Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
NY Times regularly revises its articles after publication. The revisions are substantial, undisclosed, and are nothing like real time updates in developing stories. These are regular articles that undergo dramatic changes that appear as if NY Times editors received a commissar’s call stressing the party line and demanding the article matches it exactly, with the NY Times editors dutifully obliging.
I recently stumbled on one of such revisions. Within hours, the description of Scott Pruitt, the newly appointed EPA head, in the NY Times article went from being an “ally of fossil fuel Industry,” to a “climate change dissenter,” to a “climate change denialist.” Later, I was pointed to a helpful website newsdiffs.org. Newsdiffs archives multiple versions of news articles and shows the differences between them. That article has been revised or rewritten at least six times after its original publication, all without any notice to the readers.
On the topic of climate debate, the most prominent rewrite seen is the replacement of the term “climate skeptic” with “climate denialist.” Also witnessed, is the attempt to do some damage control, like replacing “Obama’s new climate change regulations” that reporters probably heard firsthand from government officials, with “Obama’s new clean air regulations.”
Examples, limited to the climate debate
The following article was completely re-written from its original version on January 14-15. Then, on January 18, the sentence, “Obama’s new climate change regulations are driving electric utilities to shut down coal plants,” was rewritten by replacing the term “climate change” with “clean air,” thus becoming: “Obama’s new clean air regulations are driving electric utilities to shut down coal plants”:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/in-climate-move-obama-to-halt-new-coal-mining-leases-on-public-lands.html (By CORAL DAVENPORT)
Multiple changes, including changing the word Skeptics to Denialists in the title:
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1376719/1376823/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-endangerment-finding.html (By CORAL DAVENPORT)
The article was revised 14 times:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html
(By MICHAEL D. SHEAR, JULIE HIRSCHFELD, MAGGIE HABERMAN)
Multiple changes, including in the authorship:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html (By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ)
For example, this link shows multiple changes to the body of the article:
The title was completely re-written:
Another title that was re-written:
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1309853/1309964/www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/science/global-warming-daily-mail-breitbart.html (By HENRY FOUNTAIN)
Multiple substantial changes:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/world/africa/kigali-deal-hfc-air-conditioners.html (By CORAL DAVENPORT)
At the time of this writing, some of these articles are different from their last versions in newsdiffs, and at least one seems similar to the initial version in newsdiffs. Probably newsdiffs monitors the news articles only for short time. Also, NY Times’ website may send different versions of the same article to different readers.
Remember the BBC Scandal in 2008
This brings to mind the well-known BBC scandal, when the BBC changed a published weather-related article to be more climate alarmist after exchanging few emails with Jo Abbess, a climate activist who then gloated about it. (See also JM1 and JM2). One thing that escaped attention: Jo Abbess was active in the local Agenda 21 chapter (Poole Agenda 21) and was connected to other British alarmist organizations. The published email exchange between poor Roger Harrabin and Jo Abbess was just a small part of the pressure and brainwashing campaign that broke the BBC.
Footnotes
Curiously, newsdiffs.org was created with funding from the leftist Knight Foundation largely with the intent to discover content re-writing that’s in favor of conservatives. Newsdiffs.org was covered by the NY Times in 2012. Apparently, NY Times still had some integrity back then. The NY Times has been doing stealthy revising since at least 2015 and seems to increase their frequency and severity after the elections. I will be posting more examples of stealthy content revising and fake news on my site.
Newsdiffs.org monitors only five websites and one cannot easily search in it (I suggest using https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/newsdiffs.org) but the software is open-sourced and available at https://github.com/ecprice/newsdiffs.
Thanks to H.J. for collaboration in the research and writing this article.
Footnote by Anthony Watts
WUWT occasionally has changes to articles from time to time, and we have a policy on it:
Stories that have been posted may get edited in the first hour after they first appear. Sometimes errors or mistakes (particularly in formatting) aren’t seen until the post is published. If something doesn’t look right and the post is brand-new, try refreshing in a few minutes. Of course, after an hour if something is still wrong, don’t hesitate to leave a comment to point it out.
