The New York Times Finally Finds a Scientist It Doesn’t Like

Hint: She’s the one who doesn’t want to rip out your gas stove Getty Images

On paper, Dr. Julie Goodman looks exactly like the kind of scientific expert that the New York Times would most likely love.  

Johns Hopkins University gave her her doctorate in toxicology. She was an instructor at Harvard’s School of Public Health. She was a National Cancer Institute cancer prevention fellow. She’s also affiliated with the Academy of Toxicological Sciences as well as the American College of Epidemiology. She believes in “the science.” 

There’s just one problem. Goodman isn’t convinced that the federal government should invade your home and take out your gas stove. According to her expert opinion, the studies linking the controversial appliance with childhood asthma are flawed. They don’t justify dramatic action. 

Goodman’s evidence-based conclusions made her, understandably, an attractive resource to the gas industry’s lobbying arm, which has paid her to testify on its behalf. It’s a tale as old as time, but news to the New York Times, which published a hit piece On Sunday, Goodman claimed that he is nothing more than a gas company shill, posing as an analyst. “independent scientist.”

The Times is less interested in identifying conflicts of interest among the groups that produced the studies suggesting that gas stoves could be to blame for many maladies. 

The Rocky Mountain Institute is the green energy group responsible for the famous report that attributed 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States to gas-stove usage. In the same Sunday piece, the Times claims that this study is the “solid” Unbiased work “experts.”

Our colleagues Collin Anderson and Joseph Simonson have reported on the Rocky Mountain Institute’s agenda. It You can boast it tries to drive an “economy-wide transformation” The name of the God is not oil and gas “climate crisis” and is led in part by green energy executives who stand for a profit from such an evolution. 

That is information you won’t glean from a paper whose primary business—aside from recipes, Wordle, and negotiating pay raises with its union—is mediocre political axe-grinding.