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.
Yahoo
climate gate 40.300.000
climategate 73.900.000
altavista
climate gate 40.300.000
climategate 73.900.000
bing
climate gate 7.000.000
climategate 11.300.000
Google
Climate gate 6.950.000
climategate 2.910.000
The revealitions of the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit
leaked emails and documents proving that reaserch data in favor of
Anthropological Global Warming community was intentionally manipulated is
another tool for the anti-Global Government community that proves that Climate
Change isn’t just a scientific issue but would of been a political issue in
Copanhagen as well .
I assume that ‘ Watt’s Up With That ‘ has gotten more ‘ hits ‘ on their website in
the last weeks then ever before. For those of you here who I’ve wittnessed
discussing your craft ,its quite clear that the data from the CRU was altered .
As with the Associated Press (AP) , a Mainstream Media outlet that continues
with the largest Newspapers and Television News stations to surpress
information about such issues as ClimateGate from the public in favor of their
corporate guidelines (censorship) . For the large number of people that no
longer trust the Mainstream Media for accurate reporting , the alternative media
is more in favor .
Seth Borenstein science reporter from the AP is mentoned in the CRU emails
? I didn’t know this . Therefore Borenstein is a accessory to the crimes of Data
Manipulation, Suppression of Peer-Review Process, Blacklisting, Data
Destruction, Willful Violation of Freedom of Information Act requests. It is clear
that Borenstein along with people like Phil Jones are making a stand on the
issue , how ever feable it may be .
My disappointment in Mainstream Media reporting , and primarily in AP
reporting has been constant ever since the controversy involving Obama’s
eligibility as a Presidential Candidate due to not being a “natural born citizen”.
While Obama was running for the congress seat in Illinois 5 years ago , a report
from AP on June 27, 2004 stated :
” . . . Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take
over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the
race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations . . . ”
AP declared Obama as being Kenyan borned 5 years ago but now the AP is
silent on this issue today .
When the Meteorological office was called up by the IPCC to do Damage
Control on ClimateGate , the Met had fumbled the ball before ever moving pass
the line of scrimmage . On Saturday, Dec 12th, 2009 the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) criticised the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UK Met Office for their political intervention in the international negotiations currently taking place in Copenhagen. The Met had even gone so far as to have its members sign a petition defending (their) Climate Change Science and in a passage from the Met Petition :
” . . . They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional INTEGRITY . . . ”
In the Associated Press Statement of News Vaules and Principles :
” . . . But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of INTEGRITY and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news . . . ”
I’ve been hearing and reading alot about this Integrity that both the Met and the AP say to have but I haven’t been seeing it .
google shot themselfs in the foot.
When a bias became aparent or even percieved, people started avoiding google.
I purged google from my computer, how many others did likewise I can only guess.
The lower numbers for google could be a reflection of market share lost.
Give Borenstein a break?
If he’s contacted anyone of the other camp to question the matter, then he’d deserve it. Right?
As to Google’s 24million down from 28million, they were applying Yahoo’s ‘trick’, and the number was taken out of context.
I posted a comment over at Dot Earth concerning NASA’s water cycle discussion on how weather dramatically cools the Earth from an otherwise intolerable 67 C for a weather-free, atmosphere-laden, greenhouse-rich Earth.
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle
the relevant section- “If the earth were in radiative equilibrium, with an atmosphere, the surface temperature would be 67°C. This does not happen because water evaporates from the surface, mostly from tropical seas, cooling the surface. The hydrological cycle keeps the greenhouse effect from heading to an overly hot planet.”
Interestingly, Dr. Roy Spencer makes the same argument in his excellent 2008 book Climate Confusion on page 54-
“Because, while many people have heard that ‘the greenhouse effect makes the Earth habitably warm,’ virtually no one has heard that ‘weather makes the Earth habitably cool.’ Quantitatively, the cooling effects of weather are actually stronger than the greenhouse warming effect. So, why is it that we never hear about that in discussions of global warming? HMMM?”
So far, we have the climate realist Roy Spencer and Gaia-hugging NASA oceans in complete agreement.
Along comes Andy Lacis from NASA GISS, who throws NASA oceans under the bus today at Dot Earth-
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/skeptics-hold-fast-in-copenhagen/?sort=oldest&offset=5
“Chris Y, in comment #83, has pointed out what appears to be an embarrassing bit of erroneous PR information on the part of NASA that has clearly fallen far short of its intended objective.”
“It is painfully clear that whoever wrote this, really had no clue of how the Earth’s greenhouse effect works,…”
“I hope that NASA will fix this bit of embarrassment soon, and have their next PR piece checked for basic accuracy by someone knowledgeable in the field.”
Now that NASA GISS has been alerted to this PR ‘leak’, I expect the NASA site linked above to be ‘adjusted’ in the next few days or weeks to conform…
PaulH (10:28:46) :
I dunno guys. I think we should give Mr. Borenstein a break. It is my experience that if not all, then the vast majority of “science” reporters do not have sufficient cranial capacity to grasp even the slightest technical concept. And that’s not just limited to climate science. Medical, mathematical, computational, any branch of physics or chemistry, etc, etc. They’re all pretty hopeless. Borenstein was simply another of that gang in way over his head.
