When he exposes Gore and highlights the scientific fraud we’ll give him a hand.

Revikin’s premise was that the public and internal statements were at odds. But even a quick glance at the source documents shows that there were two different, but related ideas in question. The undeniable idea was the theory of the Green House Effect and the potential for human caused emissions to affect climate. The idea that was “not well understood” was about the attribution of actual climate change to human activities. Even the most recent IPCC report doesn’t claim that man made global warming is “undeniable.

Now that he’s come under fire, Revkin retreats from,”(GCC)led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming”, to, “the coalition continued to question the scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions could heat the planet enough to justify sharp cuts in emissions”.

I will, however, give him credit for linking to the source documents.

At Dotearth I see a pattern of posts that is all to familiar with other outlets on the MSM – wherein they tend to accept without journalistic impartiality stories that support AGW. They either buy in or participate in the policy manipulation that is occurring. I am troubled by the coordination of media that is orchestrated with the release of science papers as if this was a Hollywood summer film. Instead of (insert-the-name-of-your-favorite-filmstar here) going on Letterman, Leno, Good Morning America in a frenzied attempt for attention the week of the box office release we now have spots on NPR “Science Friday” and a favorable Dotearth blog posting when your paper gets the front page of Nature. [As the great latenight comedian Craig Ferguson would say – “remind you of anyone you know?”]. In this milieu we have to place Revkin and in order to receive the mantle of journalist I would like to see him question more and be less of a publicity stool. Hopefully he takes this as a learning experience beyond the release of a correction with a renewed examination of all sides of the debate.