The main reason for changing of articles at WUWT is spelling and formatting mistakes, and they usually occur within the first hour. Sometimes simple mistakes are made,in the body or in the title, and commenters catch them almost immediately. A good example is in the story New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure. The word “sleight” was misspelled as “slight”, and that was fixed right away and noted in the comments with thanks to the commenter who spotted it.
Sometimes, there’s errors related [to] title spelling, such as the article: AL.com thinks ‘global warming’ is increasing ticks in Alabama, except it’s cooled over the last century there
I boobed, and typed AI instead of AL originally so I had to fix that. I left a note at the bottom of the article:
Note: about 5 mins after publication, the title was changed to correct a misspelling.
And on occasion, we have a factual error in the article. These are handled via either strikeouts (if the error is multiple words) or as a word or two in [brackets] if it is a simple fix.
We aren’t perfect here at WUWT, nobody who publishes online is, but I try to make sure that fixes are known to the readers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1984!
Yes. The Ministry of Truth in action.
The only problem is that the internet never forgets. Good work Anthony.
Sounds more like weather forecast techniques to me. 🙂
Cheers
Roger
Every time I encounter stuff like this, I am made aware of the prescience of George Orwell’s 1984, but I never expected it to occur in the U.S. … now I do.
2017!
Or 2010-2016 in some cases. A while back, Anthony allowed me to have a guest post here subtitled “The Need to Screencapture Global Warming Promoters’ Words (because what’s seen on the internet cannot be unseen)” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/05/ross-gelbspans-disappearing-act-of-inconvenient-climate-dialog/ , about a prominent ‘crooked skeptics’ accuser who attempted to pass off a 2010 article of his at his web site as something he’d more recently written, which to this day still occupies a spot not far from the top in his conveyor belt of blog postings.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
So it is more like New York from Time to Time !
g
Noting minor changes shortly after release is fine but stealth changes for political and activist agenda is not. Don’t subscribe or advertise in the NYT or LAT. You get what you pay for so go get a WSJ subscription to support the last sane island in the water world of bias and crass.
I got one of my masters’ degrees from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in NYC, considered Numero Uno in the world. At that time, the corporate accountants hadn’t yet swallowed the media world. We were told that the best writers worked for the WSJ. (Murdoch bought the joint circa 2007, so, whatever.)
I am EXTREMELY heartened by newsdiffs.org. Hallelujah. Wonderful people in my view. Exemplary. And I applaud Anthony Watt’s effort to keep people apprised of this issue.
Institutional decay is an information problem for the rest of us to catch up to……
recent Opinion letter:
Brown University in Providence, R.I. houses one of the country’s most selective undergraduate colleges. The Brown Daily Herald, a student-run newspaper, cites Dean of Admission Logan Powell in reporting that the school received a record-high 32,724 applications this year, and admitted just 8.3% of applicants.
Among those lucky few is the daughter of a Journal reader who is still trying to make sense of a letter the family received this week from Mr. Powell. Our reader’s bright daughter had already received news of her acceptance when a letter arrived that was addressed to her “Parent/Guardian.”
Oddly, the note referred to the accepted student not as “she” but as “they.” Dean Powell’s letter also stated that our reader’s daughter had no doubt worked hard and made positive contributions to “their” school and community. Our reader reports that his perplexed family initially thought that Brown had made a word-processing error. That was before they listened to a voice mail message from the school congratulating his daughter and referring to her as “them.”
We’ve read about the literacy crisis in the U.S. but would not have guessed that the problem extends to Ivy League administrators. An item on Brown’s website announcing Mr. Powell’s 2016 hiring reported that he had previously served at Bowdoin, Harvard and Princeton—and also noted that he would be overseeing a staff of 38 people at Brown. One would think that at least some of them are familiar with pronouns.
It turns out that the errors were intentional. Brown spokesman Brian Clark writes in an email that “our admission office typically refers to applicants either by first name or by using ‘they/their’ pronouns. While the grammatical construction may read as unfamiliar to some, it has been adopted by many newsrooms and other organizations as a gender-inclusive option.” Our reader figured as much. “Mind you, our daughter has always been clear what her biological gender and identity is — she’s a woman,” he reports. He believes the school “wants to make it clear that only left wing extremists are welcome at Brown. Fine with us — good riddance.”
