Koch takes the NYT and Revkin to task

As WUWT readers know, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times was the first to “authenticate” the stolen Heartland documents. Only one problem, one of the documents, the one that “gave the story legs” (in journo parlance) was a fake. That fake document, combined with Revkin’s “authentication” then helped release an avalanche of coverage, most of it without even checking with the sources first.  These newshounds adopted a pack mentality and went chasing the fox.

In a pushback to this lack of journalistic integrity, the Charles Koch Foundation has issued a strongly worded denunciation on their opinion the New York Times’ reporting of the Fakegate affair.

One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity.  Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.”  Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.

I used to have more respect for Andrew Revkin than many other reporters, because he was much more open and accessible. But like Gleick, he’s really damaged himself in this episode. Now he’s just any other reporter with a cause. Speaking of damage…

I’ve been damaged as well, with all sorts of false and malicious reports. The Guardian’s early coverage for example from Goldenberg and Hickman didn’t even wait for a response from me. though Goldenberg asked for comment, she didn’t wait for a response. The news organ of the British government, BBC’s Richard Black, also didn’t seek comment. He just published his opinion. And so it went with serial regurgitators worldwide.

Locally, one such person who has been leading the libeling of me is familiar to many readers here from his hilariously inept interactions in blog comments. That’s Dr. Mark Stemen, of Chico State University. On his Facebook page he labeled me as a “Koch-whore” (I have screencaps which I’ll share later) without so much as asking me a question first. And, in an email to me he went from simple libel to malicious libel by saying “and I’ve made sure everyone knows it”.

It didn’t matter to him that Koch wasn’t even involved with climate funding to Heartland when I pointed it out, he just took another tack of denigration. The hate from this man and his students he’s telling about me on his Facebook page is palpable. Problem is, he’s been using publicly funded resources to push his political activism, something we’ve seen time and again in Climategate.

Of course Dr. Stemen is part of CSUC’s sustainability cabal committee with the City of Chico, who uses his publicly funded bully pulpit to dictate to our town what others should do in living our lives in the green meme. When you are given such godlike power (conveyed with tenure without consequences) over others, I suppose there’s no need to check facts first. Slime first, ask questions later.

The irrational hatred spewing from Dr. Mark Stemen and others over the word “Koch” in any context belies serious shortcomings in being factual and rational messengers in education, a role he was hired to do.

Here’s the Koch letter to NYT:

Charles Koch Foundation Confronts the New York Times for Misleading Readers

The following letter was sent by Tonya Mullins of the Charles Koch Foundation to Art Brisbane, Public Editor, at the New York Times on February 24, 2012:

Dear Mr. Brisbane:

In previous correspondence with Melissa Cohlmia of Koch Industries, you invited any further examples of flawed journalism on the news side. The Times’s recent piece on the Charles Koch Foundation [Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science; 2/15/12] is one of the more egregious examples to date.  Here are our specific concerns:

  • As soon as we read the piece, we pointed out to editors that they had been misinformed.  The article stated, “The documents say that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation…was expected to contribute $200,000 this year [to Heartland Institute].”  That is demonstrably false and we said so in writing and on the record in an email.  But editor Nancy Kenney replied a day later to ask if we could be “more explicit” (correspondence attached below).  A public statement from the Charles Koch Foundation had been out for days at that point and the authenticity of the document the Times relied on had been disavowed by Heartland and thoroughly discredited by other news outlets.  Yet, the Times would not update or clarify the story to include these facts.
  • The Times never reached out to us before publication, despite quoting several other parties that were cited. Ms. Kenney claims to “regret that our reporters didn’t call you” and yet when we asked her for an explanation (twice) she ignored the question and the information we provided remains withheld from readers.
  • The piece tried to convey that the Charles Koch Foundation had funded Heartland’s work on climate science – based on the headline, lede, and the sentences immediately preceding and after the mention of the Foundation’s donation, all of which emphasize climate science.  That is false, and we explained to Ms. Kenney that our $25,000 donation was specifically for healthcare research.  Ms. Kenney insists that we are “misreading” the article and that it is somehow “clear from the overall context” that the donation was for “purposes other than climate advocacy.”  Her position is puzzling in light of the actual content and context, yet when we asked for explanation she gave none.

