Andrew Revkin of The New York Times is as biased as they come for an environmental reporter, and a newly leaked e-mail may help explain why. The climate scientist who wrote the e-mail warned Revkin that he risks the “Big Cutoff” from his compatriots in climate alarmism if he doesn’t start writing stories the way they think he should.
Steven Hayward, a fellow at both the American Enterprise Institute and the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, was copied on the e-mail and shared it publicly at No Left Turns and The Corner. The writer of the e-mail, University of Illinois professor Michael Schlesinger, rebuked Revkin both for including a passing reference and link to “Copenhagen prostitutes” in a blog post and for giving space to Roger Pielke Sr., an expert who has questioned global warming science.
“Shame on you for this gutter reportage,” Schlesinger wrote. “This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
“The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. … I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. … What are you doing and why?”
Schlesinger’s tirade is consistent with the pattern of suppressing inconvenient climate data and blackballing editors who don’t that was revealed in hacked e-mails. But the fact that he sent the e-mail two weeks after the hacking confirms that climate scientists simply cannot be trusted.
Even after being busted in the humiliating “ClimateGate” scandal, the false prophets of man-made global warming gospel are still trying to game the debate. They won’t even tolerate “friendlies” like Revkin occassionally feigning objectivity by reporting what critics of mainstream climate science say.
Schlesinger’s e-mail to Revkin is more enlightening when you recall another e-mail that Revkin received in September. Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University now under investigation for his role in the scandal, complained to Revkin that critics of his work now bypass “legitimate journals” and publish their research to their own blogs.
Mann then praised the Revkins of the world — sort of. “Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?”
Notice the question mark. Mann wasn’t making a statement of fact so much as he was lobbying Revkin to stay in lockstep with his global warming buddies. But now that Revkin has shown himself capable of rare and relatively insignificant flashes of objectivity on his blog, Schlesinger has warned Revkin that he is at risk of the “Big Cutoff.”
Any journalist worth his weight in black ink would react to such intimidation by redirecting his investigative prowess and reportial skills toward the untrustworthy bully. That’s exactly what Revkin should do.