Unfortunately, corrections are seldom front page news – Anthony
NYT and Reporter Revkin Issue ‘Correction’ – Admit ‘Error’ in Front Page Global Warming Article Touted By Gore.
Saturday, May 02, 2009 – By Marc Morano, Climate Depot
Washington, DC – The New York Times has issued a “climate correction” for an “error” for an April 23, 2009 high profile front page global warming article that was touted by former Vice President Al Gore during his Congressional testimony as proof that industry was clouding the science of climate change. [ See: Gore Mouthing-Off About Make-Believe Madoffs ]
But just little more than a week after publishing the front page article, The New York Times and reporter Andrew Revkin have now admitted the article “erred” on key points. Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990’s who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.” Revkin’s article came under immediate fire from scientists and others who called into question the central claims and the accuracy of the story.
In a May 2, 2009 post titled “A Climate Correction”, Revkin and the New York Times wrote: “The article cited a ‘backgrounder’ that laid out the coalition’s public stance, published in the early 1990s and distributed widely to lawmakers and journalists. However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee’s conclusion. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was ‘the rate and magnitude of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ (warming) that will result.'”
The New York Times also posted an “Editors’ Note” on May 2 with the same correction.
In addition, the original Times article now has a May 2 “Editors’ Note” , “describing an error in the news story.”
Australian Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Robert M. “Bob” Carter was the first to dismiss the NYT’s Revkin article as “strange, silly even.”
Carter wrote to Climate Depot on April 23, 2009:
Revkin’s latest article in the New York Times makes for strange reading; silly, even. For though the technical experts may have been advising (for some strange, doubtless self-interested reason) this: “even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted”, I’ll eat my hat if anyone could show that was actually the case at any time since 1990. My guess is that Revkin — like all other promulgators of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria throughout the media and scientific communities — is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence that shows all too clearly that dangerous AGW is a myth, and is simply thrashing around in any and every direction to try to find a way of continuing to obfuscate the issue until December. #
UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton was even more outraged and accused the New York Times and Revkin of “deliberate misrepresentation” in climate article and of writing a “mendacious article.”
Monckton wrote the following to New York Times Public Editor and Readers’ Representative Clark Hoyt, Esq., on April 28, 2009:
“The New York Times guidelines for staff writers on ‘Journalistic Ethics’ begin by stating the principles that all journalists should respect: impartiality and neutrality; integrity; and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Andrew Revkin’s front-page article on Friday, 24 April, 2009, falsely alleging that a coalition of energy corporations had for many years acted like tobacco corporations, misrepresenting advice from its own scientists about the supposed threat of “global warming”, offends grievously against all of these principles.” To read Monckton’s full note to New York Times see here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I also doubt that Revkin colluded with Gore. I had hints last year that he, too, is suspicious of Gore’s motives and aware of his flagrant hyperbole.
===========================================
Smokey (11:23:06) :
“Adopting the following recommendations would be a good start for the NY Times to regain a smidgen of ethical behavior:”
If the NYT would adopt these rules (again) it would result in a better newspaper.
Many people have stopped reading the NYT and it’s not because of the current crises.
And I’m also pretty that Andy Revkin has a lot of respect for the Pielkes, Pere et Fils, and for Steve McIntyre.
==========================
Smokey 11:23:06
Your point about not stifling debate is another plus for Andy Revkin and the NYT. The skeptic has a very fair opportunity to be heard on Dot Earth. The skeptic also has a very good chance of being trashed unfairly and unmercifully by the true believers there, but the moderation was honest. I only had a few comments not posted in eight months of commenting, and in retrospect, they got over the line of civility.
There is a fine debate going on at Dot Earth. That it is 10:1 Alarmist vs Skeptic is also true, but the skeptics are getting their licks in. I’d still be there, but it got to the point that I’d already said what I had to say about a hundred times already, and the board started requiring registration. I’ll stick at that.
