Here’s a recent story from the Associated Press:
By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, Dec 12, 2009
“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”
Look in the mirror, fools. It’s right there in the CRU emails:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
Now, I’m going to bring to your attention, this entry from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
For more than a century and a half, men and women of The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world. They have gone to great lengths, overcome great obstacles – and, too often, made great and horrific sacrifices – to ensure that the news was reported quickly, accurately and honestly. Our efforts have been rewarded with trust: More people in more places get their news from the AP than from any other source.In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.
That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.
It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.
It means we don’t plagiarize.
It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.
It means we don’t misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.
It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.
It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.
And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.
“I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect. The frailties of human nature attach to it,” wrote Melville Stone, the great general manager of the AP. But he went on to say that “the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world’s happenings … ethical in the highest degree.”
He wrote those words in 1914. They are true today.
…
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The AP respects and encourages the rights of its employees to participate actively in civic, charitable, religious, public, social or residential organizations.
However, AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action. Nothing in this policy is intended to abridge any rights provided by the National Labor Relations Act.
Here is a sampler of AP practices on questions involving possible conflict of interest. It is not all-inclusive; if you are unsure whether an activity may constitute a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, consult your manager at the onset.
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:
Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.
When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.
When a reporter is part of an email thread where one of the respondents says:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??….if
it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
It gives the appearance that he is not interested in reporting the other side of the story, especially when he is the instigator of the email thread by saying:
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
So, how then would the AP trust Seth Borenstein to do an “exhaustive inquiry” when he is part of the issue?
Perhaps further FOIA documents will tell us just how cozy Mr. Borenstein is with the people he reports on.
Now consider what other members of the media people write about him. From the Tacoma News-Tribune
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
When other reporters people can see the bias, AP, you have a problem.
A few days later, spurred on by Borenstein’s initial letter, we see this one:
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:23:09 -0600
Cc: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “J. Salinger” <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning
experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and
reviewers need to to also be taken to task here. I agree with Mike Mann that a couple of
other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper. Making sure that the important
relationships and role of ENSO on interannual variability of global temperatures should
also be pointed out with some select references (as in recent emails and the refs
therein). In terms of the paper, I recommend consolidating the figures to keep them fewer
in number if this is a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 , and 6 with 7. Make sure the plots
of spectra have period prominently displayed as well as frequency and maybe even highlight
with stipple some bands like >10 years. Glad to sign on: I would need an acknowledgment
that NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
Regards
Kevin
More instances of scientists acting like bullies to pressure editors and reviewers to accept the view they hold dear. Notice blogger “Tamino” aka Grant Foster is part of the gang.
Does Seth Borenstein ever report anything about undue pressure on journals exercised by his circle of climate coziness? No.
But to have Mr. Borenstein report upon the investigation of the leaked East Anglia emails, when he himself is part of the emails, is certainly a conflict of interest.
In that story today about the investigation, written in part by Borenstein it says:
The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
When the AP allows reporters to report on stories they are involved in, and for them to be able to dance around their own involvement in the same story, it clearly becomes a conflict of interest.
It is, in my opinion, time for AP to remove Seth Borenstein as “science reporter”. I believe he can no longer be trusted to report climate science without bias, due to this clear conflict of interest.
The Associated Press
Headquarters
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001
Main Number
+1-212-621-1500
Paul Colford
Director of Media Relations
Jack Stokes
Manager of Media Relations
NOTE: I misidentified the article in Tacoma News Tribune as being from the reporter, when it was a letter reaction. In the right side is a “Share this story” bar, which aided in my misidentification. I regret the error. Thankfully, our large group of reviewers here caught this error on my part and it is corrected in the story above. – Anthony
Sponsored IT training links:
Download 642-456 questions and answers with self paced 642-873 practice test to successfully complete JK0-016 certification.
Wait did I miss something? Seth Borenstein’s impartiality is being questioned because he used the word “whatchya” in an email? Borenstein is a science writer, of course he’s going to write to scientists. Would you expect him to write something more like “hey punks I saw this article, give me your thoughts on it or f*ck off?”
Yankee, you are mistaken. You believe that Borenstein approaches all scientists for different view points when objectively writing about global warming. The problem is Borenstein begins with the premise that everyone is wrong besides the APGW scientists that he uses as his main source and he doesn’t question their beliefs. Now that those scientists are caught up in a scandal of lies, Borenstein is finding himself in the same web he helped to weave.
Astralis, show us the e-mails he sent to the authors of the article, please. Let’s see how he’s biased.
Here’s a link to a fairly long recent article criticizing Borenstein:
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/seth-borenstein-ap-has-a-science-writer-problems/
Ed, the email that we have of his is published in the OP. His reliance on these “experts” is scary and he writes only to support his notions of man-made global warming. His scientists are caught in a web of lies because they only wanted to support the position of man-made global warming despite the science and used RealClimate.org as their personal playground to distribute misinformation just as it’s clear that they use Seth, and vice versa, to distribute misinformation into the mainstream media.
CA posted a useful video debate with Lindzen and Emanuel. Comments there by MIT scientists, including Lindzen, are interesting, and particularly relevant to this discussion are comments by social scientists on the panel, and questions by students and educators in the audience, about the ethical role of scientists in the face of Climategate, how science should be taught in institutions, and how science information should be dispersed to the public.
A key question for mainstream media is what’s the role of science writers?
