Update (2:45 pm EDT): The Times has added a photo, rewritten the lede and headline, but not put the story at the top of the website. They’ve also deleted the entire comment section.
One of the running jokes in the climate wars has to do with the unwillingness of scientists who run realclimate.org, the most prominent of whom works for NASA, to publish comments by skeptics. Although this is offensive, given that the NASA scientist routinely updates the site while at his day job, at least the site is consistent, and at least it’s basically just an inside-baseball blog for true believers.
On the other hand, one expects better from The New York Times. Of late, the paper has taken to banning comments from climate skeptics, at least this one. More significant by far, the Times has badly missed the October blizzard story, as I allude to in the comment that the paper rejected and which I publish here:
NYT: I question your coverage of this meteorological event. The front page of your website has no photo of the storm and a mundane, second-tier headline. Minimizing the storm, in a way that you would never consider if it had been a hurricane (presumed to be evidence of AGW), won’t make it go away. Two million without power from an October snowstorm is a big deal. Also, the lede paragraph says the storm “threatened” to set snow records. Sorry, you’re way late here. The storm has set many longstanding (and significant) records.
By the way, ever since I published my piece on The Huffington Post, I have been banned from commenting there. I should be grateful for both honors, I suppose.