Since the piece ran, it has come to light that some of the documents the Times cited were obtained by an activist who, by his own admission, perpetrated a fraud on Heartland.  One of the documents, a purported cover memo, is now widely regarded as wholly fabricated – a view supported by what both we and Heartland have separately told the paper.

However, the paper’s subsequent reporting still omits any mention of our direct and salient statements to the Times about that apparent fabrication.  Readers are still left with the false impression about the size, duration, and intent of our donation.  Our good faith questions about why the Times failed to call us and won’t include our viewpoint remain unanswered.  Not one of the five Times reporters that have written on the topic – Leslie Kaufman, Justin Gillis, John Border, Felicity Barringer, and Andrew Revkin – even attempted to contact us for input or reaction.

One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity.  Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.”  Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.

If you could look into this matter we would appreciate your feedback.

Sincerely,

Tonya Mullins

Director of Communications

Charles Koch Foundation

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pull My Finger

The Times have about as much shame and integrity as Pravda did during the Cold War. Pure propoganda. The Editorial page is 100% liberal. There is not a thing under the Sun the Democratic Party can do wrong in their eyes.

Duncan

Revkin is a reporter for the NY Times?
I thought Dot Earth was editorial/opinion now.

Taphonomic

It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick lied, cheated, and stole.
So goes the meme of climate science. It is creditable to lie, cheat, and steal.
And people are supposed to trust climate scientists?

Good to see Koch fighting back.
It’s fun to see how some people react to the simple mention of word like “FOX NEWS”, KOCH”, “BUSH” etc

Ally E.

Brilliant! I am soooo looking forward to the NYT reply. They’ve simply got to straighten their act, as does all MSM. A brilliant letter.

Ken Hall

This goes to prove that the “mainstream media” has an agenda which is not truthful or accurate reporting. They are solely dedicated to pushing a misleading and untruthful version of reality. To mislead the public and condition them into supporting a false agenda requiring endless tax increases and ever tighter controls over what we can and cannot do.

Al Gored

“Dr. Mark Stemen… labeled me as a “Koch-whore” (I have screencaps which I’ll share later) without so much as asking me a question first.”
I know this stuff does hurt, even with a thick battle-tested skin. And it is beyond outrageous that these people operate from government funded positions ( and even worse, that they have infiltrated so many of them).
But… it is a wonderful thing to see them hang themselves like this. Like Gleick, when they get mad they reveal the nasty ideologues hiding under their ‘scientist’ costume and this is the kind of corrosion that will ultimately end their reign. I hope.
So let’s hope that this exposure provokes an even more hysterical outburst.

Gary Pearse

There is a “sauve qui peut” feel (phrase used when loss of a war is imminent – usually broadcast to the front and it basically means – save what you can or every man for himself (apologies to woman for this acronysm))during these desperate days for the AGW crowd. The “C”AGW has been dropped and finally the A, G and W – opting for rogue climate terms. CO2 isn’t even mentioned anymore for obvious reasons. There is just ranting, lying, cheating – anything to ward off the inevitable. There is hysteria, an ugly impotent aggressiveness, a reckless abandonment of core values, civility and good sense. These guys – the activist scientists, politicians and journalists- are clearly “all in” both in the sense used in Texas Hold’em and as in mentally and physically exhausted. I sincerely hope madness and suicide aren’t in the offing.

I suspect the NYT still thinks the ‘Hitler diaries’ are genuine.

Duncan above is correct. Here’s the note I sent to the Koch Foundation press person yesterday: https://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/174960201928159232
REPLY: Andy, I don’t think the public makes such distinctions nor cares. Are you using your “not a reporter” capacity to excuse not digging deeper into these documents before making authentication statements that set off the hounds? – Anthony

John W.

The defining characteristic of the Left, in any of its manifestations, is hate. That hate always expresses itself in rage. Following the old adage that you can judge a man by his enemies, I’d suggest you consider being labeled a “Koch-whore” by such as Stemen to be a high honor.

Henry chance

I have met 2 of the Koch bros on more than 1 occasion. I have met their dad decades ago. I was called regarding a Wall Street Journal article about Koch many years ago. The WSJ did make phone calls. I guess that is old school and now rags just read blogs for stories.

