Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen
Foreword:
It pains me to write this opinion piece. As long-term readers here know, I have often defended Andy Revkin, ex-NY Times Environmental Journalist turned NY Times Opinion Section Environmental Columnist, here at WUWT, opening myself to attacks ranging from childish to vicious, and occasionally childishly vicious. Of course, when I comment at Revkin’s NY Times’ Opinion section blog, Dot Earth, whether supporting him or criticizing him, I am similarly attacked by soldiers on one side or the other of the Climate Wars.
Revkin recently committed what I consider a public journalistic offense, on his Dot Earth blog, which I had hoped to help him see in a different, more complete and fairer light, through private emails and by an advanced copy of this opinion essay sent to him yesterday (13 June). That effort failed and, in replies to my emails (in which he neither granted nor denied permission to publish, though explicitly asked), he has informed me of his reasoning and justifications (see the Postscript if that’s all you care to read). Truthfully, what Revkin says only makes his offense worse, in my opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NB: This opinion piece is about journalism, lack of, not climate science or the other issues involved in the Watts/Peterson affair.
Andy Revkin, NY Times opinion section columnist, the author and host of the NY Times environment opinion blog Dot Earth, covered the Watts/McKibben meet recently in this in his piece:
A Climate Campaigner (Bill McKibben) and Climate Change Critic (Anthony Watts) Meet in a Bar….
to which I left the following comment:
“….Kudos to Andy for this — and for today’s title identifying McKibben as a “Climate Campaigner” and Anthony Watts as a “Climate Change Critic”.
….
The most interesting thing is that these two men are thought of as exemplars of the furthest reaches of opposing views on the climate change — yet in reality are clear thinking, reasonable men who simply disagree about a subject fraught with scientific uncertainty.
My thanks to Andy for highlighting this little get together, which should, in a rational world, be an everyday occurrence as colleagues in a shared scientific field meet and chat about their personal views.”
I still hold that opinion.
Revkin then disappoints, adding the following update at the top of the column:
“Update, June, 9, 8:51 p.m. | Having been on the run overseas since the weekend, I’m only now catching up with Anthony Watts’s attack on Tom Peterson, one of the authors of a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate paper. The exchange, in which Watts accuses Peterson of prostituting himself and hints at fraud, occurred just before* he’d posted on his friendly meeting with climate campaigner Bill McKibben, described below.
Here’s my reaction:
Any notion that Watts is interested in fostering an atmosphere of civility and constructive discourse evaporates pretty quickly in considering how he handled his questions about that paper. Alternating between happy talk about rooftop solar and slanderous accusations is not constructive or civil.”
Challenged by readers, including myself, in comments, the only reply Revkin gives, to another commenter, is:
Andrew Revkin
Dot Earth blogger 12 hours ago
”I felt it was important to convey the “full Anthony Watts.””
In my opinion, Revkin has utterly failed in his duty as a journalist – the duty to find the facts and the context and report them without injecting personal or political bias.
He failed to discover the obvious fact that Watts had not attacked Peterson – Watts had sent a personal email to Peterson at his official government email address, stating a change in his [Watts’] personal opinion about Peterson’s scientific ethics. It was a harsh personal opinion, but it was personal, man-to-man, between men who should be colleagues and who have been communicating with one another on a one-to-one basis for years.
It is Peterson, a government employee, a government official, listed at climate.gov as “Principal Scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.”, who turns this exchange of official government email into a public matter. How? By sending a copy of his government email to a tabloid-like slander-slinging climate-wars website in Australia – a site with known and repeated antagonism to Watts and bending-over-backwards loving-kindness for all things and persons in agreement with the IPCC Climate Consensus. [This is my personal opinion of the website in question, based on repeated reading of content there. WUWT is not responsible for my opinion in this matter.]
What Watts did not do: He did not publish his personal opinion publicly – despite being the editor and owner of the world’s most viewed website on climate (by orders of magnitude). He did not write a joe-romm-ish 1,500 word screed and send it to the tabloid press. That action would have been a public attack. He did not do that. There was no public attack.
The Questions that would have been asked by a True Journalist:
What? Answer: A personal communication between a citizen and a government official at NOAA, in which the citizen expresses a harsh personal opinion about his loss of trust in the public official’s work product and/or personal professional ethics, that has morphed in the blogosphere into an “attack on Peterson by Watts”.
Who? Answer: Anthony Watts, proprietor of the world’s most viewed website in climate matters and Thomas Peterson, as “Principal Scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.”.
When? Answer: The original email exchange took place approx. 5 June. Thomas Peterson copied the email exchange with Watts from his official NOAA NCDC email account to a tabloid-like climate website in Australia on June 6, 2015 at 6:04 PM.
