I don’t see this as a bad thing, I just see this as a word of caution when dealing with the same publication again. Most importantly I see this as a good thing, the fact that a report was written about skeptics because it’s considered news worthy. The media mainstream is mostly interested in climate apocalypse stories, but having stories about skeptics, regardless of how badly they are portrayed, might be an indication of a nearing saturation point. This publication is being different, but can’t be that different yet. The information you volunteered to the reporter that never got printed is hopefully still somewhere in the back of that reporter’s head, so once the media tide turns the other way your information might get printed in the end. In the mean time, just stick to your message, the media will follow eventually.

Most importantly the article makes skeptics aware of other skeptics out there, who will go out and find their work.

If you want to feel encouraged, try the National Post in Canada (if you haven’t see it already):

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

A many part series right up your alley..

Just stick to the internet and e-media that you can control, until you get editors, publishers etc. who will treat your ideas with respect. The MSM is for the birds.

Stop subscribing to that paper unless you have a cat.

Your work has been invaluable to those of us who share your views. I would entirely understand if you wanted to take a break but, please, do leave this blog up so that we can continue to point to sensible, evidence-based projections and sound, rational theory.

DK