Doug Jones

“In Pravda there is no Izvestia. In Izvestia there is no Pravda.”
The NYT rolls them both up in one festering lump.

Ken Hall

I agree with Taphonomic. There is a creditable side and a discreditable side to this climate debate now.
There is one side which self-admittedly sinks to engaging in, and acceptance and acts in defence of criminal deception, fraud, theft with malicious intent to cause harm and loss. This side closed down debate, keeps data secret, publishes misleading data, engages in bullying and intimidation and threats against editors and journals and engaged in corrupt, incestuous peer review and rejects reality in favour of the output from computer models. This side is the climate alarmist, warmist side.
There is another side to this climate debate which invites and welcomes open debate from all sides, seeks to have all data open and available to all, seeks to have all science stick rigidly to the full tenets of the scientific method, seeks to have all science validated by empirical evidence. This side is the truly scientific, climate sceptic side.
Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder which side I should trust?

DaveG

Philip Foster says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I suspect the NYT still thinks the ‘Hitler diaries’ are genuine.
Phil. Don’t be silly, but they still think Stalin was a kind and gentle machine gun man who was misunderstood by his fellow citizens.

Don E

What’s wrong with Koch donating money for climate stuff? Don’t they also donate money to Lincoln Center? The symphony and opera are Koch-whores?

Dave

Let’s see… Revkin puts something on Twitter and calls it an explanatory note to the Koch’s? Did he call them? Write them? Send an email? If not, I hope they get the best lawyer in New York and give the man his due…

Todd

OK. I’ll bite. Exactly what does a degree in “environmental courses in sustainability and civic engagement” qualify one for in life? Other than a protesting gig at the next OWS.

Ian E

Over in the UK we have George Monbiot describing Gleick as a hero for what he did! I had thought Monbiot deluded, but essentially honourable and honest, up to this point (he has even had the grace occassionally to admit his errors (as with Biofuels and solar power – at least for the UK,), but this Gleick affair and their hatred for Heartland seems to have completely blinded the warmie-lefties to any feeling for integrity, honesty and the nature of real science.
All warmies should clearly be forced to read and study Bertrand Russell’s decalogue for at least an hour every day!

a reader

Watching “Nova” on PBS recently, I noticed that it was funded by the Charles Koch foundation.

Todd

One minor aside. Maybe someone with a name other than “Stemen” should be the one to mock someone named “Koch.”
Just sayin’

The New York Times is not the only perpetrator of shoddy “journalism.” Last Sunday John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle (Truth and Denial) lightly condemned Peter Gleick while trying and convicting The Heartland Institute and man-caused global warming skeptics of crimes against humanity. According to Mr. Diaz: “The scientific consensus that human activity is accelerating global warming is solid; the only real debate is about the magnitude and timing of the consequences. Its effects are already apparent. Melting glaciers and ice caps. Sea-level rise. Severe storms and drought. Devastated crops.”
The fact that global warming is not accelerating, and that numerous reputable and respected scientists deny its consequences did not enter into Mr. Diaz’s labeling of skeptics as “deniers”, furthering the ongoing effort to establish and maintain an odious link with Holocaust deniers. Mr. Diaz obviously is unaware that glaciers have been retreating for over 300 years since the end of the Little Ice Age. In Glacier Bay, Alaska, retreat was over 50 miles from 1780 to 1912,
and only six miles since. Sea level rise has decelerated, according to Europe’s new sophisticated satellite system, and is trending at about six inches per century or less, the same as the two previous centuries. The alarmist forecast for the San Francisco Bay Area of six feet by 2100 would equal the highest rate of increase per century experienced at the end of the Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, when there was vast quantities of ice to melt and global temperature was much higher than today. Concerning severe storms and drought, and devastated crops, even dedicated “warmist” scientists deny linkages, and respected neutral scientists such as the Doctors Piellke, Senior and Junior, dismiss it entirely.
Mr. Diaz also assumes with no evidence that skeptics are well funded, but if he had chosen to read fraudulently acquired Heartland Institute budget, and compared it to warmist organization budgets – Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, etc. – he would be confronted by the facts that the Heartland Institute budget is only a small fraction of the budgets of any one of these organizations, that only a small portion of Heartland’s budget was applied to climate change, and that Big Oil provides far more money to warmists than to skeptics.
Mr. Diaz, I can easily substantiate skeptic science positions by inquiring government, not skeptic sources. Mr. Diaz, it seems you and many other “reporters” have lost your nose for news when it comes to natural climate change.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/INLN1MNTGK.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1no3dSt8b

Don E, the Koch brothers must be pressuring the Lincoln Center to play more Beethoven, Strauss, Wagner, and any other “approved” Aryan music!
Once the left has a narrative, they never let facts get in the way.

