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
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.
Revkin is a reporter for the NY Times?
I thought Dot Earth was editorial/opinion now.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
“In Pravda there is no Izvestia. In Izvestia there is no Pravda.”
The NYT rolls them both up in one festering lump.
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?
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.
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?
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…
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.
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!
Watching “Nova” on PBS recently, I noticed that it was funded by the Charles Koch foundation.
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?
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.
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”?
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.
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.
“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…
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
Revkin on a bank robber:
Sorry, I’m not buying this rubbish. If he lied once how do we know he didn’t write or dictate the faked memo? ;>)
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.
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.
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.
PhilJordan is absolutely right. Don’t get mad. Ged even. Sue the sons-o’-bitches.
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
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.
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.
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?
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….
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
Hi Mr. Revkin…..apology in order.
Hi Anthony, sue them all if they don’t issue apologies.
Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
> Duncan above is correct. Here’s the note I sent to the Koch Foundation press person yesterday: https://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/174960201928159232
Hmm, I guess I don’t understand why people embrace Twitter so much. Maybe it’s a cell phone form factor thing. Perhaps I need a following. The twitter link says to look at http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/18508153780/my-note-to-koch-foundation-in-reaction-to and that says:
I haven’t gone to match up “strong and repeated criticisms of his actions” with “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Note that there’s still that missing tidbit of who wrote the fabricated document. Given the strength of the evidence, I’d be reluctant to include creditable and Gleick in the same phrase, but that’s just my opinion.
Revkin is part of the damage done by Gleick. His validating of Gleick’s illegal and malicious activities helped to permanently damage Heartland. What percentage of the damages Revkin has caused in this Gleick affair should be decided in a court of law, along with what percentage the NYT shares in it.
Should someone break into my house in the middle of the night, on your advice, I’ll leave my 1911A1 in its case…NOT!
John W. says: “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.”
I’ve had a few opportunities to observe Warmistas in public. Any discussion involving AGW very rapidly deteriorated from an exchange of viewpoints to a spittle-spewing tirade directed at the dissenter. Facts, data, logic, rational argument, and truth went right out the window. The media have, with few exceptions, degenerated into a cheering section for these demented victims of leftist propaganda. I would never insult prostitutes by drawing a comparison between them and the MSM.
Why would anyone have any respect for Revkin? He is a warming alarmist.
CO2, a TRACE gas, does not explain the unproven hypothesis of man made global warming.
Man made global warming is a hoax. It is based on unverified computer models.
The field data do not support the computer models.
Natural variability explains changes in the climate.
There are numerous forces in nature that cause the climate, e.g., oceans, water vapor, cloud formation, cosmic radiation, the sun. These forces dwarf any effect that may be caused by CO2. Note that none of these stated forces is caused by man. The warming alarmists needed something to which man contributed in order to blame man for global warming. In that way, they could extort money from people and corporations.
How many more times does this need to be stated?
I believe the New York Times has still not given back the Pulitzer given to one of its reporters Walter Duranty for his Propaganda whitewashing the Ukrainian famine caused by Stalin exporting ALL of their grain as a retaliation against them.
Then ther was Herbert Mathews who whitewashed the Spanish Communists atrocities against Catholics who did so well the NYT sent him to Cuba where he aggrandized the petty dictator Castro into a hero leading us to believe he wasn’t a Communist.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/1276
But hey, they DID demonize McCarthy who was after REAL Communists in our own military and gubmint!!! (and not, as they claimed, peeking into bedrooms or ruining peoples lives at random or even blackballing Hollyweird types)
Heartland must be fellow travelers with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They’re all Koch-whores.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000186&party=D&chamber=S&type=P&cycle=2008
As for Revkin, he knowingly repeated lies and congratulated Gleick under questionable circumstances when further fraud was indicated contrary to how a journalist would guard his ethics, regardless of whether or not he might have a libel defense. Even an opinion piece needs to get its’ facts straight and these could not have looked straight to him. They looked usefully crooked.
