s Andrew Dessler andRealClimate.org ‘s Raymond T. Pierrehumbert to appear in one article? And who would have thought these hardcore climate activists would both be critical of Lindzen?!
Gillis uncritically quotes warmist Pierrehumber comparing trace amounts of carbon dioxide to a “thermonuclear warhead.”  In Gillis’ wacky climate world, CO2, formerly known as plant food, is now equivalent to nuclear warheads.
Gillis also offers up some of his vaunted “sophisticated computer programs to forecast future climate” to come up with some doozies.
Gillis writes: “In the high projection, some polar regions could heat up by 20 or 25 degrees Fahrenheit —more than enough, over centuries or longer, to melt the Greenland ice sheet, raising sea level by a catastrophic 20 feet or more.”
But is Gillis even aware of what his fellow warmists think of these “sophisticated computer” models? See page 40 on models in Climate Depot’s A-Z report .
- UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth called climate models “story lines” in 2007 . “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
Another warmist, Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, has also admitted “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” 
- In addition, atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute : “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.
- Ivy League forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72.” – January 28, 2009 
‘This is ‘advocacy journalism’ — it is not reporting’
Update: Prof. Pielke Jr. Rips Gillis: ‘The NYT Puts the Hit On…an extended hit piece on Lindzen…Since when is it appropriate for a major newspaper to attack an individual scientist?’ — Pielke Jr.: ‘Where is the news here? Can you give me another example of a major newspaper doing anything similar? This is ‘advocacy journalism’ — it is not reporting, as there is absolutely no news in the piece…is it a good idea for the NY Times to engage in an over-the-top attack Sure, you expect this sort of thing from Climate Progress or Real Climate, but seriously, the NYT?’
Climate Depot Response to Gillis: The study of climate involves many scientific disciplines including chemistry; oceanography; geology; astronomy; land use/forestry; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; mathematics; env. sciences; astrophysics; physics & paleoclimatology. Skeptical scientists have first rate credentials. See: Report of More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent 
Maybe NYT’s Gillis should investigate his fellow warmists: Flashback: Warmist William Schlesinger admits that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate! —  Schlesinger: ‘Something on the order of 20% [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.’ By Schlesinger’s own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies’
Bishop Hill Blog also analyzed Gillis latest attempt  at journalism. “Justin Gillis, the New York Times’ eco-activist has an article on the role of clouds in climate  and the dispute over their impact. It is, in essence, an extended pop at the work of [MIT Climate Scientist Dr.] Richard Lindzen.”
Hill’s blog  has some really insightful reader comments that nail the full character of Gillis.
- Lord what a terrible start to a science article. It might as well scream “This article is for believers only, sod off deniers!” Why is so much enviro writing such obvious easy to digest comfort food? Have they no shame? Quite sad really.
- There is nothing really new there is there? Just a collation of all the alleged “withering” critiques of Lindzen in one handy reference for that self-righteous urban greeny who is too busy to think or to really care.
- It’s hard to take the article seriously when it has the 97% nonsense in the second paragraph.
- Profoundly dishonest article, from the 97% meme to the insinuation that Kerry Emanuel has had a Damascene conversion from skeptic to believer. If anything he has inched almost imperceptibly the other way, at least from his previous belief without any evidence that global warming was causing significant increases in hurricane risk.
NYT’s Justin Gillis at it again! Touts ‘online poll’: ‘NYT decides to cheer about the public misunderstanding and speculate on its possible political usefulness’  — Prof. Pielke Jr. On NYT’s Gillis latest article: ‘Ends justify the means — This reminds me of Dick Cheney’s comments about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. It is the political outcome that matters, no?’
Author of ‘worst climate story ever’: NYT’s Justin Gillis reveals why he produces ‘journalism colored with a heavy tinge of yellow’  — Gillis is ‘much more aligned with advocacy for action rather than reporting a beat’
NYT’s Justin Gillis Exposed as ‘Apologist’ for Michael Mann: Gillis likes Mann’s new book — Reports ‘demonstrably false’ & ‘flat-out wrong’ claims about Mann  — Gillis claim: ‘Through no choice of Dr. Mann’s, the [Hockey Stick] graph became a symbol of modern climate science when it was featured prominently in a 2001 report by a UN panel’ — Reality Check: ‘Mann was in fact actively involved in promoting his own graph to be featured by IPCC in its 2001 report. and that Gillis’ statement is flat out wrong…When the media places scientists up on a pedestal and of untruths, they simply set the stage for a bigger fall’