Anthony – what do you mean with “authentication statements” by Revkin?

EW-3

Philip Foster says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I suspect the NYT still thinks the ‘Hitler diaries’ are genuine.

The NYT still displays the Pulitzer won by Walter Duranty who reported “In a New York Times article dated 23 August 1933, Duranty wrote, “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda””
This is the exaggerated famine that did indeed killed millions of Ukranians.
The NYT would never let truth get in the way of a Pulitzer.
Had they any integrity they would at least take down a Pulitzer earned through deception, but the times like most liberal elites tend to ignore the foibles of socialists.

MarkW

Even with the ridiculously tight libel laws in this country when it comes to public figures, this should be an open and shut case. What the times is doing should go way beyond the pale. Not even bothering to check whether documents are real before running with them. Then refusing to tell their readers that the person being slandered says the documents are false.

The list of collages / universities I will chose to attend gets smaller all the time.
Penn State – no
University of Virginia – no
UEA – no
Chico State – no
I wonder, what choices I’ll have left when it’s time?

Matthew W. Don’t forget “Cheney” and the ever popular “Halliburton”. I wonder if all the actors in this sorry episode from the Hysteric side realize they have no credibility left. That is no small thing, especially for so-called journalists and scientists. When you have reached the point of not only rationalizing lying and stealing but actually praising it, who is going to believe your “science”?

DesertYote

Pull My Finger
February 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm
The Times have about as much shame and integrity as Pravda did during the Cold War. Pure propoganda. The Editorial page is 100% liberal. There is not a thing under the Sun the Democratic Party can do wrong in their eyes.
###
I guess its because once the Soviets were in control, spin did not matter so much. When I was stationed in Germany in the late 70’s, I found Pravda to be more reliable then the NYT.

BrettR

What I want to know is when Mr. Revkin will editorialize about the massive funding difference between CAGW supports and skeptics? Is this the third rail of climate science? Maybe it’s out there and I haven’t seen it yet. Considering how well throwing money at the public education system has worked, I’m sure that even more funding will be thrown at climate science until we get “results”. Of course “results” always seem to lead to moving the goalpost so to speak.
What I also find so fascinating about this whole debacle is how open the skeptics communication systems are and how closed the CAGW crowd seems to be. I guess when your main argument is reduced to “the case is closed” there’s not much left to say.

I am sorry to say that bullies do not stop their tactics until someone bloodies their nose. As long as you let bullies get away with their stuff, they will continue to bully.

Frank K.

“That’s Dr. Mark Stemen, of Chico State University. On his Facebook page he labeled me as a “Koch-whore” (I have screencaps which I’ll share later) without so much as asking me a question first. And, in an email to me he went from simple libel to malicious libel by saying “and I’ve made sure everyone knows it”.”
Anthony – you should report this incident to the dean of Stemen’s department. They should at least know that one of their faculty members is acting unprofessionally. If they ignore it and/or condone it, then you can cc the President of the university and see if there is any reaction there.
Stemen is a coward. I wonder if he’ll show up here to defend himself…

John Whitman

Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
@Anthony
– – – – –
Andy Revkin,
If you looks like a duck, walks like a duck, work in company employing ducks, write for a duck newspaper, have a duck journalist degree, report on happenings in duck science and related duck government policy, associate constantly on the same duck playing field as duck journalists . . . . .
Then you duck in as is a journalist.
Andy Revkin, welcome to duckland, as in you should duck out and seek legal cover . . . . just saying isn’t this just all ducky?
John

Jimbo

“Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.””

Revkin on a bank robber:

“It’s enormously creditable that John Smith has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.”