As for the MSM, they have chosen sides. The LATimes editoriials have followed with more attacks on Heartland while ignoring their Mein Kamp editorial criticizing Heartland for the contents of the fraudulent memo. They don’t even care about fair. They just know they’re right because they have nothing but the finest intellect and intentions. (NOT)
Mr. Revkin, you’re not a reporter? Well, I guess apologies are in order. /sarc off
Perhaps WUWT readers will volunteer their efforts to help Anthony find a proper descriptor to replace “reporter”.
I stopped buying the NYTimes in 1999, as publisher ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger cast aside accuracy and integrity that was his father’s prize. Since then I only rarely deign to link to a NYTimes story, more usually something from their archives, such is the depth of my disgust with their “journalism.”
Sadly, the L’Affaire Gelick treatment i becoming typical of anything political or controversial there. Yet THIS is journalism’s leading light? The first place an academic goes to for information? Buying the finest in journalistic distortion.
Frank K. says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm
If Stemen is using university property to make such statements, the the University may find itself in legal jeopardy.
Morph says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm
I do not believe that anyone ever claimed the BBC was controlled by the British govt.
They are way, way, to the left of any British govt in the last 50 years.
majormike1 says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm
International terrorism is a real threat. Global warming isn’t.
The cost of trying to prevent even unlikely terrorist attacks is only a small fraction of what the warmistas envision spending on countering AGW.
The real questions for me (that I wish Revkin would answer) are:
1. Why did Revkin simply assume all the documents are authentic? By what process did he come to that opinion?
2. Now that Heartland have said the strategy memo is fake, and there is increasing evidence of the oddity of the document compared to the others, and there is no dispute the document was acquired separately from the others and simply added to the pack to the “15” without any indication of it’s separate source – why does Revkin not CLEARLY modify or withdraw his statement about the document being authentic?
Because he wrote it here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/documents-appear-to-reveal-broad-effort-to-amplify-climate-uncertainty/
The newly disclosed documents that are evidently authentic are being pored over by many environmentalists and journalists, with a particular focus on the tax reporting of the group — which was clearly the intention of the person who disseminated them.
And was quoted in politico (which was then retweeted at various places) as having authenticated the documents.
Found Mr. Revkin’s replies on his blog interesting and relevant to the topic:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/the-other-false-balance-in-the-climate-fight/?comments#permid=29
As CO2 rises, liberal newspapers’ circulation drop. Obviously, they’ve seen this correlation.
I wonder if Revkin would be so forgiving if his own image was altered.
I mean, “Do unto others,” and all that.
Suppose some fiend concocted a vial of science-fiction glop, called “DNA mutating formula 12F,” and delivered it to Revkin in a pie that jumped from the box and hit him in the face. And then suppose this concoction altered Revkins image, so his face, rather than Revkin’s, looked like Mae West’s, (including the make-up.)
The imagine the fiend confessed he had payed for the postage.
Would Revkin then say, “It’s enormously creditable that the fiend has owned up to his terrible error in judgment, in paying for the postage.”
Then imagine the entire Alarmist blogasphere started saying Revkin actually was Mae West.
Would Revkin behave in the same manner he has behaved towards the Koch brothers, who, after all, are actual people?
Ranch Carson says:
February 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Just because it’s a trace gas doesn’t mean it can’t have an important effect.
Did you read about what 100 ppt of ammonia does with CERN’s CLOUD experiment?
From the abstract at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html
“We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100-1,000 fold.”
I don’t mind CO2 being referred to as a trace gas, but shouting it out shows more bluster than understanding.
When is someone going to have to actually pay for their crimes? Everyone inside the climate bubble seems impervious to consequences from their constant bad behavior.
How could Revkin or anyone call Gleick “enormously creditable” after his Amazon book review of Donna Laframboise’s “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.” Gleick’s rant – read his so-called review yourself- is completely off the rails indicating that he hadn’d even read the book. To mistake Glieck for being enormously creditable is just like Donna Laframboise’s thesis of mistaking a delinquent teenager for the world’s top climate expert. How ironic!
Koch is a right wing loon? He gives money to the American Civil Liberties Union. No right wing loon would give a cent to the ACLU.
> Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
Peter Gleick the tar baby; nothing that touched him escapes without being sullied.
Andrew, I’ll give you some props for your condemnation of Gleick’s behavior. But you also got played, and let your own ideology to interfere with journalistic diligence. You rushed misleading statements and lies from Gleick’s forged document into the public arena, and now people are being harmed. Simply saying you’re an opinion writer doesn’t excuse you. If you want to show contrition for your lapse, help stop the lie that you helped to propagate. You might start by apologizing to Golkany, and by condemning Greenpeace and the Democratic Congresscritters attacking him. Condemn Littlemore and those ass clowns at DeSmog, Black at the BBC, Joe Romm, and Greg Laden and anyone who continues to inanely insist Gleick’s forgery is an authentic Heartland document.
We’ll be here for you if they turn on you, which they almost surely will. And of course, the NYT, which no longer seems to have an ethical compass either, won’t like you as much, either. But hey, no one said having a strong sense of ethics is easy.
On second thought, Revkin’s image has been altered. Sadly, he did it to himself.
Doug Allen says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm
> How could Revkin or anyone call Gleick “enormously creditable” after his Amazon book review ….
It’s clear that Revkin’s context was wrt to Gleick’s admission he got some of the documents fraudulently. Revkin left the book review and other writings out of his full sentence.
Revkin – He hasn’t answered the obvious questions.
1. How did he “authenticate” the documents (including the strategy memo) ? By what process? (he said the memo is apparently authentic in his dotearth blog, and in comments to politico)
2. Now he knows that Heartland say the memo is fake – and Gleick says the document was acquired separately – and everybody who has analyzed has noticed numerous mathematical and other errors in the strategy document – does he still maintain that his “authentication”? And if so, on what basis?
3. If he can no longer attest to the “authentication” of the document, will he issue a full and clear correction to his previous statements on this subject?
From kim2ooo on February 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm:
A trade school, aka tech school. And don’t immediately think carpentry or plumbing, they teach many things, you can get many starter careers from programmer to lab tech. Skip the ideological programming, gets hands-on training, and have a good paying career with minimal debt in just a few years.
Then if you have a good employer and show promise, they will pay to get you more training and knowledge and advance your career, at least share the cost and make schedule accommodations. Start with drafting, get some engineering courses, advance to architect, get some more and do industrial architecture and structural engineering. Lab tech to chemist to chemical engineer. Medical assistant to nurse (and pulling down $60-80K/yr right there) to physician assistant etc. There are many possible paths.
If you’re still in public education, consider vocational/technical school (vo-tech) if available. Yeah, they said the same things when I was in school, there are the kids directed to vo-tech (nearly always boys), and then there are “college bound.” That’s hokum, our local vo-tech teaches for many “clean” highly-technical careers. You can start working for good pay and save for college as soon as you graduate, or take that knowledge and experience straight to the tech school and maybe get credits for it.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, Pennsylvania College of Technology, well respected. Take a look, see what’s available. And remember, employers go to these schools to find capable people they can hire as soon as possible, they’ll come to find you.
I see Andy hasn’t replied (at least here) to Anthony taking him to task in the commetns about his (lack of) investigation on the authenticity of the documents. I am in no way, shape or form a reporter, but even I would think to give Heartland a call and say “this is what has been given to me, is it real?” But, no. Pretty disappointing effort on your part. And BTW Andy, there is absolutely NOTHING credible about Gleick’s behavior before, during or after the fact. The only way he can possible be deemed credible is to finally admit he is the author of the fake memo (which we ALL know he authored, or ordered an underling to pen) personally and very publically appologize to everyone, face the legal music he most certainly is going to face, and never work in this business again.
If I were you I’d distance myself as far from Glieck as possible. It is a grease fire that you don’t want on you…
The Koch family should buy the paper, lock the doors and give everyone 60 days termination pay.
Okay, give upper management and the editorial staff a cheap watch and instructions to not let the door hit you on the way out in lieu of pay.
