Roger Pielke writes:
In the comments section Andy Revkin of the NYT replies to the effect that there just wasn't enough space in the paper to include contrary information that might have diluted the hysterical tone of the article.
You won’t find [a] more blatantly obvious example of cherrypicked science than in today’s New York Times, which has an article on two new peer-reviewed studies on hurricanes and climate change. Given the debate over climate change and hurricanes the new studies are certainly newsworthy. However, it is what is left out of the Times story that makes the cherrypicking stand out undeniably.
The New York Times makes (and has made) no mention of two other just-published peer-reviewed studies (links here and here) providing somewhat different perspectives on the hurricane-climate issue and its policy significance.
Faugh!So much for the "newspaper of [a highly selective and biased portion of the] record"
Read it here.