The letter from Dean Powell included a total of four short paragraphs, including this one: “And now, as we invite you to join the Brown family, we encourage you to allow [daughter’s name] to chart their own course. Just as you have always been there, now we will provide support, challenge and opportunities for growth.”
Nearly a complete stranger, Mr. Powell is writing a short, error-filled letter to parents claiming that his organization is fit to replace them. No doubt the “Brown family” with all its “thems” and “theys” can offer a wealth of valuable educational opportunities. But anyone who buys the line that competent parenting is part of the package has probably never set foot on campus.
Well Resource guy why don’t we just use “it” as a general pronoun that fits all 57 known genders.
But “it” still isn’t truly satisfactory, because ” it ” still excludes hermaphrodites, and I’m not happy about that.
Not that I know too many of those binarids; but there are times when you just want to tell somebody: ” Why don’t you just go and **** yourself !! ”
g
george e. smith : “Freak” works for me.
Best to verify anything that appears in the MSM. Look for original source information.
Got that right. And not only look for the source but if the topic is important to you, read the “source.” Cant tell you the number of times I’ve checked the source, which was thrown in as a palliative because it looked good, only to discover the source said the opposite of what the reporter claimed. (Many rabidly pro-Israel historical Wikipedia entries rise to that level of subterfuge; the Israeli Ministry of Information under Naftali Bennett openly admitted to doing it, btw, and paid a workforce to accomplish it.)
I’ve never seen a “rabidly pro-Israeli Wikipedia entry”. Of course some people are so anti-Israeli that the truth seems to be rabidly pro-Israeli.
A “newspaper of record” should document all changes from the first published version, even minor ones, in my opinion. Just a little sentence at the bottom, like: “Updated at …: grammar corrected.”
Yup. The New York Times does it for misspelling names. But wholesale altering of content???
It’s actually a “newspaper of stuck-record” – Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad ……
Anyone who pays attention understands the perspectives and tactics of The Revolutionary New York Times. Trust only the things that can be independently confirmed. And even then, be careful of subliminal nuances.
As long as one does not try confirming them from the Guardian, the BBC or Ha’aretz (English edition).
Obviously most of these changes are not corrections, but rather revisions of meaning. What is not obvious and should have readers concerned, is from where the impetus comes to make these changes. If the original text is not what the authors intended and they need to keep changing it, then their skills as journalists are suspect. If they are making changes due to pressure from others then those others are having a perverse and potentially inappropriate influence on what the public read in the published articles.
All the changes they make seem to reflect negatively on skeptics.
IE, to better match the current party line.
…And how desperate the party has gotten, lately.
No, no, no…
We’re looking at this all wrong.
These aren’t stealthy revisions, they’re data adjustments.
Thanks to to the author for a great & revealing article and for the newsdiffs.org link.
A clear example of activist pressure driving revisions is here:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/nyregion/de-blasio-smoking-new-york-city-tobacco.html
The (Big Pharma funded) anti-tobacco scam and resultant cult and ‘public health’ research (‘evidenced based’ policy, like a ‘fruit-based’ drink, is really only supported by agenda driven cherry picked selective ‘evidence’) gravy train, is even older and just as riven by bad ‘science’ and demonisation of dissenters as the CAGW scam.
I could go on… tobacco has many benefits, and its asserted and propagandised ‘harms’ wildly exaggerated, just like CO2, but in this case, instead of blaming industry, it’s been to deflect blame from industry, on to ‘individual choice’, away from diesel, coal tar, radioactive fallout from all the above-ground tests, &etc.
OK, I’ve stuck my neck out, head above the parapet. :=})
RdM: smoking is not one of our greatest health problems?
Have you worked or volunteered in a hospital lately?
You stuck your neck out, and allowed your brain to fall out while at it.
These cases clearly show outside pressure.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Leo. Bravo!
Wonderful, succinct post…Thanks!
There was a good example of this in the Guardian last week. They had a headline
“No, the Great Barrier Reef is not dead in the water. Not yet”, see this tweet.
But then they stealthily changed it to “We must act immediately to save the Great Barrier Reef”, as you can see by clicking on the tweet.
Presumably the headline writer was worried that that the original headline might give support to ‘climate deniers’.
Yes, the climate alarmists are quite good at deception.