Ken Hall says:
February 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm
“…I agree with Taphonomic. There is a creditable side and a discreditable side to this climate debate now…Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder which side I should trust?…”
Come to the Dark Side. They have cookies…
Given the vast sums of money spent on AGW planning and propagandizing (like Clilmate Works Foundation) one might think that Andy and other ‘journalists’ would set about to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable…but no.
“The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”…Finley Peter Dunne (I remember reading some of his stuff in HS?). Anyway, here’s the more relevant piece from Poynter
“In Doc’s immodest opinion, journalists should never use the phrase again to justify their actions, unless they want old Mr. Dooley to roll over in his grave. It is true that the worst journalism comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. That is a breach of duty.”
http://www.poynter.org/archived/ask-dr-ink/1298/afflicting-the-afflicted/
The first time I heard of the Koch brothers was about a year ago, when a liberal friend sent me a link to a website opposing the Keystone Pipeline. In a big red headline it declared “Stop the Koch Brothers.” Since I had never heard of the Keystone pipeline project or the Koch brothers, I googled them both and found that the Keystone Pipeline was a project of Transcanada Pipeline Co., and had nothing to do with the Koch brothers.
As far as stopping the Koch brothers, I also found out that Koch Industries already had a refinery in Minnesota that had a pipeline to the Alberta oil sands. The Koch brothers already had their crude supply from Alberta!
Apparently the “Koch brothers” is just an enviro-nut phrase to get an emotional rise from the enviro-nut community. I guess that’s really not too different from the use of Hansen’s name to get an emotional response from the more emotional CAGW skeptic. Hummm….I wonder how Dr. Mark Stemen would react if someone called him a “Hansen-whore?”
Revkin: “…how I credited Gleick with confessing to the subterfuge in obtaining the batch of board documents without noting my strong and repeated criticisms of his actions”
He was sorry for getting caught Andy, hardly praise worthy stuff. You sound like you’re trying to be Switzerland on this one; get some cojones and pick a side, his actions were just or they weren’t.
My model shows that the NYT will have evaporated by Christmas 2036.
(990 mill USD market cap, 40 mill USD loss/yr)
David L says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm
When is someone going to have to actually pay for their crimes? Everyone inside the climate bubble seems impervious to consequences from their constant bad behavior.
*
It’s Rajendra Pachauri’s arrest I want to see. The IPCC was called to task by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) in 2010, yet they continue on, totally ignoring IAC’s findings and recommendations. When do things toughen up for the IPCC? When the IPCC is disbanded, the claim to have scientific backing for their doom and gloom reporting disapears.
“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.”
Say hello to the Obama 2012 campaign. http://t.co/6CmnQzME
Apparently, the Koch brothers are two Emmanuel Goldsteins for the price of one.
old engineer says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“I wonder how Dr. Mark Stemen would react if someone called him a “Hansen-whore?””
No…I wouldn’t stoop to his juvenile level…
But I hope all parents out there of college age kids realize that there are people like Mark Stemen in the university system “teaching” your children! If you’re wondering where irresponsible young people like those in the #occupy movement come from, you can look no further than their equally irresponsible “mentors” at colleges and universities like Stemen.
Anthony – if you have the evidence, I would definitely file a complaint to the university.
Anthony, I agree with Frank K. This sort of abuse cannot be shrugged off any longer. Please lodge a complaint.
Anthony,
Is it possible to go after multiple publications and other groups legally under the RICO statutes?
Lawyers, please weigh in.
so… we have a problem, a question, and an answer.
the problem. cagw phenomena, including individual and group politics.
the question. what does the law say ?
the answer. bring in the lawyers.
re the ‘problem’, let’s pick a start date of Al Gore’s film, ‘an inconvenient truth’,
and an ongoing date of ‘Glieck’s convenient lie’ (an epic farce).
the cost ? trillions, much of it still in the possession of major players. how many people died as a direct result of ‘warmist’ intervention ? how about loss of environment to wind farms, is anyone cleaning that up?
let’s consider reparations – should Peter Gleick and bosses be forced to pay for and oversee the removal and recycling of defunct and incorrect curricula, for example. I add that the world’s best update curricula in a short time frame.
