Paul Chesser of the American Spectator writes about Andy Revkin’s lack of coverage at the NYT blog “Dot Earth”, in Andy Did Something Good Last Night, and gives him some points for posting a rebuttal.
That’s all well and good, but consider this:
Mr. Revkin stated in an earlier blog post that:
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.
Having worked in TV and radio newsrooms myself for 25 years, I can understand and relate to Andy’s position, to a point, but I think that point is long past now.
- Like it or not, the files are now in the public domain, they aren’t ever going back to private. They can’t be put back in the bottle now.
- It appears, due to the content, that the people’s right to know outweighs the need for privacy.
- The FOIA process appears to have been purposely circumvented in this case.
- NYT has in the past had no compunction about publishing private, or even classified government information. For example NYT published information contained in classified documents related to surveillance in the now famous story Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.
- In that NYT story it was said that:
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation’s legality and oversight.
- In the US surviellance issue, appears that NYT thought the public’s right to know outweighed the need for secrecy, but that action isn’t consistent with previous reporting at NYT with far more volatile information.
- In the Case of ClimateGate, the files are not classified, the players are known and public, and due to what seems to be public “concerns about the operation’s legality and oversight” of CRU it would seem to me that the public’s right to know outweighs the FOIA limited privacy concerns, especially since it appears there may have been FOIA laws broken.
- Revkin himself appears in those CRU emails, suggesting the need for NYT reporting of the issue would be even greater to avoid the appearance of “running cover” for the scientists with whom he collaborated. Yesterday’s piece from Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert gives the appearance of “running cover”.
- Other media outlets are kicking your butt.
Here’s Paul Chesser’s piece, saying many of the same things:
Andy Did Something Good Last Night
By Paul Chesser on 11.24.09 @ 9:47AM
The Amazing Revkin of the New York Times, that is, who at about 5:00 yesterday posted a reader response to the whining of University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who also contributes to the alarmist RealClimate blog. The responder is Geoff Smith, who is mentioned a few times in the Climategate emails. Smith challenges Pierrehumbert to overlook the “cyberterrorism” (Waaah!) and instead question: the deletion of emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests; the exclusion of research that CRU scientists and their colleagues disagree with; the “tricks” of playing with data to fit the scientists’ assumptions; and the desire to oust scientific journal editor who published the works of their enemies.
So, good for Andy for posting those succinct thoughts by Mr. Smith. But here are points deducted for Mr. Amazing:
1. He provides “balance” in his blog post by repeating verbatim the latest defense attempt on the scandal by the University of East Anglia. The spin includes, besides “out of context,” blah, blah:
CRU’s published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. CRU is one of a number of independent centers working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community.
“Peer-review” and “reasoned debate” were two issues that were proven to be disregarded by Phil Jones and his henchmen. Why does CRU want to surge even deeper into laughingstock territory?
2. Still waiting for Andy to do some of his own original reporting, for actual stories in the newspaper rather than blog posts, after he said on Friday that repercussions “continue to unfold” and “there’s much more to explore.” Does his curiosity extend only to reader comments on his own blog posts?
3. He also posted yesterday a regurgitation of the Times’ position on global warming, which is the same as the old position (“consensus!”). Perfect timing Andy!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Revkin is a population fanatic – he is obsessed with the idea that Earth is fragile and wicked mankind is messing it up. This is a deeply anti-human ideology.
In the Sixteenth Century he would have been handing out hair shirts to the peasants.
Although emails show him to be a creep, The climate issue is simply a means to an end for Revkin.
There is a lesson to be learned from the way the ACORN story broke. If this continues to be rolled out in phases, the rest of the media will have to eventually give in. One of the elements of that story was that each new headline that came out was more and more condemning. Thanks for keeping the pressure on.
Call and give the RNC crap!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/rnc_remains_silent_on_global_w.html
Spineless!
Hypocrites = Revkin and the NYT. Go back to the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Valerie Plame. No problem there. And it’s not illegal to print them once they are in the public perview. That was settled, for better or worse, in the Pentagon Papers release.
Just as an aside – anybody notice the shift in terminology from Denier to sceptic? It’s not everywhere, but I’m noticing sceptic being used a lot more often. Is this a sign, me wonders.
I would like to see comments from people like Walt Meier and other common sense experts that condemn this disgusting perversion of science for political gains. This completely destroys everything they are doing if the data has been manipulated to further organized control of society. Eco Scare tactics.
http://nsidc.org/research/bios/meier.html
Forget NYT, WP, the networks covering this. Is the Daily Show on the story?
Yep, it’s rather amusing to watch these versions of once-great news organizations fall on their swords. Pretending the NY Times has never printed anything leaked from government is akin to gouging out one’s eyes with a corkscrew. Ridiculous.
Of course Andy should not have to take all the heat on this. He is only one reporter at NY Times. More to the point is the Editor in Chief Andrew Rosenthal, and his attempt to duck the science scandal of the century. It only weakens the world perception of a newspaper that shows itself to be duplicitous in policy and politics.
It is Mr. Rosenthal who needs to look deep into the NY Times charter and consider the damage he causes with each day he refuses to carry the full story of Climategate. The damage to the Times, like that to the failed AGW agenda, may well be irreparable.
Where’s the U.S. Congress and President? If they were for America they’d be expressing outrage over this and telling the American people the scientists they trusted have failed them and the entire issue of climate change needs to be re-examined and therefore no climate legislation will be crafted and no treaty will be signed in Copenhagen. We now know definitively that any Senator, State Representative or President that pushes cap and trade is a traitor, a liar and should be tried for sedition. We knew it before based on empirical climate data and the work of CA and WUWT to name just a couple, but now we have proof of collusion thanks to the hacker who exposed CRU’s deception. The hacker is a true patriot of freedom.