Why? Answer: Peterson’s real purpose in doing so is known only to him. But in his comment accompanying the copied email exchange he states “Dear Sou et al., I thought you might find an email exchange I had yesterday with Anthony Watts interesting.”
Does it bleed? Answer: [This flip question is ‘sorta’ what journalists ask themselves to see if there will be relevant public interest in the event.] Yes. US Government Official copies work-related email exchange to foreign web-based tabloid press, suspected of doing so for personal/political advantage in the Climate Wars.
Do we see these answers in Revkin’s journalistic effort? No, nothing in his published work product on this affair reflects that he even considered the context or the facts – other than the one-sided spin in the web-tabloid. Nothing in his response to criticism on his blog (where he gives only the one reply above) indicates that he even noticed that it was Peterson himself that turned a private communication into a “public attack” (although he knows Peterson made the email public) or that Peterson’s copying work-related government email to the foreign web-based tabloid press might be a violation of NOAA regulations or an government employee ethics offense. Or that it is extremely unprofessional at the very least.
In fact, it appears that Revkin’s only involvement with the issue has been to band-wagon on the politically-motivated Climate Wars blogosphere outcry – without reviewing the facts at all.
As of 11;25 AM today, I have had no response from Revkin to my comments on Dot Earth or to personal email to him requesting that he take another look at the affair.
I know that Revkin is over-committed time wise – holding what for most people would be at least two full-time jobs. Maybe he has been too busy to look more closely at the issue. If so, he should not have said anything until he took the time to review the affair properly in its entirety.
I invite him to do this review now and respond here at WUWT. (Or, if he wishes, he knows my email address and can comment fully to me off-the-record, with portions marked “OK for publication”, which he knows I will honor.)
I look forward to seeing a revision of his Dot Earth comments here or at Dot Earth.
# # # # #
Postscript:
I have received two replies from Mr. Revkin, which I do not have explicit permission to publish. Thus, rather than simply inserting them here, I will pull three fair-use quotes from them, which contain the essence of his reasoning and justification.
The first two quotes are from Mr. Revkin’s emailed response to an advance-of-publication copy of the above essay. In that response, the quotes are presented already as quotes, probably from his response to Anthony:
“What was notable was the contrast between your [Watts’] approach to Bill and to Peterson. I couldn’t justify the tone in what I wrote about your Chico meeting without an addendum reflecting what transpired here.”
“Suggestions of scientific fraud or prostitution, even in a personal email, are different (particularly given your policy about considering such missives ‘fair game for publishing,’ one presumes you figured this might end up public).”
My response to the above, though a great deal longer, can be summarized in this one extracted sentence: “Your reasoning is specious at best, even for a private citizen — as a journalist, they cut no ice at all. There is no journalism in that.”
The second is more damning, and came as a reply from Revkin to my response just above:
“Don’t take this wrong, but I really do have more important things to do than dig in further on this.”
What happened to the World Class Journalist Andrew Revkin? Has he hung up journalist spurs? placed his shiny Journalist Star in a shadow box and hung it on the wall? permanently shelved his pocket-copy of the Journalists’ Code of Ethics? Can it really be that he is simply too busy to do a proper journalist’s job?
Or has he traded all that in for the more-or-less anything goes rules of the Opinion Columnist?
Or has become just another echo-chamber partisan gunslinger on the Climate Team’s side of the Climate Wars, taking quick-draw cheap shots at those who others point out to him as opponents? unconcerned if he shoots down the wrong guy in any given shoot-out, too busy to check his aim.
Maybe this is what has become of the majority of science journalists …. They are all simply too busy to do their real jobs. What a sad sad day.
# # # # #
Note from Anthony:
Kip Hansen wrote this essay unsolicited. While I admit I used harsh words, probably the harshest I’ve ever used, I too was surprised that Dr. Tom Peterson chose to immediately send the email to the slimiest of outlets Sou aka “hotwhopper”, run by a person dedicated to denigration, who has not the integrity to use her own name: Miriam Obrien. While I regret that I didn’t choose my words better, I have no change in my opinion [after the NYT incident] on NCDC after what they did with Karl et al. 2015. And apparently, according to insiders, there was an internal fight at NCDC over the publication of Karl et al. 2015. I offered this backstory to Revkin, but he was uninterested.
Sadly, it speaks to the integrity of both Dr. Peterson and Andy Revkin that they consider this form of “journalism” acceptable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suspect Karl et al. acted under duress.
Could be. It may ultimately be the best defense.
========
I’ve had some friendly, respectful exchanges with Andy Revkin over the years, thought it’s been a while and he might not recall. A couple of observations for what they’re worth. I find him pleasant and personable but he’s obviously playing for the other team, so forget any real effort to be objective.