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
Astralis:
But you don’t have any of the emails he sent to Anthony Watts, nor to any expert from the other side. It’s rather clear he corresponds with people who deny human-causation, but you don’t have those emails. In other words, you admit you have less than half the story. “His scientists” include those who criticize warming and causation.
It’s from this one message of yours that you’ll leap to a conclusion without bothering to wonder whether you’ve got all the relevant facts. Do you make such unwarranted leaps in your science conclusions as well? Where’s the evidence contrary?
If you do a search for Borenstein’s name in news venues, you’ll discover a wide variety of stories critical of warming science. If you do a search for venues that cover science, you’ll find a few dozen examples of people criticizing Borenstein for favoring your side. (Go to Seed’s collection of bloggers and search, for example.) Borenstein takes hits from all angles, a general indication that the guy isn’t biased to one or the other.
The guy isn’t biased to one or the other???
Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.
I don’t have to do a search of anything to know when someone is trying to sell me a pig in a poke. I can read. Anyone working for the Ass. Press had best toe their line, or they won’t be working there for long.
That’s the central problem in current mainstream journalism: writers either tilt the way the editor in chief wants, or they MoveOn. The formerly excellent Economist’s flogging of AGW in nearly every issue is a typical example. The Ass. Press is much worse. And Reuters is the New Scientist of news portals.
No wonder Old Media hates and fears the internet. They’re being bypassed. If it weren’t for the internet, who would know about the leaked emails and code? People want the truth, and on line they can find the story that’s not being told by lockstep newspapers spoon feeding readers their daily talking points.
“If you do a search for venues that cover science, you’ll find a few dozen examples of people criticizing Borenstein for favoring your side.”
That only shows that he can’t be as openly alarmist under the AP masthead as his extravagant alarmist buddies on the sidelines would like. It doesn’t mean that he’s not biased.
“(Go to Seed’s collection of bloggers and search, for example.)”
A link would be helpful. There’s no need to format it on this site — just plonk it down.
Sure, Smokey. The Reagan- and Palin-loving Associated Press tilts to the left. Along with John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. And Attila the Hun.
In a less absurd note, Roger Knights, take a look at Borenstein’s work, seriously. He’s no great advocate of either side.
See here, and the Seed stuff here.
@ur momisugly Ed Darrell:
I’ve opened the Seed stuff in a new tab and will go through it later. Here’s my report on what I found at “see here”:
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub (neat name — I re-posted my WUWT critique of SB there) contains no criticism of Borenstein, but contains a link to three other sites. I searched all sites for “Borenstein.”
1. Stoat contains criticisms, mostly in the comments, of the Borenstein AP article on asking statisticians whether a cooling trend existed in the global temperature data. But these are mostly technical. I only skimmed them, but I don’t see any pounding of SB for being sympathetic to deniers.
Incidentally, if I can find it, I’ll post my comment criticizing that statistical article of SB’s.
2. Mooney’s Intersection contains criticism of SB’s reporting on comet Lulin. Nothing else. (Maybe there was a tangential criticism in the comments?)
3. Island of Doubt contains 9 threads mentioning SB. One is a duplicate and one is on a non-climate matter. Of the remaining seven, 3 are neutral on SB (mere mentions) and 4 are favorable. For instance:
“There’s still the NY Times’ Andy Revkin, and the AP’s Seth Borenstein, but other than that, it’s slim pickings among what’s left of the mainstream media.”
“The AP’s Seth Borenstein does an admirable job,”
Here’s my post, plus a couple of follow-up posts.
Let’s parse that AP article:
“The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.“
Strawman. 2009 is warmer than 1979 and 1880. But the period between those two start points is not what skeptics have in mind by “over time.” They are referring to the most recent trend.
“And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.”
Another technically correct pseudo-refutation. Since the first half of that period preceded heavy manmade CO2, and therefore warmed from another cause, it indicates there’s a non-anthropogenic component to the long-term warming trend—a component that could still be active. (I.e., the rebound from the LIA.)
“Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998.”
Another strawman. Most skeptics (here on WUWT, anyway) don’t choose 1998 as their starting point. Instead, they claim it’s been cooling during the present century, or since 2002, or 2004.
“They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.”
A red herring (diversion). It IS that simple, because a short-term flattening and cooling trend falsifies the IPCC’s prediction for this decade, casting doubt on its models’ reliability; because it casts doubt on the implacability (and the urgency of the threat) of CO2’s alleged “forcing”; and because the PDO has flattened and turned negative at about the same time, which suggests that the PDO is the climate “forcer,” not CO2.
**********
“when I asked him [Borenstein] why he felt it necessary to *make* news, and then report it, he answered that he was simply fact-checking against recent “internet memes””
The primary “meme” here on WUWT and CA has been that the globe has been cooling slightly for the past five years or so. Borenstein merely knocked down a strawman (a caricatured version of an opponent’s argument) by pointing out that the globe has not been cooling since 1880 and 1979. The fact that this obvious dissembling hasn’t been caught demonstrates the CAWGers lack of critical thought.
*********
If a patient has a fever and the fever “breaks,” that breakage can’t be waved aside with the diversionary argument that the temperature decline hasn’t lasted long enough to be a long-term trend. No one is claiming it is a long-term trend –- just that the fever (most likely PDO-driven) has broken.
Amusing fisking of the AP attack by Seth
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/dec/19/letter-associated-press-review-of-climategate-e/