Sorry, I’m not buying this rubbish. If he lied once how do we know he didn’t write or dictate the faked memo? ;>)

Honest ABE

I think the main reason Monbiot and friends are taking the wrong position on the Gleick affair is because their glimmers of honesty during Climategate were met with ridicule from their peers.
They bought the narrative that Climategate wasn’t important and so out of guilt or wariness of being on the “wrong” side again they have doubled down on climate alarmism and killed any remaining integrity they may have had.

Jimbo

The worst of the journalists in the saga is the journo-activist Richard Black of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. An absolute embarrassment to his colleagues.

HankHenry

Has anyone considered that Gleick may be thinking that he’s pulled off an Occupy Heartland coup with the unwitting assistance of the ever so earnest A Revkin of the New York Times?
I’m sure Gleick thought he was pulling off a great prank in the style of “The Yes Men,” Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos. The new term for it is culture jamming. I would think established news media would be more guarded about this kind of thing. It’s their reputation for accuracy that is in jeopardy. The BBC got depantsed big time by these “yes men” comedians. It ran this piece twice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
I wonder if the New York Times has considered that Gleick may be laughing up his sleeve. When their reporter Revkin says things like, “I’ve known Gleick as a source and acquaintance since I first quoted him in 1988, which made it very hard to write the piece on Monday” is he sure he’s really on top of what his source Gleick is up to? For heaven’s sake, Gleick founded an institute dedicated to environmental protection, and others in his cause are not only talking about high crimes, misdemeanors, and death trains but getting themselves arrested. It’s probably The New York Times’ mistake to think that even Gleick himself considers himself as much of a scientist. Gleick is more likely hoping he’ll get a mention by Amy Goodman over at “Democracy Now” which is clearly the happening place for the Occupy Everything crowd.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/28/wikileaks_private_spies_stratfor_helped_dow
If institutions like the New York Times don’t learn to stop calling the same tired out sources and to seek out fresh and contrasting views, they will emerge from the fog and discover the world has moved on without them.

Clioman

PhilJordan is absolutely right. Don’t get mad. Ged even. Sue the sons-o’-bitches.

Morph

One slight note as a Brit who does like the BBC, but not Mr Black or it’s policy on reporting the “environment” or “climate change” this quote – “The news organ of the British government, the BBC” is wrong, and over bombastic IMHO.
Despite what you may think, the BBC IS independent of the British Government athough it is state funded – often the UK government finds itself complaining about the BBC and more often than not the ublic back the beeb and not the politicians – of any side.
See here for an example of how the BBC resisted being an arm of the British Government (ok it is their website, but it is correct)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/bbcandgov/general_strike.shtml
There is often confusion about different parts of the BBC – the state broadcaster and website is covered by this, but the World Service (TV and Radio) is FCO (UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office) funded and does buy material and programs from others – which is where it has been caught out before by the likes of the WWF etc – see Bishop Hill’s conspiracy document for details.
I agree with this though – Black is not even handed in any way, and his handling of this issue is very poor.
But I do like the Beeb – mostly.

Morph – at the time of the Andrew Gilligan affair the BBC was right, Andrew Gilligan was right, and yet the BBC caved in to Government pressure.
The idea that it has not become an arm of the Government is quite fanciful.

Patrick Plemmons is prescient. John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle invoked Cheney in his article “Truth and denial”, faintly damning Gleick while castigating The Heartland Institute for supporting skeptical science: Mr. Diaz wrote:
“As I think about climate change and the effect of the deniers on using doubt as an excuse for inaction, I cannot escape the contrast with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “1 percent doctrine” regarding terrorism threats. Cheney’s view was that the consequence of a terrorist attack was so severe – so devastating to the nation’s psyche and interests – that if a threat had even a 1 percent chance of happening, it should be treated as a given and prepared for accordingly.”
Of course, the predictably economically ignorant John Diaz does not understand that resources are not infinite, and that overexpending them on one issue means they are not available for other important needs. I suggest Mr. Diaz consider that if you can’t stop natural climate change, and there is not a hint that anything can, you spend your resources wisely by adapting to it, rather than futilely fighting it.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/INLN1MNTGK.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1noHgs400

burnside

A pushback from the Koch foundation is almost certainly to be rejected out of hand by NYT readers and others who take a dim view of its work and support in other (political) arenas.
The discussion might better have been served by their silence.