I have a student in two of my courses now, a calculus-based physics and intro to engineering, who got a degree in science journalism from a big-name school. He had to take quite a survey of science for this degree; but these were all science for non-majors courses, and as he says himself, he didn’t learn anything of substance from them. I suspect he got the usual idea of science-as-heap-of-facts reinforced; when, in fact, science is a process. One could follow the prescriptions of this process in any endeavor to improve its credibility–even journalism.
2 pm, EST Today, (16 minutes into the show, 2nd segment); Sunday on Fox News Channel:
Sen. James Inhofe vs. Rep. Ed Markey on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday (replay from 9AM); Replayed, again at 6PM.
A fair overview of US and global governmental status. Not enough time to clearly get much out of the issues. These are vet politicians. Some interesting details. Clarification? TV debates are obviously a very, very difficult venue.
Markey showed his superior ability through clever bites and diverting focus to his agenda. Some flashy “specifics” (“tree ringed circus” unfounded as they may be).
Inhofe good at providing background, but he required additional efforts by interested viewers – not good for reactionary/emotional convincing.
Fox summary “Markey: Climate-Gate Has Become ‘Tree Ring Circus'” at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/13/markey-climategate-tree-ring-circus/
Additional:
‘Stossel’ Premiere to Take on Global Warming; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579963,00.html?test=economy
Reporters and scientists are both supposed to be skeptical and lean over backward to find flaws in a favored theory. You don’t need to be an expert in science or journalism to grasp that concept. There’s a saying in journalism that applies here, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
And when a top climate scientist tells a colleague not to reveal the “dirty laundry,” to skeptics, that’s a red flag for fraud. Funny how the AP’s allegedly comprehensive investigation failed to discuss that email.
In spite of -30 to -50 F cold, the citizens of Edmonton still found time to protest last evening as they demanded a cooler climate. See this article entitled “Frigid Climate Protest” :
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/12/13/12138496-sun.html
Is this funny or what?
For those who don’t know, the minimum temperature last night at Edmonton Int AP was -50 F and the headlines read “Prairies Hit with Extreme Cold Snap”.
Roger Knights (06:48:16)
great post exposing some of borenstein’s manipulation in detail.
PaulH (10:28:46),
There are major differences here. If a journalist has an undisclosed vested interest in taking sides like Borenstein did [before he was outed], that’s an ethics violation no matter what the subject being reported on, no?
The difference between the CRU, UN and Penn State climate scientists and the others that you mention is that those others are not part of a major, secretive and coordinated effort to transfer $Trillions more from the taxpayers of the U.S., the UK and the EU to their governments, and then on to other countries via the UN — based on unsupportable scientific claims and no reproducible empirical evidence. In other words, those corrupt climate scientists are saying to the world, “Trust us” — while Borenstein is secretly conniving behind the scenes with them for the best way to handle critics, honest scientists, and the public.
Seth Borenstein is not only right in the middle of the climate scam, but he deliberately hid that crucial fact — until he was caught red handed when the emails were leaked.
If the AP had an ethics policy actually in force, it would have taken immediate action against Borenstein when it became apparent from the leaked emails that he was acting as Mann’s personal propagandist in private, but acting as an just another columnist in public.
Since the AP took no disciplinary action against Borenstein for his glaring ethics violation, it means the AP condones Borenstein’s secret strategizing over how to best sell AGW to the public.
So no, Borenstein wasn’t just another guy in way over his head. He was cooperating behind the scenes as the Team’s propagandist and publicizing their story, while denigrating those asking serious questions. And he kept that critical information from the public.
“So it is clear, since there will be no end to time and the world is eternal, that neither the Tanais nor the Nile has always been flowing, but that the region whence they flow was once dry: for their effect may be fulfilled, but time cannot. And this will be equally true of all other rivers. But if rivers come into existence and perish and the same parts of the earth were not always moist, the sea must needs change correspondingly. And if the sea is always advancing in one place and receding in another it is clear that the same parts of the whole earth are not always either sea or land, but that all this changes in course of time.. ” (353a14-24)
Aristotle (but Borenstein and Al Gore know better)
photon without a Higgs (09:38:05) :
Michael (08:26:11) :
Now Mark Maslin is saying it’s 5000 scientists.
They’re breeding faster than rats. Oh wait, that statement is self contradictory.
Here’s the link for Aristotle on meteorology
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.html
In a sane world, another media outlet would be all over this.
We do live in a sane world. And not just a Media Outlet is on them. tens of thousands of media outlets:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/ap-investigates-climategate.html
Also keep an eye on my buddy Eric at Classical Values. He is really smart and a most interesting writer. Disclaimer: he is also a personal friend.
Which means you can add points to his rating.
