Weather Forecast...but don't you believe it (consider the source)

Something unique about the Internet is that it offers the readers of contemporary news sources the opportunity to see the other side of the news...I would venture to say, "the truthful side of the news".  Altogether too many (I would venture to say, "most") news sources otherwise know as, 'the main stream media"(MSM) have drifted to the far left (I would venture to say, "anti-American") with an agenda that, if successful, would mean the end of America as we know it.  These agenda driven ideologues cover many factions but all are designed to re-educate the populace.  One such re-education faction that has been around for as long as I can remember is, climate change...I would venture to say, 'scare mongering' (my first big scare was back during the Truman Administration when we were told the sun was going to explode).  Meanwhile, one of the dominant MSM propaganda outlets is the New York Times...sometimes they try to pass off opinion as factual news assuming the reader will believe their reticent lies.  Just think how ignorant we would be without the Internet exposing the nincompoops that want to control our every thought.  I would venture to say (that), "Don Surber (see below) has exposed Andrew Revkin as the nincompoop over at the New York Times who is attempting scare us with more bad weather news." ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following: Daily Mail
You’re no reporter, Andrew Rivkin Revkin  (sorry 'bout that)
November 30, 2011 by Don Surber

Andrew Rivkin of the New York Times runs its Dot Earth blog, which advocates the latest in expanding government control of industry and restricting our freedoms in the name of saving the planet. Obviously, I have no problem with newspaper opinion bloggers, as that is what I do here. My problem with Mister Rivkin is that he continues to cast himself as a reporter. That is a disgraceful and misleading position. Being an objective reporter is the most difficult job at a newspaper, and he gave that up years ago.

Andrew Rivkin lacked any objectivity in his coverage of Climategate in 2009 — and again in 2011 with the recent release of a second batch of e-mails that show corroboration among climatologists, the press that is supposed to cover them and the bureaucrats who pass out climatology grants.

I offer as evidence this post that began on November 20, 2009, “Private* Climate Conversations on Display“:

A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon. Before they propagated, the purloined documents, nearly 200 megabytes in all, were uploaded surreptitiously on Tuesday to a server supporting the global warming Web site realclimate.org, along with a draft mock post, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist managing that blog. He pulled the plug before the fake post was published.

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.

The blogging continued with updates on that post both before the original post and aft. Critics quickly scored him for focusing on “private* climate conversation” (I have no idea what that asterisk is supposed to mean; no explanation was offered at the post) rather than the revelations that climatologists were conspiring to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

His post went on: “I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.”

Illegally obtained? These climatologists were breaking the law by avoiding British freedom-of-information laws. Science is supposed to be open and honest. The New York Times has had no problem with divulging the contents of Wikileaks information that embarrasses the State Department — indeed its own exposure of perfectly legal and constitutional yet covert tracing of terrorist money may have damaged our war efforts. But Andrew Rivkin assumed the role of lead reporter on the Climategate coverage for the New York Times and diverted the coverage away from the real scandal on this sidetrack of who published the e-mails.

This time around, Andrew Rivkin tried to meet criticism head on, posting this on Tuesday — November 29, 2011: “Since Nov. 19, 2009, when someone unknown distributed a large batch of climate-related e-mail messages extracted from servers at the University of East Anglia, and now again with a newly released cache, I’ve noted that I appear repeatedly in the exchanges, both as a message author and subject. Here’s the search result for my name.As a reporter covering climate science and policy in depth since 1988, I’d be ashamed if my name had not been in these documents. That would imply I wasn’t doing my job.”

Baloney.

Andrew Rivkin is not a reporter. He is an advocate. His blog is connected with the opinion side of the New York Times, not the news side.

He should cease and desist from impersonating a reporter. Their jobs are hard enough without us hack pundits trying to glom on to the good reputations of objective journalists in a mad and stealth attempt to peddle our opinions as news.

Real reporters are part of the process to hold accountable mad scientists who handle hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of public dollars in research grants. Andrew Rivkin is their PR man. This is a con game and one of the first to be conned were reporters like Andrew Rivkin who were converted into flacks, who are the first line of protection from legitimate inquiry into the methodology and data collection used by climatologists.

Another one is Charles Hadley, who covered global warming for the Associated Press until he retired — and came out of the closet as an advocate of climatology. Surprise, surprise. Advocates of this nonsense are not reporters. They are climatology’s Dickie Dunns.