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.
Steve (14:24:32) :
He is an environmental activist who is obsessed with population control.
(In fact, with greater economic development, fertility falls).
So true!
I think he is self loathing, except that he’s afraid to go first!
Richard deSousa The New York Times, and a lot of other MSM newspapers, are liberals and many of them are going bankrupt. Why? Because they’ve lost their objectivity and have become politically left leaning.
During the Iraq war, they and the rest of the MSM were in lockstep with George W Bush. They didn’t seem very ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ back then (and it was only 5 years ago). More likely they just tack according to whichever way the political wind is blowing. Then, as now, it was left to a few outsiders on the internet to do the investigating.
Perhaps it’s simply that if you’re a well-paid journalist working for the NYT, and putting a couple of kids through school, you don’t have much of an incentive to rock any boats. Why make life uncomfortable for yourself by asking too many questions? There’s not much to be won, and everything to be lost.
It maybe takes a few lean and hungry outsiders, who don’t have too much to lose, and maybe quite a lot to win, to go after stories, and look for the truth.
And maybe the same applies to science as well as journalism. Once science became professionalised, and people could make a living as scientists, they started to have one eye open to securing their tenure, winning the next contract. And it is left to outsiders to go where their investigations take them, rather than where concerns of personal financial security guide them.
It appears that Al Gore had an Environmental Enemies List, and made immediate use of it at the start of the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/happer.html
If he’s a “committed alarmist” how on earth can he also be described as having “intelligence, curiosity, and integrity”? Being “committed” is, as far as I can see, being firmly wedded to a particular point of view and therefore can’t possibly be included in the second sentence of the extract above.
The commitment is like religion. There is no material evidence of a God but many intelligent people choose to believe. I don’t think it is an intelligence issue at all – it is more an emotive thing – some people need the support of strong beliefs despite the lack of any convincing evidence – I suspect this gives focus and meaning and comfort for those type people – whilst others are completely comfortable with major issues remaining undecided or unknown until conclusive evidence appears (the meaning of life, the universe and everything, including climate change).
I doubt that AGW skeptics are any more intelligent than the AGW crowd but skeptics are the kind of people who do not jump to conclusions easily. I expect most skeptics recognize CO2 likely could have some warming affect but are simply unconvinced of claims by the AGW camp that we have figured out enough of the behavior of the entire global climate system to make solid conclusions about the overall impact. For all we know, there may be negative feedbacks from others factors; that CO2 is not the primary driver of our climate should be patently obvious to anyone.
Dill Weed (12:30:07) :
“RC didn’t waste anytime!! They are spanking Lord Monckton like a school boy!!!”
Ah. So RealClimate is continuing what they do best: attack the man, because they can’t refute his facts. And the fact that Monckton doesn’t care what they think must drive them straight up the wall.
I seem to recall that when Gavin Schmidt formally debated the Viscount, Monckton publicly rubbed Gavin’s nose in the playground sand: going into the debate the audience were AGW believers — but following the debate, the majority no longer accepted AGW. Gavin Schmidt publicly failed, and everyone knew it.
Afterward, trying to explain his embarrassing debate loss, Gavin Schmidt blamed it on the fact that Monckton is tall! Even though the debate took place with everyone seated.
So it’s no surprise that Gavin is impotently nipping at Monckton’s ankles. The peanut gallery over at the RealClimate echo chamber is all he’s got. They’re real tough guys there, telling each other what’s what, huh?
If Gavin Schmidt had the courage, he’d agree to another public debate with the Viscount.
Don’t hold your breath.
Like Kim (but not as well as Kim) I’ve spent a lot of time on dotearth. I respect that Revkin allows opposing views to air and he tries to be fair. But confirmation bias is strong in Andy and I think more than one activist on his rollodex convinces him too easily.
It appears I was not alone when I responded to Lord Monckton’s request for public support in this matter. My original email read as follows –
————————————————————
Att. Public Editor
New York Times
Dear Sir / Madam
A number of internet sites have brought the selective quotation used by your writer Andrew Revkin in the article Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate to my attention. I am writing to urge you to provide a considered response to Lord Monckton’s complaint regarding this matter. In considering your response you would no doubt be aware that your response or lack thereof will be widely distributed on the internet.
As you may be aware an increasing number of citizens around the world believe that anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis. These citizens like myself have turned to the internet for a more balanced view of climate science than can be found in the main stream media. Thousands now know that the earth is cooling. Thousands know that Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years. They know that the GISS temperature record has been manipulated. They know the story of the “Hockey Stick” graph. They know about the venality of the IPCC. They did not find this information out from the main stream media. I would suggest that an editorial policy of advocacy journalese with regard to global warming is not in your publication’s best interests. Due to the internet the content of the New York Times is a matter of permanent and accessible record, and many are starting to question your impartiality. I would hope that you look to The Australian rather than The Guardian when considering editorial policy.
————————————————————
I was pleasantly surprised when a NYT sub editor actually emailed back requesting clarification on the nature of the selective quotation, examples of ice growth and global temperatures. I was happy to provide links to the relevant data.