I think Glieck, the Pacific Institute, and the American Geophysical Union, and whoever erroneously published unlawful material re this incident, should pay damages to Heartland.
Do we have the views of Education Boards re their intended use of cagw and Heartland curricula ?
in as much as the AGU is a union, does this give union members any rights of consideration, e.g. to present motions and vote in referendums?
Peter Gleick provides AGU with the opportunity to embrace, describe, and enact world’s best practise in integrity and ethics in science.
Responsibility for malfeance and lack of due diligence re reduction of carbon dioxide emissions includes all levels of government, in hand with industrial and education institutions.
‘Here comes the Judge’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQi546UqfT4
“Lawyers, please weigh in.”
Lawdy, what was I thinkin?
Lawyers, please weigh in with well-reasoned opinion, ONLY. Thanks for your forbearance.
I guess somebody ought to inform Koch that this is the NYSlime’s level of ethical behavior. Did the NYSlimes ever admit that their reported who whitewashed the Soviet Gulags lied and wrote Soviet Propaganda? Did the NYSlimes ever give the Pulitzer they got for his lies and distortions back?
The Koch Brothers should….
One at a time, buy struggling, smaller suburban/metro newspapers. Become the Murdochs of that strata. In so doing, transform the national conversation.
But ‘hide the incline/decline’ from … you know who.
Todd says:
February 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm
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.
=============================================================
Well Todd, it also qualifies one to considered a “scientist” so in a pole of “scientist” you can be one of the 97% of “scientist” (After those sponsoring the survey eliminate over 9,000 of the 10,000 surveyed) who say CO2 emissions are destrowing all life on GIA, and that my fiend means you have a fighing chance of staying employed.
Or you may become a highly paid journalist like this Revkin yahoo, who here (Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:February 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm) wrote Anthony to tell him it was ok if his facts were all wrong and his statements highly misleading because he is an opinion writer, not a reporter. Really, these folk are now beyond parody.
Is Mr. Stemen a “Gore Whore?”
Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“Duncan above is correct. Here’s the note I sent to the Koch Foundation press person yesterday: https://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/174960201928159232”
Slander goes front page, above the fold – Clarification, backside of the Obits. (twitting? really?)?
As my Brigade Commander was fond of saying: “It’s not how badly you screw up that matters – it’s how well you recover”. Epic fail here on your part and that of your ‘professional’ (snigger) peers.
Amazing that Watergate was Apocalyptic for Democracy, but Gunwalking, Bailouts for Political Support, Greenmail (Solyndra, et. al. and the list goes on) is so, so . . . . ‘Business as Usual – the way things are done’ and unworthy of investigation and exposition.
I guess the “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else” ‘ethic’ is alive and well.
Congratulations.
Revkin’s defense is that he writes opinion, where apparently facts take a back seat to sensationalism.
My, how Vlad the Impaler of you.
We need to look to staffers within the David Suzuki Foundation for the source of the fake memo. There is a long and persontion between the Pacific Institute and the DSF, including a raving position of both with those that disagree with them. If the “mail” that broughal connect the memo has no postmark, then a corporate mail service, hand delivery or Fedex, is the source. Which means that the day he received the memo could be crosschecked with in-company deliveries from their associates or visitors.
The FBI and US Postal will be off the hook if the memo came from outside the country via FedEx.
Hey Ric W., the warming alarmists have attributed far too much influence to the role of CO2. Maybe you have not been following the claims of the warming alarmists very closely. Show me the fact based evidence, not the predictions of some unverified climate models, that proves that man made CO2 causes climate change, global warming, or climate disruption.
CO2 levels have been rising, yet the global temperatures have been falling.
It is the warming alarmists who falsely claim that there is a green house effect due to man made CO2. Where is the scientific based evidence that clearly and unambiguously establishes man made CO2 as the causative force of climate change? Where is the proof?
Anthony sez to Revkin: “Note that there’s still that missing tidbit of who wrote the fabricated document.”