========================================
================================================
Dave the Denier 10:16:53
Your comment has been posted on dot earth, which supports my contentions at 11:48:06.
I’ll defend Revkin’s integrity; I’ll not do so for Gore.
===================================
kim (11:30:25) :
“Keep the faith; I am. I have high hopes for [Revkin].”
“Also, parsed as it is, admitting some error in this story is another sign of integrity.”
Kim,
I have “high hopes” that the Catlin critters will admit their PR stunt was scientifically useless.
Also, “integrity” can be defined as taking the honest course of action before you are so backed into a corner by your lack of integrity that you have no choice but to admit error — yet Andy Revkin was still “parsing” on his way to the “naughty chair”.
Sorry, Kim, but you come across as a doormat for Revkin.
As an announcer breathlessly intones, “As reported today in the NY Times; later in the Washington Post, and ABC, CNN, NBC, and CBS…” (aka ABCNNBCCBS)
Interesting. I get none of my news from these entertainment organizations.
Why pay, reward and enrich them for filtering the news with their own slant? I get mine direct off the web and can separate the wheat from the chaff myself without someone else’s filter [self-snip — if I cite examples, this could cause comments to degenerate into a whole different series of issues].
Now, I wonder why newspapers are having all those financial difficulties? circulation declines? Why TV viewership is down? Hmmmmm.
kim (11:39:58) :
And I’m also pretty that Andy Revkin has a lot of respect for the Pielkes, Pere et Fils, and for Steve McIntyre.
I’ve imagined you were.
DAV (11:29:40) :
eric (09:30:14) : “The discovery of a later version does not do much to change the original story. The Climate Coalition still cut things that it disagreed with out of later version of the scientific advisory group’s paper..”
So what? There is no convincing evidence that the models are valid particularly in light of their abysmal lack of predictive power.
It’s up to the modelers to prove the worth of the model(s) and not at all the task of ‘contrarians’ to disprove. For example, take the following hypothesis Extraterrestrials have visited Mars and the Moon . Would it be your job prove it wrong or mine to prove it right? If the latter, what purpose would a statement of inability to disprove serve except to unjustly lend credence to the reversal of roles?
Or are you of the opinion that AGW models are special so don’t require proof of worth?
You are making a straw man argument. No one is claiming that they don’t require proof of worth.
First of all the modelers admit that there is uncertainty in their calculations. They give a value for Climate sensitivity of 3+/-1.5, and some maintain the uncertainty is larger. The models are based on physics and empirical constants developed from measurements of atmospheric phenomena. That is their proof of worth, in addition to agreement with hindcasts on a statistiical basis.
The problem we are discussing is the Claim of the Climate Coalition, who represent auto manufacturers and energy companies, that they are writing a scientific document, while at the same time, removing sentences put in by their scientific pahnel, about the lack of credibility of sceptics arguments about alternative causes of warming, They ignored the statements of the scientists they employed, because they have an interest in delaying or stopping any action to limit CO2 emissions. This is the point made by the news article, and the error, made as a result of the use of an older version of the scientific advice, to make the point, when corrected, doesn’t invalidate the basic point made in the article.
eric (09:30:14) :
Removing a paragraph that is not agreed upon by authors and reviewers is normal, look at the IPCC Author and Reviewer comments for examples.
I read the report, did you? The correction was grasping at credibility straws big time as a CYA maneuver, the end result was the basic central results of the report was mischaracterized by Revkin and now everyone knows it. This was not a correction in a name or a date this was a correction that invalidates the story’s central narrative.
The report was used as a political “glove across the face of American Energy Industry” by Al Gore, and I think he owes an apology for his unprofessional and now unsubstantiated indictment of American Companies in some massive illegal fraud.
RC didn’t waste anytime!!
They are spanking Lord Monckton like a school boy!!!
Dill Weed
RC responds to Lord Monckton saying he makes up graphs to fit his own ideas about things. They’ve challenged him to put up or shut up!