While some who have posted above may feel that the NYT may not have responded adequately to the matter, I feel that they have made a greater effort than many other publications may do. NYT editors have certainly shown they are aware of the number of people discussing climate issues outside the main stream media.
I would hope the nuances of this story are fully noted by your legislative representatives and the crude attempt to smear industry treated with the contempt it deserves.
In my opinion, far from being duplicitous, the legacy of industry support in the US for academic research is very praiseworthy. Earth Science has had outstanding support from oil majors in particular, with huge advances in plate tectonics and sea floor spreading, sedimentology, stratigraphy, micropalaeontology and palynology, magnetic reversal chronology. Many of your world famous institutes were founded by philanthropic benefactors, such as the Lamont Docherty (from oil pioneer Henry Docherty), and most benefit directly from access to huge volumes of proprietary geophysical, core and log subsurface data.
Exxon has a long history of student scholarship and research grants and these are (at least mine was) totally free of any strings or agenda. Their own researchers were in the vanguard of work on seismic stratigraphy and global sealevel studies.
The New York Times should perhaps examine their navel if they are looking for duplicity.
Smokey,
Your last post [snip-family blog]
John Boy
Just sitting back waiting until Gas is $4 a gallon and I can say, it’s Obama and his CO2 buddies.
kim (13:34:20) :
“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.”
___________________
The fact that the ‘Dot Earth’ moderator (maybe even Revkin himself) chose to publish my comment is not a sign of integrity. Even if it were, it would take millions of such minute acts of integrity to offset the damage done by the fallacious front-page story authored by Revkin.
To bolster his faulty conclusions, the first human Revkin quoted in the article was non-scientist, radical George Monbiot. In a May 28, 2008, article, the ‘Telegraph’ reported that:
Monbiot attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of former United States UN Ambassador, John R. Bolton, at the Hay Festival of Literature & Arts in Hay-on-Wye. The attempt was unsuccessful as Monbiot was grabbed and ejected by security men.
Using a public loon such as Monbiot as his first supporting quote is, in and of itself, prima facie evidence of Revkin’s lack of integrity and should cause concern for his editors and readers. The fact that you claim to “know” Mr. Revkin better than I (“dotkim”, etc.), only makes me feel a bit uncomfortable about you and wishing to end addressing you any further.
idlex (14:59:57) :
Richard deSousa The New York Times, and a lot of other MSM newspapers, are liberals and many of them are going bankrupt. Why? Because they’ve lost their objectivity and have become politically left leaning.
During the Iraq war, they and the rest of the MSM were in lockstep with George W Bush. They didn’t seem very ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ back then (and it was only 5 years ago). More likely they just tack according to whichever way the political wind is blowing. Then, as now, it was left to a few outsiders on the internet to do the investigating.
Perhaps it’s simply that if you’re a well-paid journalist working for the NYT, and putting a couple of kids through school, you don’t have much of an incentive to rock any boats. Why make life uncomfortable for yourself by asking too many questions? There’s not much to be won, and everything to be lost.
It maybe takes a few lean and hungry outsiders, who don’t have too much to lose, and maybe quite a lot to win, to go after stories, and look for the truth.
And maybe the same applies to science as well as journalism. Once science became professionalised, and people could make a living as scientists, they started to have one eye open to securing their tenure, winning the next contract. And it is left to outsiders to go where their investigations take them, rather than where concerns of personal financial security guide them.
Very wise words Idlex. I think much of that is true, unfortunately. It applies to our media as well.
What’s wrong with Revkin? Most anyone who gave that article a fair reading had to be thinking, “Phonus Balonus.”
…..was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader,…
Hahahaha, I wonder which lone reader it was! Monckton? Carter? A server-load of WUWT readers?
How about the ‘warmists’ looking back at statements made by Gore, Hansen and their ilk regarding loss of Arctic ice caps, values of CO2 that are ‘tipping points’ and many other ‘certainties’ that have never come to fruition?
It seems that the MSM only looks for ‘inconsistencies’ in the anti-AGW argument.
Just The Facts @09:52:19
You asked the rhetorical question:
To the editors of the NY Times, BBC and the Economist, why have you allowed your institution’s reputations to be hijacked and maligned by a bunch of sloppy charlatans?
Because AGW justifies a political stance, socialism, and these organizations are agents of this political position.
Micky C (MC) @10:33:50
As an electronics engineer, I enjoyed your post 🙂
MC: Don’t let any Audiophiles hear you refering to Barium Titanate as a dielectric. Their beliefs can put most warmers to shame and hi-k ceramics are one of the few times that they have a valid point!
eric (12:27:11) : You are making a straw man argument. No one is claiming that they don’t require proof of worth.
Hardly a straw man. The onus of proof is on the claimers — not the other way ’round. Proof from the claimers is very lacking. BTW: that should include proof that 1) CO2 and Temperature are truly correlated (there’s ample evidence otherwise, the past decade for example) if 2) man-made CO2’s influence is truly significant. The latter has yet to have been shown by anyone. If so, then why has the Precautionary Principle been espoused if the proof is incontrovertible? If so, then why was MBH 1998 welcomed and paraded like a favorite pony then vigorously defended if other proof is available.