Kip, The bit he wrote about not having time to delve more deeply, is about as close to any sort of concession you’re going to get. Perhaps he really doesn’t have the time, but then of course if that’s the case, he ought not get involved.
(aka pokerguy)
Reply to Pokerguy/aneipris ==> “I’ve had some friendly, respectful exchanges with Andy Revkin over the years” as have I al well — in fact, though it would be presumptuous a call him a friend, I would have referred to him as a pleasant colleague, or intellectual friend. At one time, when I was serving in the Caribbean, we tried to make a plan to met up when I was next in the Central Hudson Valley of New York.
” not having time to delve more deeply, …. but then of course if that’s the case, he ought not get involved ” — I would add, maybe in all caps, “…at all”.
Do it right or leave it alone — especially given his incredibly influential bully pulpit at the NY Times, a position earned by being a top-flight, world-class journalist.
You’ve caught a BULLY, you’ve called him out, and now he will ALWAYS try to destroy you. Give him no quarter. He does not deserve it. Oh MY HE’s controlling the debate. (“I’ve put enough time into this.) Oh he’s SO important. Reminds me of a certain political type, who cannot broach opposition or questioning. B.S. (Barbara Striesand). Time to take the gloves off. Bye Bye Revkin.
They’re of the Progressive brand–they only destroy opponents, especially when they’ve been discovered to be wrong.
Max H,
Correct. Revkin is normally on the giving end — as in, he hands out the crap that people have to deal with. Now he’s on the receiving end, from someone with a quarter of a billion unique viewers. That’s more readers than the NYT.
Yes, Revkin’s a bully. Anthony shouldn’t let up now.
Reply to Max H, RockyRoad, dbstealy ==> You have all fallen into the trap of vilifying a perceived opponent.
Revkin has failed on this issue, has drifted (in my opinion) from environmental journalist through opinion columnist to celebrity environmentalist (a position from which he occasionally acts as gunslinger for the Climate Team Rapid Hit Squad).
I do not approve of his politics in this regard, I honestly think that he has become so busy and self-absorbed that he no longer thinks things all the way through — possibly believing that re-thinking things is a waste of his [more] precious time.
He will no more come after me than I will relentlessly go after him.
I consider him [almost] a friend.
I consider him [almost] a friend.
I don’t. So maybe you have some influence over him. Let’s see what comes of that. I predict nothing.
Anyoner who did what Revkin and Peterson did to Anthony deserves vilifying. They’re villains, see?
Reply to dbstealey ==> It is correct to call out misbehavior and to counter opinions.
Vilification, however, is an irrational emotional response and a social ill — an ethical failing, in my opinion, on the part of those who participate.
Well, Revkin has most certainly conveyed the “full Andrew Revkin.”
Has anyone ever established what “the big cutoff” Revkin was threatened with would have included? Was it denying him access to the latest warmunist memes and schemes? Or something more…physical?
Reply to jorgekafkazar ==> It is impossible to know the minds of others but in general, a journalist is only as good as his rolodex. He must be able to reach out and get expert opinions or background material from publicly respected or generally recognized experts in order to do a proper journalist job. He must fact check, and on opinions, must be able to get other opinions with which to make comparisons. If the journalist specializes (such as on Environment) then he must be privileged to receive advanced copies of new important papers (which are still under embargo by the journal) or advanced copies of press releases in the field. The threat implied was to cut him off from all of this, to refuse to cooperate with him in any way.
[Snip. No insulting the host. ~mod.]
I haven’t finished reading the comments, but Kip Hansen mentioned that Revkin was a friend and “jammer” with Pete Seeger… OMG!!! Pete Seeger is a deep committed Stalinist, CPUSA, documented, verified… That makes Andy a fellow traveler, or a sympathizer at least… Just wow. I am reading this late, and I am sure someone else has already mentioned this.
Reply to GlennDC ==> I too have met Pete on a couple of occasions, have shaken his hand and talked to him face to face — but would not even be called an acquaintance. Of course, Pete was a NY Commie-Pinko Folk Singer — had always been and had no intention of changing his worldview. I cried when he died — I eulogized him from the pulpit in my church the following Sunday. . I am not a “fellow-traveler” — I might be called the opposite of a commie-pinko.
Is Revkin a commie-pinko? No, but he grew up in the same culture, ethnically, politically, and geographically. He holds all the correct progressive NY liberal views by birthright and education. He drives a Prius (and a mini-van, which he has publicly apologized for) and worries that chickens raised for meat are being mistreated.
Let me remind you though, McCarthyism is a dead theology — hopefully never to rise again.