And THAT is a Story, as in News story. I’ll bet this Generation’s finest, in the tradition of Ed Murrow and Woodward and Bernstein are ALL OVER IT like …….. Hundred Dollar Bills on a Trash Heap, A Poodle on a Wolverine, A Democrat on a piece of Tax-cut legislation . . . . .
Ooooh . . yeah – ALL OVER IT.
And since no one else will say it outright, may i add that Revkin is an advocate of AGW, in an area where he does not have the remotest understanding of what anyone is saying. Not a clue. Nada. No understanding of math, graphs, charts, comparative analysis, history, botany, geography, physics, natural science, evolution, ………nothing.
A Revkin makes an important distinction. In journalism, reporters protect a news organization’s reputation by being thorough and accurate. Revkin understands that editorial writers advocating a position relax their standards of accuracy and thoroughness in the furtherance of the opinion they are expressing.
The same is true for science. When a scientist takes up advocacy for a moral matter he will relax his standards of thoroughness and accuracy. We are seeing too many people calling themselves scientists caught up in advancing opinions and cutting corners to do so.
a reader says: February 29, 2012 at 1:21 pm
You need to read the liberal play book more closely. Conservative money is only tainted when it is being used to promote conservative or right-leaning points of view. When conservative money is promoting neutral or left-leaning causes it is A-OK!
Ethics are the same story. If an action or mindset supports a conservative position, it is automatically unethical. On the other hand, any action that forwards the liberal cause, is by definition, ethical.
Now you are better prepared to evaluate the liberal mindset.
Ranch Carson says:
February 29, 2012 at 9:55 pm
New here, eh?
I fully agree that CO2’s influence is overrated. I also think that a trace gas at nearly 400 ppm can have significant influences and that it’s silly to shout TRACE! Look in to what similar trace amounts of carbon monoxide can do to mammalian physiology.
Check the IR absorption of the atmosphere due to trace gases. Trying to say a gas (or mylar film or various other things) can’t have an effect because there’s just a TRACE of it in the environment is silly.
The CAGW meme is falling apart in Germany;
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/27/vahrenholt-lunings-skeptic-book-marks-a-tipping-point-the-end-of-climate-consensus-in-germany/
Ric Werme says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Ric, well put.
I don’t care if CO2 is a ‘trace’ gas or a ‘major’ gas. The real question is: “What effect does CO2 have on the climate?”
The data say very little, certainly in comparison with other factors.
A ‘trace’ number of neutrons hitting a super critical mass of uranium can have profound effects, such as Hiroshima.
Regards,
Jack
Here are two questions for Mr. Revkin:
Suppose that the situation were reversed and that this anonymous memo – and “supporting documentation” with exactly the same “revelations” about the Pacific Institute – had been brought to your attention**, would you have “covered it” by repeating the claims without verifying the provenance – and with such rapidity?
**It’s unclear to me how you won the distinction of being the first to run with the story. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on this point.
Has it occurred to you that this Gleick “tragedy” might well have been prevented had you taken the precaution of verifying with the appropriate source, i.e. Heartland, before deciding to promulgate?
Koch brothers are just whining. They had rather Revkin and NYT not get the Dan Rather Journalism False but Accurate Award, which they obviously so richly deserve.
@wermet says:
February 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm
a reader says: February 29, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“Watching “Nova” on PBS recently, I noticed that it was funded by the Charles Koch foundation.”
You need to read the liberal play book more closely. Conservative money is only tainted when it is being used to promote conservative or right-leaning points of view. When conservative money is promoting neutral or left-leaning causes it is A-OK!
=========================================================
wermet, I’m thinking that one could tell the useful idiots of the liberal persuasion that the Koch Foundation has an ‘evil’ checking account and a ‘good’ checking account and they would swallow it hook, line, and sinker. No critical thought; just blind acceptance of the cause.
SF Chronicle, author Diaz (Truth and Denial)
“The scientific
consensuscorruption that human activity is accelerating global warming is solid; the only real debate is about the magnitude and timing of the consequences of corruption. Its effects are already apparent. MeltingglaciersGliecks andice capsicy quips.Sea-level rise. Rising oceans of emotions. Severe brainstorms anddroughtjust deserts. Devastateding crops of evidence.”Fixed it for you. Taken out your denial and replaced it with the truth.
