I’m willing to give Andy Revkin the benefit of the doubt about this:
For the record, he’s citing this paper which lists four contributing factors (1. ENSO- jury out on anthropogenic forcing; 2. IPO- jury out on anthropogenic forcing; 3. positive IOD; 4. positive SAM ) obviously of which the IOD and SAM are considered to be non-trivially forced by anthropogenic influence.
It’s not looking good for Revkin at this point. How to explain this? Unlike some of the commentors at Climate Progress or the NY Times, I have no doubt about Revkin’s desire to educate vs. obfuscate/whether he is on the wrong side of truth generally. But in establishment journalism, it’s easy to fall back on journo crutches, of which the Hippie Punch is an industry favorite. The hippie punch is the kissing cousin of the kind of journalism that the Freakonomics salespeople peddle. It’s worse than not true, it’s actively misleading. It conflates and moreover demonizes a possibly true position that has the misfortune to come from the left-hand of the reductionist political spectrum with a far more consequential and untrue claim from the right. Like the people who didn’t think invading Iraq was such a brilliant move are equivalent to those who said we’d be greeted as liberators and everything was sunshine and flowers.
I am having trouble coming up with an explanation for this Revkin example besides gross negligence and/or a hippie punch. Any ideas are welcome, though to put my prejudices up front I’m more likely to be persuaded by something that doesn’t include Andy being on the dole to any group.