Yes, the climate cultists are great at lying about climate.
Yes, the climate Stalinists promote propaganda.
Their livelihood depends on it. It is the oldest profession.
http://greyfalcon.us/pictures/stoppresses.gif
Tesla, perhaps?….. Google (think Ivanpah), perhaps?……. “Energy storage tech” industry …. or well…. ANY “Sustainability”/Human CO2-s c a m m e r, perhaps?
Follow –> the –> money.
*********************************
Fine exposé, Mr. Goldstein! Thank you for, once again, sharing your great effort to promote science truth, and, thus, freedom!
Janice, at the BBC at least, Tesla largely gets its advertising for free. Apparently.
I’m making the working assumption that the usual BBC suspects aren’t actually taking backhanders under the table, and that they really just believe their own green propaganda on behalf of some specific corporations. Companies other than Tesla make electric vehicles, but the BBC seems very shy about reporting it though they have frequent uncritical updates for Tesla and their products.
(The BBC treatment of Twitter has been very similar over the years. If you look carefullly at their early reporting you will probably find less than two stories which ever sounded a negative note. That would allow the BBC to claim they are not always just cutting and pasting from corporate press releases. Competing companies don’t get a look in.)
Thank you, Mr. Hart, for taking the time to make me more informed. Interesting situation in the UK with the BBC. It was kind of you to take the time.
Re: U.S. advertising revenue
I can almost guarantee that Tesla would pay BIG BUCKS for its NYT ads.
An example, just for context:
…. readers of the New York Times on Thursday might have noticed something different about their front page. Procter & Gamble ran what is known as a “main news spadia” — an ad that wraps around the front of the paper. The underside of the page is an ad for Febreeze while the front side has the paper’s normal text, giving the appearance that there’s no ad at all.
So how much does a main news spadia cost in The New York Times? Ad buyers estimate around $300,000.
(Source: https://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/06/26/new-york-times-front-page-ad/ )
****************
My guess about why your comment did not appear for a long time after you posted it: “propag@nda” (bummer!)
Yes, as an editor once said to a reporter: your job is to produce copy so the underwear ads don’t run together.
Replace “clicks” with copy for a modern version.
Except that it probably isn’t an advertiser who is doing the complaining and otherwise throwing their weight around.
Agreed. Maybe an owner. or a cartel of ownership?
It’s just groupthink. There is no conspiracy, it is just that everyone, literally everyone, on staff thinks exactly the same.
A lot of pith in a small space.
Isn’t the NYT motto…
“All the news that fits…” … their agenda
Ah , to be able to have a limited window to edit posts on WUWT when you see you have faled to close a tag only after posting .
Or perhaps misspelled failed?
+1
We apparently are left with no alternative except having friends and relatives proof-read before we post. This would undoubtedly slow the posting process, so Charles the moderator could get some well-deserved leisure time.
Ah, but, Mr. Armstrong. Think of all the joy we flubber-uppers would deny to the Brian H’s of the world if we were not forced to leave our errors plastered across the page for all to see?
We will not have lived in vain!
🙂
(Good catch, MarkW 🙂 )
I usually try ignore spelling flubs, but that one was a hanging curve on the inside corner.
🙂
No joy involved, just exasperation.
Brian H! 🙂
WordPress has no comment editing capabilities. You can add a plug-in. However… every plug-in you add to your site is yet another thing to keep updated and in sync with the basic engine (assuming that you can keep it updated, not all developers keep up with changes at WP – and also assuming you trust it in the first place, by the way).
While it would be nice to have, I’d much rather Anthony spend his time doing what he does best – bringing us the best content he can – not doing constant putzing around in the website internals.
If that check from big oil ever clears, Anthony can hire a couple of interns to keep up with that stuff.
I love WUWT and consider it to be a primary source of credible information.
The comment threads can be particularly insightful and educational.
A beacon of light which is very highly valued.
+10
What I like the most is there is almost always a link to the original sources, as well as summary sources and the articles often beat other forums to publication. In the comments I can see both the well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I can see what the trolls are likely to seize upon as well.
I’m actually surprised WUWT doesn’t get more trolls. However, the “comments group” does not suffer fools lightly. When you get slapped down here, it’s usually well stated and documented.
Plus another 10
The credibility of WUWT is enhanced by the rapid, open, and usually authoritative feedback provided by commenters. On the other hand, the credibility of peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature has been damaged by revelations of corruption and collusion. I’m beginning to wonder whether the future of scientific publishing lies in blogs like this one.
Good paper.
And until we get an honest MSM owner prepared to allow their journalists to publish/broadcast facts and to cover stories like this one there won’t be any change.
I don’t quite think that’s the issue. I think they hire people with an agenda and no intention of describing the facts of stories without passing them through their fantasy filters. Once stories are written, the editors don’t demand rewrites or fact editing to bring them back to reality so long as they pitch the editorially preferred line. Additionally, they seek to print what sells. In the case of climate they believe that providing confirmation to the Warmist biases is what sells.
We have to face it that the leftist media and the wall of nonsense produced by the climate “science” establishment dominates the field. That is the wall we need to chip away at. As an example, the information uncovered on this post regarding rewrites should be newsworthy to competitors of the NYT. If they have no credibility or ethics then we should point out that they have no credibility or ethics and the NYT’s competitors should bring it to ight. It’s news!
People still read the New York Times? When they decided to be propaganda rather than news, I decided to stop caring what they had to say.
The leftists prefer their propaganda to be undiluted by facts.
Since at least the 1920s.
Die Spinnmeisters von NYT.
Many media outlets actively suppress truth. My comments were not posted at several media outlets for pointing out that Pruitt was responding to the question- “do you think CO2 is the primary control knob for climate'” along with stating he didn’t deny anything because he said more research was need to know if it was or not. That factual information exposed the out of context lies they were spreading so they couldn’t allow it to be posted. I am always careful not to violate any terms of use.
Over the years I have failed to clear moderation way too many times for simply posting scientific facts about climate that can’t be dismissed as right wing propaganda.
Truth Matters. Even when it makes editors uncomfortable. The only reason the green liars have succeeded is because the “truth police” are in place. The trouble is, the concept of “Truth Police” is here as George Orwell predicted.
There is nothing lower than a liar….except a censor.
A thief is perhaps lower than a liar, but a liar is a thief of the truth, so I’m being redundant.
Not sure I got that. Could you say it again?
I wonder if the NYT will report on this …….”History of EPA employee misconduct could result in layoffs”
“Only 6.5 percent of EPA employees are “essential,” according to the government’s own calculations ”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/19/history-epa-employee-misconduct-could-result-in-layoffs.html
My estimate is that only about 6.5% of all government employees are ‘essential’, and then only if you stretch the meaning of the word.
You are being generous.
“HA”, most ever elected politician will disagree by claiming that the employment of nearly all (93.5%) of the government employees were ‘essential’ to their being “elected” …… and are essential’ to their re-election. Iffen a politician starts laying-off or firing government employees his/her incumbency will be in dire jeopardy.
To be elected via support of the lefty liberal “troughfeeders” you have to promise to hire more government employees.
“Sometimes simple mistakes are made,in…”
I’m triggered by this 😉
..Quick, run to your “Safe Space” before it’s too late !!
Back in the day we had our ‘safe space’ we could retreat to when we needed to get away from a world that was unfair and judgemental. Of course, we didn’t call it a safe space.
We called it The Pub. And it had free peanuts. ~¿~
Back in the day we had our ‘safe space’ we could retreat to when we needed to get away from a world that was unfair and judgemental. Of course, we didn’t call it a safe space.
We called it The Pub. And it had free peanuts. ~¿~
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=song+my+room&qpvt=song+my+room&view=detail&mid=6216A46855F7A2169C906216A46855F7A2169C90&FORM=VRDGAR
From the Beach Boys
The heroic defenders of free speech. Journalists, editors, and especially publishers have always expressed a point of view. In this case they appear to be expressing it after the fact. American mainstream media sold their themselves as objective at a time when they felt monolithic. That era is over.
There will be a job fair for the many job openings in air brush artistry, re-editors, and switchboard operators for communications with political and advocacy groups.
No wonder Obama’s
yes we can…global warming…weather weirding…climate change… clean air movement is misunderstood byanthropogenic global warming skeptics…global warming skeptics…allies of fossil fuel Industry…climate change dissenters… climate change denia!ists.Tough job to keep up with it!