Sorry Kip, I think you are starting to see the true Revkin.
I have read his blog occasionally ever since the CRU emails brought him to my attention.
I have seen no hint of balance in his rambling, he seems fully committed to selling his cause.
As for the bureaucrat, publishing correspondence from a private citizen, is a violation of public trust.
This is a firing offence in an ethical government, which probably means this minion will be promoted in the current US government.
I really don’t understand: what does it matter that some socialist, politically corrupt journalist wrote or didn’t write in the New York Times? That bloody red rug is totally discredited among rationally thinking people.
Why should we take seriously or discuss these propagandists, however sincere or insincere they might be? The only thing we can do about them is take away their financial base by never buying and totally ignoring the socialist-alarmist press.
Fortunately, the New York Times has already lost much of its circulation and all of its prestige (if there ever was any). Why pay attention to venal buffoons?
Reply to Feht ==> The New York Times is one of three “newspaper of record” in the United States, and has been since 1851, and is one of a handful of the world’s most influential newspapers — whether one agrees with their editorial policy or not. Revkin is a contracted Opinion Section columnist there — which makes him one of the world’s most powerful/influential Environmental columnists. What he says literally becomes history.
Thus, when he shoots from the hip without exercising his journalistic skills, and makes a blooper like this, it has effects far beyond what Revkin characterizes as less important.
Anthony:
Sorry to say this, old boy, but you brought this on yourself. Stop blaming Revkin etc. You’re a public figure and in many ways the most influential public spokesman for Climate Skeptics. That responsibility imposes some discipline and restraint on what you say and do. You say it, you own it.
Politics ain’t bean bag. Whatever made you think that Peterson was bound by Marquess of Queensberry Rules, I’ll never know? Of course your words are going to be used against you !
So here’s a note of advice going forward: Before you vent your spleen on an adversary– no matter how pernicious their behavior may be— ask yourself before you hit the SEND button on your e-mailer: “Am I sure I want the rest of the world to read this message?”
If the answer is NO, then you need to curb your ire and redraft the message. Because you can bet there’s a good chance whatever you write will be circulated … Look you’re smart enough and old enough to make the most lacerating comments possible without resort to crude name calling. The issues are a lot bigger than your personal pique. The stakes are too high for a luminary such as your to lose your composure and sound something less than a commanding public figure.
sarastro92,
Anthony did nothing wrong. They’re just mad because the truth hurts.
DB…. Actually I disagree. I think Anthony’s letter was angry and disrespectful of the position Peterson holds and the organisation he works for. Anthony may well be factually right in the end (although we are a long way from knowing that), but the tone and aggression was beyond reasonable. Accusing someone of being fraudulent is getting very close to a line that requires you to be very sure you are right.
But…. Peterson has crossed a line too. I think he has not served his position or organisation well by doing so. The professional thing would have been to ask permission to make the correspondence public. In the end he may pay for making what I think is a bad call.
I realise many here will remain blindly loyal to Anthony and I will get caned for this, but I have thought about this one a lot and I really believe both men are entitled to an apology.
[Snip. URL removed. You cannot come into Anthony’s home on the internet and insult and attack him. Get rid of the URL or go away. — mod.]
Reply to sarastro92 ==> The only part of your comment I agree with is this:
“ask yourself before you hit the SEND button on your e-mailer: “Am I sure I want the rest of the world to read this message?”
That is an important lesson for all of us — everything said in email or posted on the Internet is foreve.
In the same way, anything printed in the NY Times is forever a part of the official history of our civilization and no later correction or “take-back” or apology ever gets connected to the original. That is why Revkin’s unthinking, uncritical, un-journalistic hip-shot at Anthony is so important.
The same; Dr. Tom Peterson who used old ‘Surface Stations data’ without prior approval or proper attribution, without accurate representation of ‘Surface Stations’?
Revkin is still the activist employed by major media mostly for propaganda supporting the CAGW alarm.
Dr. Tom Peterson is allegedly a scientist in the employ of the United States government.
As such, his conduct is subject to governmental restrictions.
A) Public announcements or publishing, especially communications with any chance of reaching news sources are supposed to be vetted and approved within the NOAA bureaucracy; most likely their legal and publishing departments.
B) Ethical responsibilities as outlined in their “2015 Summary of Ethics Rules” .
An Ethics document that opens with:
There are a number of NOAA Ethics areas where Dr. Peterson strays and should be called into question.
Those transgressions when combined with Dr. Peterson’s disregard for NOAA Administrative regulations makes Dr. Peterson’s actions not only vile and reprehensible but irresponsible and subject to NOAA Administrative negative action.
“Guidance For NOAA Employees
Regarding Implementation and Interpretation of DAO 219-1”
Again, Dr. Peterson defies and acts contrary to several administrative media guidance regulations/requirements.
The questions that remain are:
Does Dr. Peterson’s willful and culpable actions cause harm to Anthony Watts and/or WUWT?
Does Dr. Peterson’s actions cause NOAA to be responsible and perhaps financially liable?
Is NOAA prepared to take necessary administrative steps to remonstrate and punish Dr. Peterson, especially for his prejudiced mendacious intent and actions?
Dr. Peterson is wrong and should abjectly apologize.
Revkin is still a fool and easily led by those he adores.
Ethics are a code of behavior. The Privacy Act of 1974 is law. See my comment above.
Reply to ATheoK and MRW ==> I appreciate your input on the federal and agency regulations involved in Peterson’s incredibly unprofessional behavior. I sincerely hope someone at NOAA or the Attorney General’s office takes the appropriate action.
Didn’t Anthony ‘cc’ (carbon copy) his email to Peterson to a bunch of other people? So it was not a private email to begin with.
Doesn’t matter. Under The Privacy Act of 1974, a federal government official cannot publicly disclose a private communication from a private citizen, or group of citizens, by name without permission. Period.
Which helps outline the difference between this and “climategate”, which was public release of public officials using government emails planning illegal and unethical acts. (among many other revealing aspects of climategate)
Reply to LouMaytrees ==> Anthony weights in (far down the comments section) with:
“Actually, the only other person copied was Peterson’s boss, Tom Karl of NCDC.”
Apologies, went over to sow’s toilet to get the full scoop. What would this useless person be doing for entertainment without WUWT to fill her toxic waste site? Worse than deranged.
Be careful, Larry, Brandon Shollenberger will say, “Tsk, tsk.” ☺
The difference is, as far as I know, Larry Wirth isn’t a moderator here while you are. I wouldn’t have the time to go around pointing out every example of poor standards in comments here, but if I see a moderator doing something bad enough to support a lawsuit, I figure I should speak up.
I went to Hotwhopper to read Anthony’s e-mail. What’s all the fuss about? i WRITE WORSE THAN THAT TO PEOPLE i LIKE! I’VE WRITTEN WORSE TO MY MOTHER!
Anthony said, “This will be NCDC”s Waterloo and will backfire on all of your terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto”s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor.”
WOW! Talk about HARSH! Referencing both Waterloo and Yamamoto! (Not to mention Pearl Harbor!) Anthony, you dirty dog! What if children read that?
Anthony said, “In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way. After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015, I no longer hold that opinion.
Anthony, Earnest Hemingway would not approve. Why be so mealymouthed? And what is this “you folks”?????? Why not say something like — You worthless cow pies, you and your work have always been shit!
The trouble with you, Anthony, is you got no sense of style.
“You needed it (the pause) to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.” Now I would have called them “pocket change whores” or something equally distinctive.
I don’t know. It is late. I am severely disappointed in your Anthony. I really thought you had given us a good read but instead you are putting me to sleep.
Eugene WR Gallun
On the bright side, as it seems that Petersen has broken the law by disclosing private communications, both Revkin and Sou are in line for aiding and abetting.
They’ll still be able to propagandise from in jail but they might have enough free time to learn about the scientific method.
More seriously, has anyone considered that Revkin may have been told to shut up by the NYT’s legal department because he has committed a felony?
Nah. Peterson violated the Privacy Act. Sou and Revkin didn’t. But Revkin didn’t report the lay of the land as it applies to Americans so that Americans understood what happened, and why their antennae should be up. Revkin skated in his capacity as opinion maker; he’s blameless but not admirable.
I’m no lawyer but that seems like it must be a freedom of speech thing – like what Snowden gates away with.
Information that is private is disseminated illegally.
How can it be further published without abetting the crime?
Regarding Sou, you may be correct, but Revkin played no part in either the release or publishing of the e-mails. He defended the actions after the fact, but there are no legal consequences for defending.
Reply to M Courtney ==> Revkin’s action is a professional failure, it is appallingly irresponsible for a world-class journalist, especially given the bully pulpit that he occupies. He is, however, not legally culpable in what is Peterson’s ethical — possibly legal — lapse.
One would hope it would just damage the scientific reputation of Tom Peterson to associate with the likes of “Sou”. However, Mann also actively promotes her lowly drivel, so in certain circles within Climate Science, keeping your credibility as an activist still seems to be more important than keeping your scientific standards high.
Espen says:
…in certain circles within Climate Science, keeping your credibility as an activist still seems to be more important than keeping your scientific standards high.
Your comment recalls all the unethical scientists who have taken sides, instead of letting the evidence, data, and measurements lead them to logical conclusions.
Any scientist who labels other scientists as “deniers”, “contrarians”, “denialists”, and similar mindless pejoratives is being a self-serving cheerleader for those who control his next pay raise, grant, and/or promotion. They have sold out their integrity for money, travel, and fame.
It is understandable that some scientists are ethics-challenged. As a group they are no different from any other group of people. But does anyone admire them? They have sold out their ethics for money and self-aggrandizement. Peterson did that by forwarding Anthony’s personal letter to the odious Hotwhopper blog. He knew it would result in the maximum personal attacks, and that many on Peterson’s side of the debate would pat him on the head and say, “Good boy!”
Every time I see a scientist like Mann or Mears or Peterson label other scientists as “denialists” whose scientific opinions simply happen to be different than theirs, I think: ‘Well, there’s another rent seeking sellout.’
The Petersons and Revkins of the world are presented with a choice every working day:
Do I…
a) Admit that I don’t have all the answers, and that different points of view might be more correct?
Or do I:
b) Sell my soul?
In this case, we know the answer.
The world if full of Petersons and Revkins. We may be stuck with them. But many of us have no respect for people who sell out for their own personal gain. Because the rest of us pay for it.
“What happened to the World Class Journalist Andrew Revkin?” – On so many levels, such a cruel cut …
Pointman
Kip, Revkin’s (IMHO) very unprofessional “brush off” (my “assessment”, not yours!):
rang a somewhat familiar bell … at least to my ears! Here’s a comment Revkin had made on my blog circa July 22, 2012:
to which I had responded:
Long (back)story short (but fully documented with links galore here and here) …
In July 2012, on the heels of a Press Release issued by the Norkolk Constabulary, who had (at long last) concluded their “investigations” into Climategate, Revkin was very quick on the draw to change the title of – and add an update to – a post he’d written in July 2010 which he had entitled: “Was the East Anglia Incident a Crime?” His new, improved post title: “Was the East Anglia Incident a Crime? Yes.”
To his credit, in response to my further observations, Revkin did acknowledge:
However, notwithstanding the above – and the fact that I had provided Revkin with links to and quotes of additional material from Norfolk’s finest – to this day Revkin has not corrected the title of that post, i.e. back to its less …uh… definitive original.
Pity, eh?!
FWIW, one of the things I’ve noticed over the years is that if a “climate scientist” (and/or ardent fan thereof) makes a claim, far more often than not Revkin will simply accept it without question.
OTOH, if he’s writing about claims from those he probably perceives as being on the other side of the fence, as busy as he is, he always seems to find the time to run it by and publish the “response” from those whose views he’s sought.
Amazing, eh?!
+1 Hilary!
Hilary O,
I agree with ATheoK. That was a great comment.
Personally, I don’t see any difference between Revkin and your average liar. To publish something as if it’s fact when it is nothing but a highly partisan, baseless opinion is deceptive, no? I think the word is ‘propaganda’.
Thanks, guys – I’ll harvest these endorsements for my personal trove:-)
Just one minor (well, perhaps not so minor!) point of disagreement, dbstealey.
Admittedly this might be a function of personal preference and/or posting style and/or our different virtual experiences past.
Nonetheless, I would be very, very hesitant to publicly attach the “liar label” to Revkin (or almost anyone for that matter) – just as I would be to attach the word “hoax” to my depiction of the words of others – regardless of how ill-informed they might have demonstrated themselves to be!
In case you are wondering why a little old Bridgeplayer like me is so averse to, well, calling a spade a spade … It probably derives – in no small measure – from my belief in what I would call a continuum of conviction, along with the knowledge that one cannot know the myriad of factors that might be influencing the offending perpetrator in the process of moving his/her words from mind to keyboard.
IMHO, it’s far too easy to slap on such a label. Not to mention that in so doing perhaps one is demonstrating one’s lack of faith in the intelligence and discernment of one’s key audience. I long ago gave up – for the most part – wasting my time rewarding and/or encouraging obvious trolls by giving their (typically thread-diverting) words any attention whatsoever.
That being said, I will readily confess that, from time to time, I do like to amuse myself (and my readers!) by mocking such creatures with their very own words and/or variants thereof;-)
Hilary (stepping down from soapbox!)
it speaks to the integrity of both Dr. Peterson and Andy Revkin that they consider this form of “journalism” acceptable.
I find it troubling that Anthony expects anything rational, measured, objective or journalistic from any of the usual sources. The NYT etc. have long since become a PR wing for the Left and Statists. They are not to be taken seriously. The usefulness of the NYT is primarily that the paper it is printed on can be recycled.