Bob Johnston

Anthony – In regards to your situation with Mark Stemen, I just finished a book that discussed cognitive dissonance and how a person will use what the author called “self-rationalization” to alleviate it. What happens is that Stemen views himself as a just, considerate and kind person (as does everybody) and if he’s demonstrated poor behavior towards someone he’s internalized the only reason it could have happened is that the person deserved it. For Stemen to accept that his actions were inappropriate would upset his view of himself and most people are incapable of coming to that conclusion. Basically Stemen’s bad behavior towards you reinforces his attitude; the worse he acts, the worse you become in his mind. It’s unfortunate that we humans are not beyond this.

Charles.U.Farley

There have been many questions regarding the damage done to trust in scientists with this whole green nonsense agenda, the Gleick affair is just another part of it.
I feel that the warmers initially found a friend in science, attempting to use it to prove their wild assertions beyond doubt and almost succeeding had it not been for MR FOIA doing his bit, but since then the claims have become wilder, more idiotic than ever could be imagined.
Since the use of science as a tool to prop up the warmist madness has failed spectacularly, theyve now dispensed (or are in the process of dispensing) with it, favouring the reversion to type we usually see- shrill, hysterical proclamations of doom, everything connected to climate change connected to mans influence, made continually to keep it in the public perception.
Earthquakes caused by a gnat farting or a handshake, all that pap, the apocalyptic scenarios they love to try and get a headline with.
So much for science supporting their cracked viewpoints then, no need for it if its ok to lie, cheat and deceive, especially if the compliant media are helping you.
No, theyve decided to destroy it and make it impossible for anyone to really trust scientists.
That has the roll on effect of people not actually being able to know the truth or have any confidence in the science which incidentally they care not a jot for, its all about “the cause”, the science was useful while it lasted, but now its gotta go and thats how theyre doing it.
Its a slash and burn policy, just another step down the road to green marxism, their new world order of loony yogurt weaving and hair shirts.
Youve got to ask yourself a question: If Phil Jones, Micky Mann, and the rest of the green headcases had designed a rocket, would you want to try and ride in it?

Michael J. Bentley

If I remember my broadcast law class (soooo last century) I think there are three requirements for a “public” person to be awarded libel damages.
1. Publication – print, or boradcast
2. Malicious intent – a requirement that the victim be hurt in some way
3. Reckless disregard for the facts
HUMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm!
Mike
PS and yes, in journalism school we were taught to check and recheck our facts with the source.
SOOOOOO last century….

Dave N

“I am soooo looking forward to the NYT reply”
I expect it won’t be in their paper; at least, not until a court orders them to.

Now, I wonder if they can afford a lawyer … 😉

Anthony,
One small correction to your “The news organ of the British government, BBC’s Richard Black….” comment –
the BBC is ideologically aligned to the British Labour party (Left) and actually attacks the incumbent Coalition ( a majority Conservative (Right) and minority Liberal (Whackos) Government.
A correction here might be in order. No Conservative British Government would view the BBC as anything other than a mouth organ of the (Opposition) Labour Party, which is a travesty (can’t believe I used that word) because every TV owning person in the UK funds this effectively socialist politicised mouth piece.

Al Gored

Jimbo says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm
“The worst of the journalists in the saga is the journo-activist Richard Black of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. An absolute embarrassment to his colleagues.”
In terms of the effect in the UK at least, I’d say that Black is the best of journalists.

pat

What Revkin doesn’t get is that there was no sensational story in the first place. I never heard of Heartland. Its budget is minimal. Revkin, plotting with a corrupt Warmist, not only published irrelevant documents, even when pumped up by a forgery, but sought to create a sensation out of nothing.
Revkin is a advocate for a failing hypothesis and simply cannot accept the fact that skepticism about AGW is warranted. More so every day.

AlexS

“BBC IS independent of the British Government athough it is state funded – often the UK government finds itself complaining about the BBC and more often than not the ublic back the beeb and not the politicians – of any side.”
You are wrong. The British Government is not Prime Minister Jim Hacker but the Sir Humphrey Appleby’s .
BBC is the front of the British Government or the Statist Complex.
See what happens if a Government says: people don’t have to pay the license if they don’t want to see the BBC.
The BBC uses its considerable power to keep the Government that came and goes paying their fee via taxes and the license. In short, BBC is much more powerful than any Governments.