thanks for this.

———————————————- Jeff Goodell Contributing Editor, Rolling Stone 518-xxx-xxxx @jeffgoodell

On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:04 PM, “Anthony Watts” wrote: My view is that AR5 is going to stillborn, mainly because it is already outdated by new science that won’t be included. There have been 19 separate peer reviewed papers published in climate sensitivity to CO2 by 42 scientists since January 1, 2012 all describing a lower climate sensitivity. There have been recent revelations in journals (Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature 2013 and de Freitas &McLean, 2013 International Journal of Geosciences) that demonstrate ENSO (El Niño) in the Pacific is responsible for the 15 plus years of global warming slowdown known as “the pause”. These two papers strongly suggest natural variability is still the dominant climate control. Then there is the lack of reality matching what the climate models tell us, such as this leaked graph from an AR5 draft: Original from AR5 draft: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png Annotated version: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif All this while global CO2 emissions have been growing steadily. The lack of temperature match to models, “the pause”, combined with these new ENSO findings tell us that global warming has gone from a planetary crisis to a minor problem in a Banana Republic where only a few vocal science rebels are arguing for immediate intervention. The costs of mitigating the perceived problem are also staggering compared to the benefit, as the 50:1 project demonstrates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0 best regards, Anthony Watts Editor, WUWT 530-xxx-xxxx —–Original Message—– From: Jeff Goodell Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:41 AM To: awatts@xxxxx.xxx Subject: Rolling Stone inquiry Name: Jeff Goodell Email: jeffgoodell@xxxxx.xxx Message: Hi Anthony I’m a writer for Rolling Stone, working on piece about upcoming IPCC report. I’m checking in with a few people to get their views on how they think it will be received. Thoughts? Thanks Jeff Time: September 3, 2013 at 10:41 am =================================================================

And what did I get for my effort? A single word. Here is the paragraph where I appear:

But, of course, this is nothing new. In 2007, when the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report, it was also nearly certain that human activity was heating up the planet, with grave consequences for our future well-being. And six years before that, when the IPCC released its Third Assessment, scientists were pretty certain about it too. But phrases like “high confidence” in warming do not, to the unscientific ear, inspire high confidence in the report’s finding, since they imply the existence of doubt, no matter how slight. And in the climate wars, “Doubt is what deniers thrive on and exploit,” says Bob Watson, who was head of the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. The final report has not even been released yet, and already prominent bloggers in the denial-sphere, like Anthony Watts, are calling it “stillborn.“

(added) What is most galling, is that Goodell asked me for my opinion prior the release of the IPCC AR5 report, then chastises me in his article for giving it. Whatta guy. (/end add)

Meanwhile, full quotes exist in the article from Naomi Oreskes, Rajendra Pachauri, Bob Watson, Anthony Leiserowitz, Ben Santer, blogger Joe Romm, and last but not least the anonymous tweeting person(s) behind Organizing for Action, the successor of President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

Besides giving liberal use of the word “denier” in the most derogatory way possible, the article also mentions “Why the City of Miami is Doomed to Drown“. Where he fantasizes about the year 2030.

Read it all here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warming-is-very-real-20130912?print=true

I suppose it’s par for the course from people that can’t tell the difference between water vapor from cooling towers and “carbon emissions”.

The stupid, it burns! http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-denier-elite-20130912

My single word with a “denier” label to my name is what I get for talking to “The Delinquent Teenager” crowd as if they were adults I suppose. I suggest that anyone who encounters Jeff Goodell in any future interview request, simply not respond – he’s shamelessly biased, fine with hatefully labeling people he doesn’t agree with, runs in the company of fools that can’t tell pollution from non-pollution, and now proven himself to be not worth the effort.

UPDATE: Shortly after I wrote this article, Goodell took notice on his Twitter feed, and shortly after that, the erroneous caption was replaced along with a different photo of the same power station in Germany, but with no explanation as to the error. Here’s what it looks like now: