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.
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.