John Boy
No Sleep for the honest
eric (12:27:11) :
The models are based on physics and empirical constants developed from measurements of atmospheric phenomena.
The models are based on assumptions related to physics. And there is no empirical evidence that indicates CO2 increases heat retention in an open air environment where it’s concentration is changed and all other variables are held constant.
To the moderator: sorry for my barrage of postings. It’s 20 degrees below “normal” and raining outside. Blame it on global warming.
the correction doesn t change the article.
pressure from the industry scored another minor point. congratulations.
Tim Clark 12:19:54
Hah, if you only knew.
==============
Dave the Denier 12:13:52
I also know Andy Revkin a lot better than you do. Some of the bitter true believers at dotearth used to refer to the place as dotkim.
===================================
Revkin and the NYT, having been caught in what appears to be a deliberate and gross misrepresentation, continue to flounder in AGW-advocate fashion. They continue to try to put spin on the facts even as they turn slowly in the wind, their feet well off the ground of morality and ethics.
The NYT sent me a subscription offer the other day. I returned it with a note not to contact me until they present a more balanced coverage of AGW. I don’t expect them to do so. Their lame “correction” indicates just how out of touch with reality the NYT is. Turn, turn, turn, turn…
The problem we are discussing is the Claim of the Climate Coalition, who represent auto manufacturers and energy companies, that they are writing a scientific document, while at the same time, removing sentences put in by their scientific pahnel, about the lack of credibility of sceptics arguments about alternative causes of warming, They ignored the statements of the scientists they employed, because they have an interest in delaying or stopping any action to limit CO2 emissions. This is the point made by the news article, and the error, made as a result of the use of an older version of the scientific advice, to make the point, when corrected, doesn’t invalidate the basic point made in the article.
1. I don’t believe a backgrounder can be considered a scientific document. It is a policy document.
2. Sentences about the lack of credibility of alternative explanations are redundant in the presence of sentences that characterize climate science as uncertain.
3. The existence of great uncertainty was the point of the document, as great uncertainty does not form a sound basis for sweeping legislation.
4. “The facts are wrong but the conclusion is true” has no validity in journalistic ethics. Many careers have been ended by this approach to journalism. Sadly, many more need to end.
May 1 NY Times
Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
Lie and mislead. When young people figure this out, they’re going to
be really, really pissed off!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
eric, here’s something you’re just wrong on:
It is NOT the goal of auto and oil companies to emit more. It is, instead, in their best interests to go whichever way the wind is blowing. People want smaller, crappier, cheaper to build cars? GREAT! They want to use half the oil and pay twice as much for it? EVEN BETTER!
The entire idea that “Oil Companies” and “Auto Companies” are on the reality side is just plain lazy thinking. They have as much to gain (or more) as anyone else who currently has their hands out.
Unfortunately, this fact takes away the “Oil Industry” bogeyman that is the favorite target of the lesser informed warmists, therefore it is overlooked.
At first, the oil companies were alarmed at what they rightfully perceived as a direct attack on their industry. It did not take long to realize the benefits and jump on board.
Unlike some posters here, I have little expectation that Revkin will report fairly and critically, let alone ever do work that merits a Pulitzer Prize.
He is an environmental activist who is obsessed with population control. It’s the first line of the blog description. Just yesterday he posted a story titled:
“Will More Food Simply Boost Population?”
How awful that would be. Never mind feeding the hungry, the “human footprint” might increase.
(In fact, with greater economic development, fertility falls).
Logic like this hasn’t been heard since Dr.Strangelove! No doubt like Strangelove Revkin views his solutions as “simple to understand… credible and convincing”. But remember Global Warming isn’t Revkin’s primary concern – for him, it’s another example that mankind is evil.
maybe they should actually correct ALL their Global Warming articles by simply refering to WUWT website… that would be a real change.
Gavin deleted my post at realclimate. Open and honest indeed! They also attack Monckton for being associated with SPPI while completely ignoring that Gavin is doing work for Environmental Media Services.
The hypocrisy continues.