Anthony
To paraphrase ‘you knew they were snakes when you picked them up’ Efforts to keep things civil are appreciated and welcome. Even when they fall short. Fight on.
[snip – unnecessary visual – Anthony ]
My first WUWT snip. You are correct Anthony,it was not necessary, but yet funny to by to note the likeness to pajama boy.
For ease of comparison.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/clip_image0028.jpg
Peterson’s original disclosure of Anthony’s email appears to violate 5 USC 552a:
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [subject to 12 exceptions].” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
Violation of this rule by an agency employee is not a “felony” as an overenthusiastic commenter above claimed, but a misdemeanor (and only by Peterson, not Revkin): https://epic.org/privacy/laws/privacy_act.html
552a (i)(1) Criminal Penalties.–Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
Revkin claimed that Anthony had made a “slanderous accusation” against Peterson: “Alternating between happy talk about rooftop solar and slanderous accusations is not constructive or civil.” To be “slanderous”, a statement has to be made to a third party. Anthony’s email was sent directly to Peterson and not to a third party, To that extent, it seems to me that Revkin was incorrect to say that Anthony’s email was “slanderous”. The point is more than semantic: as others have observed, Anthony had not made similar allegations in public at WUWT, a point that Revkin doesn’t seem to have appreciated in the first instance.
That will leave a mark….
So, has Peterson’s boss been notified of his breach of policy?
Yes, and calling Anthony’s slanderous is slander, fully, outrageously, public. Andy might have known that had he chosen to ‘dig into it’. Who’s going to make the formal complaint?
======================
Reply to Steve McIntyre ==> Thank you for weighing in — with precise information on agency regulations involved — very helpful.
Yes and yes — Revkin’s failure is that he simply does nothing journalistic — doesn’t ask any of the questions that should have been asked before he made any public comment. He simply echos Peterson’s and Obrien’s “outrage”. Revkin thus abuses his privileged position, his bully pulpit, at the NY Times.
Steve McIntyre:
Um, no. E-mails sent by people are not records under that law. Record is defined in that link:
The word record is clearly limited to information about individuals. E-mails sent by individuals are not information about them, so the law you cite is inapplicable.
Anthony Watts copied his e-mail to other recipients. Unless you know those recipients were all members of the group responsible for Karl 2015, you have no basis to say it was not sent to any third parties.
Actually, the only other person copied was Peterson’s boss, Tom Karl of NCDC.
Reply to Brandon S ==> We’ll have to see if the authorities at NOAA or the Attorney General’s Office agree with your interpretation.
The cc: to Karl, Peterson’s superior at the NCDC, just makes the email even more of a officially private citizen/government-employee matter. Watts was sending a complaint, of sorts, so correctly, in my opinion, sent a copy to the employee’s boss.
Anthony Watts:
That’s good to know. I believe that resolves the issue of whether or not there was third-party communication as Tom Karl was also a subject of the accusations in the e-mail, meaning he part of the second-party, not a third.
Kip Hansen:
Um, okay. But the law is pretty clear, and there are tons of places online where you can see government agencies distinguishing between e-mails in general and information covered by the Privacy Act. E-mails can contain information covered by the Privacy Act, but they are not, in and of themselves, covered by it.
But good luck finding out otherwise. I am quite certain any complaint you may file over this will accomplish nothing useful. In fact, it will probably just be the source of derision and humor for people at the NOAA (and possibly elsewhere).
@Brandon Shollenberger,
I don’t have time to search for the cites, but aspects of the Privacy Act of 1974 were updated in 2011 (I think that was the year) to expand the definition of record and personal identifier. The issue is personally identifying Mr. Watts and holding him up specifically for ridicule–as a private citizen entitled to complain–in Peterson’s revenge porn stunt.
E-mails most certainly are considered records, depending on the agency, and again, according to the Act. NOAA chose to adopt the entire Privacy Act. It didn’t have to. It’s on their website with the expanded (2011?) definition of ‘personal identifier’. The IRS, for example, can’t reveal your communications with them unless it’s discovery for court, or the Justice Department requires it. An IRS official in Provo, Utah can’t run to The Deseret newspaper in Salt Lake and sneer in print that the Governor of Nevada wrote a simpy sniveling begging them not to reveal that he severely underpaid his taxes, and here’s a copy of it.
Ditto the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Can you imagine a Principal Scientist at the NIH forwarding a private inquiry from Joe Romm about erectile dysfunction trials to JoNova just for s**ts and grins? You think that’s permissible?
Government agencies and government emails have to warn the public ahead of time that their communication with the agency/officialcan become part of the public record. The FCC does it all the time when they ask for public comments. It’s in the fine print.