Andy Revkin begs for the status of opinionator rather than reporter? Andy, from me, say it ain’t so.
======================
majormike1 says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm
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
But this argument – “if a threat had even a 1 percent chance of happening, it should be treated as a given and prepared for accordingly” only works for ONE threat and it has that all important word ‘chance’ – so these people are totally missing the point.
There is no IF or CHANCE that “925 million people are hungry. Every day, almost 16000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds” — Read that again – and in the time you took to read it another child has died. This is actually happening right now. http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/
It is also said that to recover this situation would cost about a dollar a day to save a life.
In the light of those children dying justify the several thousand dollar subsidy on a single electric car. Or the half a billion dollar subsidy to Solyndra,etc etc – to save the world from a catastrophic global warming that has no justification in science only in political rhetoric and weasel worded ‘summaries for policy makers’ and speeches at ‘Rio summits’..
There are going to be many very angry people in the world when they realize that this entire AGW industry is a fraud and the perpetrators of the fraud put their own power and funding above the death of children from hunger, tainted water and malaria. A continuing disaster that is happening right now.as you read this
Andy R – Can we both agree ‘transparency’ is a desirable trait?
Your role in the Gleik debacle can be put to rest very easily if you just explain on what/whom you based your “authentication” of the ‘faked’ HI document.
In doing so, you would demonstrate a willingness to embrace transparency, allow truth to prevail, while defending your integrity.
In not doing so you will continue to cast doubt regarding your role in this sordid Gleik matter, regardless if you now consider yourself a blogger rather than a journalist.
It seems a reasonable person that champions transparency, with nothing to hide would choose the former option.
I have defended some of your work in the past on NewsBusters, so naturally I have some personal investment in your decision to explain what/whom motivated you to claim this forged document was authentic. Therefore, I truly hope you will seize this opportunity to explain in this public setting your motive(s) for authenticating the forged document. I think we will all benefit from that simple revelation.
Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
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
Why does Revkin issue apologies (sic) through Twitter. Presumably because so few people read Twitter that only a bare handfull will come to know that he had to a[pologise.
What? Oh, he hasn’t apologised? Whyever not?
A dictionary defines report as “an account presented usually in detail.” A reporter is a person who reports. Revkin reports, therefore Revkin is a reporter. That he’s a reporter whose reports are colored by his opinions does not invalidate the description.
Morph says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm
“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” …………….
Despite what you may think, the BBC IS independent of the British Government although it is state funded – often the UK government finds itself complaining about the BBC and more often than not the public 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”
Writing also as a Brit, do you not think that having to go back in time 86 years to find an example when “the BBC resisted being an arm of the British Government” somewhat, maybe just a smidgen, undermines your case? In any case, it was more to do with their “dislike” of Churchill than anything else. More importantly, the BBC is in hock to all the socialists (of whatever stripe) Greenies, Liberals and general dogooders. The Corporation is systemically biased politically and culturally.
“Reporters, editors, photographers and all members of the news staff of The New York Times share a common and essential interest in protecting the integrity of the newspaper. As the news, editorial and business leadership of the newspaper declared jointly in 1998: “Our greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times. We must do nothing that would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it.”
http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/integrity.html
I don’t question just the damage done to trust in scientists or science in general. It is beyond question. What worries me just as much is the damage being done to environmentalism in general. Since CAGW alarmism has been championed by environmentalists from the beginning, it casts great doubt on everything environmentalists attempt to warn us about.
While I’ll be the first to agree that their screeching caterwauling about anything that might, kinda, sorta, maybe be related to an environmental issue has become… irritating – not every issue brought to light is without merit. But they have so lost their credibility that genuine environmental problems might go unaddressed just because of the messenger.