First of all the modelers admit that there is uncertainty in their calculations.
Of course there is but testing one should be straightforward, albeit tedious: see if they predict the future. So far I’ve only seen proofs with the models predicting the past (see below). That’s not very hard to do. I can predict Monday’s closing price for any NYSE stock you wish to select — as long as you ask me on Tuesday.
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 statistical basis.
It’s the hindcasts in particular which are hilarious. The model is tuned until the hindcast is ‘accurate’ (and that really means that the average of all models are kinda close — even then sometimes its the past that needs adjusting al a GISS) then the hindcast ‘accuracy’ is used as proof of correctness. LOL. I hope you’re a horse bettor — I want your money.
The problem we are discussing is the Claim of the Climate Coalition, … are writing a scientific document, while … removing sentences put in by their scientific panel, about the lack of credibility of sceptics arguments about alternative causes of warming, They ignored the statements … because they have an interest in delaying or stopping any action to limit CO2 emissions.
1. Did they actually claim it a scientific paper or is it a white paper? It makes a difference you know. I normally would expect a white paper from groups calling themselves a ‘Coalition’. Oh, yeah, there’s nothing wrong with white papers.
2. The Coalition deleted (ignored) an irrelevant comment. Again: no alternative needs to be proffered. That some have been but were unsuccessful is indeed irrelevant. Take my ET Visitation Hypothesis example, If I shoot down every alternative you propose it does nothing to prove my hypothesis correct. You are engaging in fallacious thinking if you believe otherwise. I think the NYT may be depending upon you doing so. Otherwise, I don’t understand the equivocation of their ‘correction’.
Also: what CodeTech (14:14:13) said.
—-
If you want to consider selfish agenda think about this: Back in the bad ol’ days of heavy smog in a lot of cities, it was the stated goal to reduce exhaust emissions to nothing more than water and CO2. That goal has been largely met but — surprise! — it’s not good enough! Makes me wonder about the real motive of Green People.
Over at realclimate.org they are talking about moncktons “manipulation”. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
But what about these projections from IPPC 2001: Synthesis Report
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/figspm-10a.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/figspm-10b.htm
found on this page
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/015.htm
They certainly look closer to Monckton than the realclimate comparison charts.
Micky C.
THANKS for your good example from the “real scientific world”. Could I add
another? A dear friend, Dr. George Miley of the U. of ILL threw the patents of Philo T. Farnsworth on his graduate students desk in 1998/1999. By 2000 they had produced an operating “Farnsworth Fusor”. George and his graduate students submitted a paper to Nature. It was rejected, and sent back with a 1972 paper by some boys at Oakridge that demonstrated that the Farnsworth
Fusor could NOT PRODUCE ANY FUSION REACTIONS PERIOD..
Dr. Miley, no fool, knew who his reviewer was. He was, to say the least slightly “miffed” by this treatment. He called the man and politely asked him,
“If the Fusor cannot produce fusions at all, where do the 10 Billion 5 MeV neutrons we measure coming from the device originate from? A solar flare?”
The response was a quick, “I’m very busy with a lot of projects George.” And
an equally abrupt hang up.
George published in a couple other respectable journals. Dimeler Benz offers “production” versions of the Inertial Electrostatic Confinement devices as “controlled high energy neutron” sources, and one of George’s graduate students was conferred with his Phd in Nuclear Engineering based on his characterization of the neutron flux from the “Farnsworth Fusor”.
Purity, uncorruptable, non-paradigm controlled nature of “science”? HA! Does not exist. Wish we could make that clear to the public.
The subscriber must have complained.
I’ll predict that Revkin’s correction will mark the turning point in the debate, and momentum will move to the skeptics and away from the AGW believers.
Let’s see how the reporting from the NYT evolves.
Smokey (15:21:58) :
Dill Weed (12:30:07) :
“RC didn’t waste anytime!! They are spanking Lord Monckton like a school boy!!!”
Ah. So RealClimate is continuing what they do best: attack the man, because they can’t refute his facts.
Smokey, refuting Monckton’s so called “facts” is what Gavin did in his blogpost. He shows that misrepresented the IPCC’s projections in his silly graph, which arbitrarily picked 2002 as a starting date.
Monckton is nothing but a poseur and deserves to be spanked.
His articles are full of errors and misrepresentations.
From another NYT article previously referenced above..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1
Actually, Mr. Perkowitz, I think it is because people are smart enough to realize “global warming” is code for the political agenda of organizations such as yours! And that there is NO scientific evidence for it actually happening. This article is like a comedy routine of AGW proponents trying to come up with new words for events that clearly are not occuring. I would love to know some of the “corporations, foundations, and individuals” who help finance this EcoAmerica organization…so I can not buy their products or services!
There was also a “headline” on Yahoo last night and today about the “disappearing wonders of the world”, including the “sinking” Maldives. Do I sense a journalistic desperation to try to stop the tide of skeptics and actual science from overwhelming the MSM?? That whole article was full of disproven environmental fallacies.