MRW:
You should probably read the follow-up to this exchange. My latest response to Steve McIntyre can be found here. It shows the text being quoted from the Privacy Act of 1974 is for system of records, which the same act requires be listed in the Federal Register. That means we can see a list of every system of record the government has. If people think Anthony Watts’s e-mail would be stored within such a system, and thus covered by the text being discussed, all they have to do is point to the item in the list which would cover his e-mail. I even provided a link in that comment to a page showing what all the NOAA’s system of records are.
Um, what?! That’s not how laws work. Government agencies don’t get to pick and choose which laws apply to them. The NOAA didn’t have a choice in this matter. No other agency does either. I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
If Joe Romm e-mailed some guy at the NIH about a personal medical question, it wouldn’t be entered into a system of records any more than Anthony Watts’ e-mail was. The person contacted might still be prohibited from forwarding the e-mail to anyone, but if so, it wouldn’t be because of the (text of the) law being discussed. It would be because the Department of Health and Human Services is subject to additional laws focused on privacy of medical records.
But to make your example applicable, it would absolutely be illegal for someone to access a NIH database and perform a search for records associated with Joe Romm and send them out. That is what the law being discussed covers. It covers the disclosure of information stored in a system of records maintained by a government agency. E-mail inboxes and servers are not those.
@Brandon Shollenberger
I’m doing this on the limited time here. Easier to just print a portion of EPIC.org’s description of whom the ACT applies to, which should help to clarify what I meant about federal agencies, and how they can each individually define, or re-define, a “record” according to Act’s provisions.
MRW, I have no idea why you think that quote addresses anything I’ve said. Generally, when providing a quote, one explains why the quote is relevant and what point it is making. That’s done so people don’t have to guess what you’re thinking.
Even if what you quoted did somehow agree with what you’ve said, that is in no way dispositive. That a website or group says something is true does not make it true. When providing a quote as proof of something, one needs to explain why the source should be relied upon. Given we have the actual law’s text, and websites showing agency’s handling of the law, I don’t see why we would need a third-party source to tell us how the law works.
Doh!
According to Brandon, no-one needs to redact names and email addresses when releasing emails to the public.
Terrible use of illogic Brandon.
Dr. Peterson released Anthony’s name, email address, and more; that makes him liable for prosecution.
ATheoK:
I didn’t say anything of the sort. All I said is the law people have been citing does not apply in this case. Some other law might. Even if no law does, some rule or internal policy might. Even if none do, it might still just be wrong on principle.
But the law people have been citing does not make what Tom Peterson did illegal. That’s all I’ve said, and it’s trivially easy to see I am right.
Not under the law people have been citing. If he is liable for prosecution, it must be under some other law.
Regarding “…violate 5 USC 552a:..”
Someone will have to file a complaint to initiate action.
Perhaps Heartland, CEI or other legal agency could help Anthony file the complaint?
A complaint about other failures and infractions committed by Dr. Peterson should be sent to Dr. Petersons superior, with copies sent to Anthony’s Senator and Congressional representative. A copy to NOAA’s Inspector General, Ethics department and Human Resources is probably also in order.
Regarding the claims of slander; Anthony sent a ‘private’ email to Dr. Peterson. Dr. Peterson’s decision to publish the contents does not elevate Anthony’s criticisms to slanderous or libelous possibilities. Dr. Peterson chose to publicize Anthony’s words for Dr. Peterson’s purposes and benefit; Dr. Peterson crying foul of any sort is just nonsense.
Tom Peterson’s peer group has yet to weigh in. Clearly this makes them look equally bad to sit silently. Ok – I’m making a funny. Tom’s peer group is yet to respond to any number of similar ethics failures. For example, the still employed Peter Gleick’s tarnishing of that moribund group remains and their silence still echos in the halls, undiminished and ever-damning. This is what climate science’s finest hour looks like. It will always look like this because it isn’t science.
Reply to dp ==> If I were also an employee of a US federal agency, subject to the rules and regulations (for which several commenters have kindly supplied details), I would sit mum about the Watts/Peterson affair too. They all should realize that Peterson has put his foot in an ethical bear-trap….
Why being so surprised at the ethics or lack of from people who manipulate science for the Cause?
Despite all the public posturing and loud protests to the contrary, Revkin has never been an even-handed, honest broker of information. He has always had a dog in the AGW fight despite his efforts to conceal the fact.
I have been astounded by Kip Hansen’s incredible patience and restraint over the last decade in his comments on DotEarth. I have been even more impressed by the knowledge, logic and eloquence displayed in his comments there.
Reply to John W. Garrett ==> Thank you for the kind words, sir.
+1