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
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.