Murdoch Press Shills the Denial Shill

Under the guise of an article about a few annoyed people on Richard Dawkins's website, Murdoch paper The Times moves in to try to protect it's reports from scrutiny with a staggeringly one sided assault on those who understand and communicate the real science of climate change. One of their targets is Tim Lambert, aka Deltiod, who recently demolished Lord Fonk-Monkton in a debate (via a quote from Roger Pielke);

Pielke has been stung by the non-academics, too. He describes on his blog the 'giant fish' of the public intellectuals in the blogosphere pond, then the 'big fish' who feed them and the unqualified 'minnows' — the amateurs — and the way they interact in the blogosphere: "To more effectively attack someone’s reputation they ... rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to 'trash' someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation. Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers like Tim Lambert, who are professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates (certainly the case with respect to my own work), yet earn their place exclusively by making mountains out of molehills."

Pielke - who is like the only vaguely credible denial voice (though he is not a full on denialist) - sounds a massively arrogant prick from this, then attacks Lambert and the Times is happy to quote him at length. Why?

Lambert, 50, is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales who spends up to six hours a day blogging on climate change. He supports Mann’s hockey-stick model and has posted tirades against bloggers and science journalists, including Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times environment editor.

So that's why - because Lambert holds the shit science reporting of Leake to account. Out of interest, the article then goes on to approving talk about Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitric, Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts - all of who are denialists and none of whom, (as is suggested for Lambert) are "professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates" and "see it as their sole job to 'trash' someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation" - but the article's author Amy Turner does not bother to note that. Too busy blowing the denialist trumpet. In all only about 1/5 of the article is about Dawkins - the rest is a velled attack on Amy and Jonathan's blogging opponents.

In short this article is a one-sided snipe at a blogger who is holding big-media to account and they don't like being told when they are wrong.

Well tough shit Amy and Jonathan; You are all provably wrong on this issue and the smell from here is rotten.