The down side of the link exchange between ScienceBlogs and the New York Times is that in the side bar there is now a link to John Tierney's attack on John Holdren, using such stellar authorities as Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pileke Jr and the Competitiive Enterprise Institute.
Joe Romm has written an excellent post correcting Tierney. Click through to also read Holdren's opinions on global warming.
I must, however, disagree with one of Romm's points:
Tierney is easily the worst science writer at any major media outlet in the country. Pretty much every energy or climate piece he writes is riddled with errors and far-right ideology, including this one.
The second sentence is correct, but what about Gregg Easterbrook?
I do realize that Tierney cites Easterbrook as a scientific authority, so his Easterbrook number is 1, but Easterbrooks's Easterbrook number is zero.
- Log in to post comments
I don't think Easterbrook is labeled a "science writer". He used to be a good sports writer, but he's not even good at that any more.
The Brookings Inst. doesn't cover football, so he must be doing something else for them.
I'd love to see a hypothetical treatise about maximization of the Easterbrook number and scientific qualifications.
Even Tierney's own bio admits:
"John Tierney always wanted to be a scientist but went into journalism because its peer-review process was a great deal easier to sneak through."
I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a good science writer at a major media outlet. I can't think of any inside the US. We're still emerging from the dark ages. The enlightenment hasn't quite caught on.
#4 - in the UK, try Tim Radford at the Guardian: Tim Radford
They also have an excellent writer on Environmental Issues:
David Adam
Don't forget the Loom! That's good science writing!
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/
Ugh, Sb now has a link exchange that included Tierney? Another reason to be glad I'm not in the cool kids club.
There's also Christopher Booker, plaguing us here in olde England: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3883550/Facts-melted-by-global-warmi…
I've only skimmed the latest dangerous idiocy from the Telegraph / Booker, but it seems to mainly consist of "it snowed in Vegas so global warming does not exist" style of 'argument'.
I'm going to wait until the scientifically literate dissect this latest dishonesty and idiocy from Booker and write a strongly-worded email to the Telegraph, along with updating Booker's Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Criticism
I guess that shows Natalie Angier and Andy Revkin (both at NYT) aren't being heard.
I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a good science writer at a major media outlet. I can't think of any inside the US.
Elizabeth Kolbert. Field Notes from a Catastrophe is a good read. 'Good' as in 'geez', not 'good' as in 'oh, goody'.
Best,
D
There is no such thing as man-made global warming and John Holdren is a terrible appointment and everything is caused by some sort of solar-galactic variations and I refer you to a stack of comic books I have in a box downstairs as proof.
> a link exchange that included Tierney?
Ew. Sure it's not just paid advertising?