Is it only me who is quite encouraged by this? If the forces of darkness felt they were in the ascendancy then the occasional semantical tweak would be the expected norm. Fourteen covert post-publish revisions can be viewed as nothing other than sheer desperation and panicked hysteria. It’s at times like these I can see the hydra writhing in agony. Thanks for the post Mr. Goldstein and I raise my glass to you.
I would be careful of assuming that we, who rely on goodness and honesty, are getting the upper hand.
Oh it will be a long time before I’d venture that far. For now though it’s gratifying to see those who rely on twisted ideology and deceit having bad times.
What has the upper hand is Reality. Even the most Totalitarian of regimes can hold it off for only so long.
Fourteen covert post-publish revisions….
“I am the great and powerful Wizard of Oz!”
(youtube)
sheer desperation and panicked hysteria.
Yep.
Don’t mistake noise for power.
It is my experience that the NYTimes, and other news outlets, actively suppress dissenting views, judging from the comments that I’ve read and submitted (at times to no effect despite peer-reviewed references) and that at one point I noticed were curiously absent, as if suddenly the “dissenters” must have had a change of heart. Our local on-line newspaper, respectable overall, refused to publish my commentaries on warming, including a relatively mild summary of the recent Congressional Hearing. All this leads me to believe that we are losing the war because we are meant to lose the war: for some reason, the powers that be want the climate agenda to move forward, and they’re not about to let any facts get in the way.
“for some reason, the powers that be want the climate agenda to move forward, and they’re not about to let any facts get in the way.”
These are True Believers. They believe the world is in danger from human-caused climate change/global warming, so they think that gives them an excuse to use any trick they can think of to help their efforts to stop this destruction of the world.
That’s true for some of them.
For many others they don’t care whether CAGW is true or not.
They mean to create heaven on earth through communism/socialism and they will use any vehicle they can to grab the power necessary to force the needed changes on the rest of us.
“Well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists.”
In reply to MarkW, my suspicion is that it’s not necessarily communism/socialism, but maybe a form of fascism, or simply the rule of the very rich over the rest of us.
Fascism is a form of socialism, and all systems with strong governments result in a world in which the rich rule over the rest of us.
With the NYT, it looks like some senior executive, other than a purported editor, is asking for changes. There are some subjects the Times has a party line on, and climate change is one of them.
+1
Another Schumer-directed tool
New York Times seem to need someone like Ike Antkare to excel in the semantics of their gibberish.
Leo Goldstein,
There is no war more important than the war for facts. I don’t care if the earth is warming or cooling. I care how my life is tortured by those who mistreat facts. I want peace, truth and salvation.
If the facts showed the earth was warming and I was the reason, and that warming was harmful then I would feel compelled to allow my life to be interrupted and changed to address it. But so far, I have been lied to for 40 years. I have been told by “authority” figures that the earth is warming and cooling. I have been told that it natural and man made. I have been told that the warming and cooling is going to end life on earth. Well, somebody is lying. A lot of people are making a lot of money telling lies about the environment. I am not one of them.
Liars assault me, my children, my society with such profound, endless, and voluminous BS so often, that it is difficult to know which end is up. It is a whirlwind of nonsense.
So Mr Goldstein, you have a friend in me as you “out” the liars at the NYT. Liars disgust me. Stupid people annoy me a little. They are inconvenient, but liars are dangerous and to be guarded against.
I want the truth regardless of the pain it causes me. Pain will pass. I commend you also for your courage to avail your true identity. Even that kind of courage is rare.
Thank you, Leo, for educating me. I’m sadder but wiser, thanks to you.
BTW, some here might be unaware of Leo Goldstein’s very useful Climate Search Engine. It is a great resource!
Dave Burton,
Thanks for the link to the search engine by Leo Goldstein. I already tested it for Global Cooling, Peter Gleick, and Climategate. The difference with Bing, Google etc is profound.
Thanks! A great site.
Yes, I think so highly of Leo’s Climate Search Engine that I put a search form using it right near the top of the “Resources” page on my sealevel.info web site, right alongside the WUWT site search form.
The New York Times – Poster Child for Propaganda.