Shortly after it was posted I read the guest piece by Pierrehumbert in disbelief
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/your-dot-on-science-and-cyber-terrorism/
A professional scientist (not a ratbag street protester or politician) depicts a ‘war’ against the ‘forces of darkness.’ If the spoils of this illegal act of ‘terrorism’ were not enough to display a bunker mentality then Rivkin nailed the case.
What astonishes me is how they both could NOT SEE the obvious turn-arounds of EVERY claim? It reminded me of some of the worst good/evil propaganda coming out of USA when beating the war drum against its own self-created ‘forces of darkness’ (sorry guy – we folks from non-super powers sometimes see it a little differently). In this type of defence by those in power against those they exclude, there is some weird wishful identification with the heroism of their enemy – like they imagine THEY ARE the heroic enemy, list sympathetic defences, and then make them their own.
For example, take these defensive statements of Pierrehumbert and see how well they could be of his enemy:
“harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science.”
“a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth”
After this terrorism he wonders: “What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers?”
“The real story…is that the tactics the inactivists [the sceptics] have been using in the run-up to Copenhagen have been all outside the sphere of legitimate scientific discourse.”
“terrorism”
The turn-around is of course that global warming alarmism is being used to terrify the community towards supporting Copenhagen etc.
“cowardly illegal act”
Describing the release of these documents as cowardly reminds me of when successful acts of terrorism, like suicide missions, are described in this way – that might be reckless, brave, brutal, indefensible…but ‘cowardly’?
I liked the proposed book name.
“The Silence of the Whores”
We have the same burying of heads in the sand over the other side of the pond. This morning I was listening to Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, wheeling out his, and his Tory cronies “green” credentials. In it he sets out how the UK is going to cut CO2 emissions to the bone. Like he hasn’t picked up a newspaper this week?
These are the same people who think an electorate heartily sick of New Labour vote them into office next May/June so they can complete the socialist inspired destruction of our energy industry …
paulhan (14:12:01) :
Yes, the tone has changed, slightly.
The fear shoe is on the other foot now.
The hacker, as they call him, achieved the objective of leveling the playing field.
People are on to the scam, and are paying attention.
Today, a report from New Zealand cautions to beware of associating a flotilla of icebergs to Global Warming because this last happened in 1931.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576681,00.html?test=latestnews
A cold snap in New Zealand has helped to create the conditions for Icebergs to get much further. Now, that’s a real change of tone, and the danger is to shipping, not a threat of Global Warming.
Maybe the reason Andy Revkin hasn’t really gotten into this issue has to do with him having email contact (or possibly being a bit “chummy”) with some of those scientist? For example, email #1254258663 shows him writing a letter to Michael Mann with some mention of Briffa and McIntyre.
Anybody notice that the believers are now the deniers?
“what pressure could “the establishment” put on an NYT journalist to prevent follow up of the story?”
It is much much more than that. A journalist investigating a Global Warming scandal in NYT is impossible since most journalists are behind Global Warming, then the kind of society he moves, the parties he goes , the friends he has etc. Any investigation would be seen as treason.
The Washington Post is closing its last U.S. bureaus outside the nation’s capital as the money-losing newspaper retrenches to focus on politics and local news.
“At a time of limited resources and increased competitive pressure, it’s necessary to concentrate our journalistic firepower on our central mission of covering Washington…
Revkin allowed himself to be recruited. It’s like the parliamentary lobby system in the UK, where selected journalists are given off-the-record access to politicians. It totally corrupts the reporters involved, since exclusion from this cosy group means ostracism and being cut-off from the inside gossip. So they self-censor.
Believe it or not, The Independant was actually a decent newspaper when it was launched not so long ago. One of its policies was to eschew the lobby system, but it found itself without political contacts and caved in like the rest. Later it completely lost its vaunted independence and became the tabloid rag it is today.
With Revkin, it was cherished direct contact with Mann that was dangled in front of him.
And now he’s painted himself into a corner like all the others.
“And now he’s painted himself into a corner like all the others.”
Not quite, since Mann called him “not as reliable as we’d like.” Other reporters have been much worse.
dr john says it in a nutshell. “We’re talking about world politics dependant on this data.. None of it should be occult.”
So how come our global media are so silent about Cru hidden data and hidden practices? Where’s their commitment to ‘our right to know the facts?’
“So how come our global media are so silent about Cru hidden data and hidden practices? Where’s their commitment to ‘our right to know the facts?’”
Because having abandoned impartiality, they’re in it up to their necks.
My real name is Heidi Cline.
Back On Topic:
Revkin never seemed to be a straight shooter to me. Never totally in the warmist camp but not holding much truck with the natural variation folks at all.
And he had a strong warmist commenting section. Although I didn’t see significant censoring (my comments got through) .
maybe reporters are too familar with the machinations of politics – usually described as similar to sausage making and oftimes gross enough to cause one to swear off eating sausage. Or possibly, the lack of understanding by the reporter creates a viewpoint where science is simply mystical magic and scientists are magicians not to be questioned. A third possibility is simply that reporters now are not reporters but political operatives who entered the field of reporting in order to change the world into matching their delusional ideas of perfection.
In any case, it’s not actually science they see or perhaps understand. Too many years of sliced and diced dead frogs being peddled as general science education requirements has doubtlessly taken its toll, both in high schools and colleges.
Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team
Busted not Robust!
Shiny
Edward
Are you telling me a journalist has been DISHONEST? I don’t believe it…