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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?