More liberal media double standards: The New York Times, which would move, ahem, heaven and earth to get religion out of politics when it comes to companies that refuse on religious grounds to pay for birth control, eagerly embraces the perceived moral authority of Christianity when it comes to its leftist issues like global warming. Exhibit A: Avowedly activist environmental reporter Justin Gillis praising environmentalist Christians on the front page of Sunday's edition: "For Faithful, Social Justice Goals Demand Action on Environment."
Strange new religious respect: The formal release of Pope Francis's long-anticipated encyclical on global warming dominated Friday's New York Times, which avidly covered it from both environmental and religious angles -- quite unlike the paper's hostile treatment of the Vatican's stands on abortion and birth control. Laurie Goodstein, the paper's chief religion reporter, seemed to thoroughly enjoy seeing political conservatives "fuming" about the document's hard critiques of capitalism, while breathing not a word about the encyclical's condemnation of abortion.
Justin Gillis, the most avowedly activist environmental reporter at The New York Times, made the front page of the Science Times with a feature on climate scientist heroine Naomi Oreskes, author of "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming." Gillis called Oreskes a subject of "far right" attacks from "people pushing climate denial."
Justin Gillis, the New York Times most alarmist environmental reporter, eagerly "undermined" "climate-change contrarians" (the paper stopped calling it "global warming" when temperatures failed to cooperate) on Saturday's front page, under the headline "2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics." But a roundup of skeptical scientists emphasized that the "record high" temperature readings are based on a temperature difference of a few hundredths of a degree.
The New York Times has made a front-page push for higher taxes and stringent regulation in the name of "climate change" two days in a row (the Washington Post had the self-control to leave its own related stories off the front page).
Notorious climate activist/journalist Justin Gillis's lead story in Monday's Times warned "Climate Efforts Falling Short, U.N. Panel Says," but found good news: There's still time to tax, spend, and regulate the problem away.
New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis declared yet another "global warming" emergency in his latest monthly "By Degrees" column, "Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate," on the front of Tuesday's Science Times section. The text box read: "A stark new report is intended to awaken the public to the urgency of the threat to the planet."
Gillis, who works as an apocalyptic climate activist from his journalist perch at the Times, profiled Dr. Mario Molina, who alerted the world to the hazards that chloroflurocarbons posed to the ozone layer, but now sees an even greater threat to the planet, as shown in a report given before official release to the sympathetic Gillis.
The New York Times is quick to forget the past when it doesn’t promote their agenda. In Nov. 2009, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was involved in the “ClimateGate” scandal, but that didn’t stop the paper from hyping leaked information from an upcoming IPCC report on Aug. 20.
However, the BBC reported that the IPCC has said those leaks were “misleading.” That didn’t stop the Times from publishing a front page story by Justin Gillis, the paper’s resident alarmism reporter.
That article downplayed the inaccuracies and information revealed as part of the ClimateGate scandal labeling them as “minor errors.”
New York Times's environmental reporter Justin Gillis earned an unusual two-column lead story part in Saturday's paper, part of his long-running scarefest series, "Temperatures Rising." The latest entry: "Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears." (Though that scary headline turns out to be upon further review a bit premature.) Gillis committed his usual smear of warming skeptics: "Climate-change contrarians, who have little scientific credibility but are politically influential in Washington...."
Will New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis offer an addendum to his alarmist March 8 report, "Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years," in the face of new information that discredits the underlying data?
In that story Gillis summarized a report (whose lead author is Oregon State University earth scientist Shaun Marcott) to declare without hesitation:
2012 was another banner year for bias at the New York Times, from slanted coverage of campaign 2012, to bizarre displays of unfairness to conservatives. The Times also intensified its push for liberal legislation on issues dear to the heart of its readership, like fighting "climate change" and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Here are some of the worst bits of bias from the year that was. (There's a more comprehensive version of this article on Times Watch.)
Taking Sides With Mitt Romney's Snobby Liberal Neighbors
Epitomizing the paper's social liberalism, the front of the June 7 New York Times Home section (!) featured a large story targeting Republican nominee Mitt Romney that made the paper's notorious front-page investigation into Ann Romney's horse look as significant as Watergate by comparison.
The New York Times's alarmist environmental reporter Justin Gillis made the front of Business Day Wednesday with a left-wing protest movement at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, which is apparently "at the vanguard of a national movement": "The Divestment Brigade."
A group of Swarthmore College students is asking the school administration to take a seemingly simple step to combat pollution and climate change: sell off the endowment’s holdings in large fossil fuel companies. For months, they have been getting a simple answer: no.
As they consider how to ratchet up their campaign, the students suddenly find themselves at the vanguard of a national movement.
New York Times environmental reporters Justin Gillis and John Broder teamed up on Monday to unload some hot warming bias: "With Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Record high, Worries on How to Slow Warming." Gillis (pictured) in particular has a history of apocalypse-now! style climate reporting that has been ridiculed by actual scientists in the field. He and Broder certainly didn't hedge, taking as fact the theory that temperatures are rising inexorably because of man and will result in "higher seas and greater coastal flooding, more intense weather disasters like droughts and heat waves."