_Jim (10:00:34) :
{snip}
“Conspiracy theories are the tool of the weak-minded.”
Perhaps, I would not know.
Gee Jimmy, you are great at casting me as a straw man. As far as conspiracies go, I have no problem with them else we are dealing with thought and speech “crimes”.
Let folks conspire. I conspire to bring down central banking.
“Now Mark Maslin is saying it’s 5000 scientists.”
OK. Name them, Mark. Give us a list. A citation.
Anything but a baseless opinion.
Invariant posted at (10:10:49) :
Jack in Oregon (09:29:39) :
“…If not, why not setup a server that can automatically download, process and display the global temperature sea average according to ARGO?”
I agree, I believe we need to build a system like that. Today’s servers have the ability to be programed to automatically seek out data and scrap it into SQL or equivalent. It just needs to know its path, and when to check for an update.
I personally host an automated game, which logs into a daily updated website, and downloads the data from a tournament and calculates my players hypothetical scores based on real world data. A project like this is the same technology. Think of something like a fantasy baseball managers league with hundreds of real players.
In this case, automating a script to seek out the daily argo data or for that matter any weather station and adding it to an ongoing database of records for that machine/location should be fairly easy. It will be slow in the beginning, but once we tune the server this will become easier and easier to add resolution to the big picture on global temps.
What will be a pain in the wazzo is if we need to individualize the land scraping process for weather stations verses being able to grab them from some form of automated daily scraping. Does anyone know of a location that allows automated raw access to daily “official” weather stations besides the ASOS stuff?
automating ARGO, plus ASOS would be a start, but we also need the historical land stations that are automated. This would also allow us to track the global changes in a raw format going forward.
First we need to get the raw US historical records into SQL, at the same time including individual stations from national level weather offices, besides the ARGO stuff.
I personally believe we can automate most of the weather record retrieval process, so that our auditors are second and third checking the work of the automated process that uploads the raw records. The data can be automated, its just a matter of deciding to do it.
I believe Willis is handling this project, when he is not being attacked by the “dismal” science.
Jack
“In the same way a nation must be supposed to lose account of the time when it first settled in a land that was changing from a marshy and watery state and becoming dry. Here, too, the change is gradual and lasts a long time and men do not remember who came first, or when, or what the land was like when they came. This has been the case with Egypt. Here it is obvious that the land is continually getting drier and that the whole country is a deposit of the river Nile. But because the neighbouring peoples settled in the land gradually as the marshes dried, the lapse of time has hidden the beginning of the process.”
I don’t think Aristotle is among those ‘5,000’ scientists
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.mb.txt
There’s a headline in the warmist rag The Independent on Sunday today with a headline saying (approximately): Climategate investigation confirms the science is true’.
Who did the research to justify this article? Seth Borenstein of AP.
Whilst we are well used to the UK establishment hiring a mafia henchman to sit in judgement of an organised crime trial, it is a shame that it is being carried out again in the arena of climate change.
There are people worthy of evaluating the science from a position of considered neutrality. A global warming fanatic journalist is not that man.
IMHO.
Mr. Borenstein is conflicted, but out here in the So Cal boonies, I inform you the Los Angeles Times must be the most deranged alarmist newspaper in North America. Today’s “opinion” page is one half photos of world spots supposedly showing glacier retreats, but not providing local temperture info. The times is the last outpost of the Kilimanjaro theory, which I thought all alarmists had dropped, but they keep at it. Just the other day they had a UCLA “institute” (read-grant macro-farm) apparatchik reasserted the Kilimanjaro claim within one of the times’ opinion pieces why good thinking people should not think about Climategate. The paper is literally a joke, but unlike NY or Chicago, there is no big competitor. The San Francisco papers, ironically, have a modicum of objectivity. I think the times reporters are all on the “consultant” side-employment, or are just robotic dolts.
Michele (00:01:51) :
“Yesterday, I saw Factcheck.org’s “fact” check of climategate and, basically, they said: There’s no problem with CRU emails. It was just misunderstanding…”
But…but…it has “fact” in the name and so it must be true!
Seriously though, factcheck gets things wrong quite often, often due to being overly PC, but morons think they are somehow infallible and not subject to human biases.
My e-mail is now correct. I hope I didn’t annoy the moderator. OTOH Anthony has had my correct e-mail for quite some time. And it is on the sidebar of my blog.
Jeff B. (05:13:42) :
“For those who have been asleep at the wheel, this biased “journalism” isn’t just restricted to climate science. PR Cheerleaders like Borenstein looked the other way when it came to scrutiny of candidate Obama, and that’s how he got elected.”
Very true, people would be amazed about some of the well documented things in Obama’s past, and, like in climate change, he has his own cliques to manufacture the truth for him on wikipedia and in other”authorities.”
What if an Internet tool could be created to break the barrier between divided Internet blogs talking about the same subject such as that of climate? That day has arrived.
Details here;
Tool to Break the Divide of the Left Right Paradigm.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/118836
I sent this to Alex Jones to see what he thinks.