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.
I suspect Karl et al. acted under duress.
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)
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.
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?
[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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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?!
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 ]
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.
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.
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.