They don’t even begin to realize the damage they’ve done to their “cause”.
re post From kim2ooo on February 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm:
I’d say it depends heavily on what field of study you are interested in. If it’s really hard core science or engineering, such as biochemistry, genetics, physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering, nuclear engineering, petroleum engineering, chemistry, etc., then probably lots of choices although you’ll still probably have to put up with liberal propaganda in your basic non-degree tract courses (e.g., freshman english, etc.). East & West coast schools I would think would be far more likely to be shot thru with liberal crap than those in the midwest or Texas, although you have to even be careful with some of those. Perhaps as bad or even worse than some liberal non-core courses would be dealing with a boatload of fellow students who are hard core libs, as they mainly would be if you went to east or west coast University. I’d check how a town the college you are interested in voted in 2008 and 2010 & 12, and if they were strong blue, stay away because you can count on the university profs being further left than the town voted, and you’ll be inundated with propaganda, cognitive dissonance, left wing activism, etc., etc.
On the other hand, if you want a soft science or liberal arts degree… whoo-boy, your choices just got REALLY narrow. I have no idea how good it is or isn’t, but the only conservative leaning college I know of for liberal arts is Hillsdale. I have no idea how many other universities or colleges are out there that are solidly based in conservative values and morals, yet aren’t too heavy into social conservatism. Personally, I’m a fiscal conservative, independent – but I suppose best way to put it might be a social libertarian – I don’t want the government pushing liberal or conservative social issues on us. Get out of my diet, my lightbulbs, my bedroom, etc. I mean, I strongly support honesty, integrity, family values, strong work ethic, etc., but have little interest in having religious issues pushed at me, if that makes any sense.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: February 29, 2012 at 5:16 pm
There is some truth tho that, although the less education you star with, the less likely they are to pay for continuing education. Typically, at least in my discipline and as the economy weakened, coverage became limited to courses that were directly related to your immediate career. In other words, you wouldn’t be able to take an english class if you were working as a draftsman, or an engineer – but you could take a drafting course that was at a higher level than you were currently working, or an engineering course if you were an engineer. It’s also extremely difficult to get a degree this way. Typically you can only take one or two courses at a time, and even that is hard to do while you are working full time. Sure they’ll shift your schedule around so you can get to class, but you still have to work your regularly number of hours, and on your own time, study. At that rate it can take many many years to complete a degree even if you really bust your butt – and that entire time you don’t have much of a life because all you are doing is working and studying.
The other thing is that once you’ve got a regular salary coming in, it’s far too easy to be ecstatic about that and just blow college off all together. It’ll seem like a lot of money, even if it’s a small salary, when really it isn’t much. And even tho you’ll typically earn far less over your lifetime if you do that, and won’t have nearly the career options or advancement.
So, if you can afford it, plan to go to college straight out of high school, for a full 4 years so you graduate with a degree. If finances are an issue, limit yourself to state schools where you can get in-state tuition (used to be that at Texas A&M, a top notch school, out of state tuition was often cheaper than other state’s in state tuition, so something there can be out of state options too). Anyhow, point is that state public universities, even the best ones, typically have vastly lower tuition than private universities,
Try to find a degree that goes with a career you think you’ll enjoy – BUT, be sure it’s also one that has a decent starting salary or perhaps better said, has a decent salary after only a few years working and has some sort of career advancement possible with time. There are a few fields that may start dirt cheap, but the sky is the limit if you are good (business, finance). Whatever you do, don’t choose a degree that has a dismal salary right out of school, and little chance for improvement either. I mean, what can you do with a degree in Medieval African Basket Weaving, or Literature of Dead Germanic Languages? Psychology, Poly Sci? Yes, some people can manage to finagle a good career out of those last two, but not very often, and typically only with dual degrees and advanced degrees. So think about what you really want to pick.
Regardless, I wish you luck, and a ton of fun!!
re post by: DirkH says: February 29, 2012 at 6:58 pm
I’d like to verify your model and results, please provide a copy of your complete code, otherwise, I’ll FOIA ya.. [VBG]
It seems The Grey Lady is actually The Grey Whore for the CAGW movement.
Since I am confessing to errors today I need to report that according to the note I took at the time of viewing, the funder of “Nova” was David H. Koch Fund for Science not Charles Koch Foundation.