NYT Caught Switching Out Documents To Fix Botched Climate Change Article

 

From The Daily Caller

Energy

NYT-e1501618231368

The sign over the west entrance of the New York Times building at 620 Eighth Ave. April 28, 2016 in New York. / AFP / DON EMMERT (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

Michael Bastasch

2:31 PM 08/08/2017

The New York Times has quietly updated its Tuesday front page article on a “sweeping” global warming report some scientists fear “would be suppressed” by the Trump administration.

TheNYT reported they had obtained an unreleased draft copy of the National Climate Assessment (NCA), which is set for release in 2018. The paper claimed the NDA draft had “not yet been made public” and “concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now.”

However, TheNYT published a “third order draft” of the NCA that’s been available online since January. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published the draft online in March.

The paper did not issue a formal correction by the time this article was published, and did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s inquiry into whether or not a correction would be issued.

Advertisement

Commercial Link – Manage Your Vehicles For $10/month, Per Vehicle.*Learn More.

Ad By Commercial Link

“We clearly note in the story that this has been reviewed by NAS and was not a secret within the scientific community,” NYT reporter Lisa Friedman told TheDCNF about the inconsistencies. “The latest draft was not however public.”

The NYT then uploaded the actual never-before-seen “fifth order draft” of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) to its website but without issuing any correction or update to their original article.

A close look at Friedman’s article still shows the publicly available “third order draft” report as what was leaked. Clicking on the link, however, brings up the “fifth order report.”

New York Times Climate Report

Source: Screenshot of the New York Times

“It’s very disappointing, yet entirely predictable to learn The New York Times would write off a draft report without first verifying its contents with the White House or any of the federal agencies directly involved with climate and environmental policy,” a White house official told theDCNF.

“As others have pointed out – and The New York Times should have noticed – drafts of this report have been published and made widely available online months ago during the public comment period,” the official said. “The White House will withhold comment on any draft report before its scheduled release date.”

So after all that, TheNYT technically has a “leaked” report. But climate scientists who worked on the NCA have said there are few substantive differences between the two drafts. The final draft isn’t expected until next year.

 

The Washington Post added to Hayhoe’s remarks, reporting the “version at the White House is the fifth draft, but people familiar with both versions say there is no substantive difference.”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “NYT Caught Switching Out Documents To Fix Botched Climate Change Article

      • Yeah, really, if they issue a correction for every lie they tell, they would be issuing corrections every day.

    • Wait – is this one of those ‘oh noes!! Pants on floor!!’ things that seem to happen so often now with contemporary news media?
      Is a panic attack in order?
      Should I just go ahead and make that batch of cookies I meant to make?

      Seriously, the more this kind of thing happens, and the more the MSM does to embarass themselves publicly, the less likely I am to take them seriously if they report that Fatty Kim da III in North Korea has dropped a bomb on New York City.

      • Make the cookies:

        They are more honest.
        The quality is much better.
        You know what you will get.
        They are much better for you.
        You will enjoy them way more.
        They may even have more accurate news….

        Me? I’m roasting turkey with onions, cellery, and carrots. Side of chard. Optional wine.

        Much more fulfilling than the NYT… roast turkeys, don’t read them.

  1. “It’s very disappointing, yet entirely predictable to learn The New York Times would write off a draft report without first verifying its contents with the White House or any of the federal agencies directly involved with climate and environmental policy,” a White house official told theDCNF.

    Well duh!

    Newspapers are supposed to dig for dirt. They shouldn’t have to ask the politicians whether the dirt is genuine before they publish it.

    The problem here is changing a story after it has been published. The ethical way to change a story is to include an update. That’s what happens on WUWT. Even spelling and grammar corrections are explicitly noted. Here’s an example:

    UPDATE: Chart corrected as per comments – the earlier version was posted before I had a chance to update. Any other comments and corrections are very welcome! link

    The august New York Times should at least rise to the standards of a blog.

    • “Newspapers are supposed to dig for dirt. They shouldn’t have to ask the politicians whether the dirt is genuine before they publish it.”
      Actually it is standard journalistic practice to ask controlling authorities for comment on a ‘leaked’ document. You are supposed to get both sides of a story and present all evidence to the reader so they can make up their own mind. This practice is often ignored by those with an ax to grind.
      That said, I think that any reasonable changes to the document made in response to public or expert comment are still going to be portrayed as yielding to pressure of the Trump Administration. It is a ‘no win’ situation for the Administration.
      BTW, I made comments on the last NCA and noticed they greatly modified what was in the final draft to moderate what the original draft had said. And this was during the Obama Administration.

      • ‘leaked’? But the article clearly states that it was not leaked. It was publicly available online since January. That hardly makes it a leak. NYT has descended to a level lower than People Magainze and their obsession with the famous-for-being-famous nobodies.

    • The New York Time is not a “newspaper”, and it has not been one for a long time.

      The NYT is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. It writes nothing without their approval; it always acts immediately upon the directives given to it by the current Party Leadership.

      And it is subscribed to and read voraciously by all Party Members in Good Standing.

      • Hard to decide whether the MSM are the media arm of the Democrat Party or the Democrats are the political arm of the MSM Party.

      • The MSM believe they are the rightful government of the USA. Party membership is a CrackerJack badge.

      • And I say not even Alex Jones – this is Pravda territory. The NYT writes for The Party, and as directed by The Party. All published items are evaluated on one criteria alone – “How will this advance the Party’s interests?”

      • Not even close to Pravda, or Izvestia. More along the lines of the tabloids from the 1950s reporting on aliens invading the vegetable bins at the local greengrocers.

      • I think the NYT and Pravda have a lot in common. This isn’t tabloid journalism, it is outright propaganda on the part of the NYT to help the Democrats and harm the Republicans. When you have NYT reporters colluding with Hillary and company so their crimes are not reported, it is not tabloid journalism. It is a sinister operation aimed at undermining the United States by underming the president.

        The NYT and most all the other MSM, around the world, are pushing the Leftist/Socialist narrative, and do everything they can to destroy their political opponents. Don’t take anything they say at face value.

        And here we are in a potential nuclear crisis and we are at the point where we can’t believe a thing our news media says.

  2. Yeah, cannot imagine anybody takes NYT seriously anymore.

    They aren’t about news. In fact it is doubtful one can find very many true facts in their paper.

    But you can find a lot of ‘facts’ that fit their political agenda. Whether those facts are true or not is usually debatable, but they always fit the socialist leftist agenda.

    When I look at the RealClear website, I always look at the byline of a story. If it’s CNN or NYT I usually assume its propaganda and skip it.

  3. History repeats:

    Back in 1995, The New York Times chose to release a draft IPCC report summary made available to scientists on the internet. This action served to promote a detection finding in the summary that was inconsistent with the scepticism of the detection chapter of the ‘final’ underlying report. Although the draft summary was clearly marked ‘draft – do not quote or cite’, NYT chose to write it up on their front page. This appeared to be part of a campaign to have the IPCC make the claim that ‘climate change is happening now’ so as to influence the US government to change its position on binding commitments to emissions reduction (a campaign that continued at the WG 1 meeting in Madrid and at CoP2, Geneva 1996).

    On the NYT leak, see how Pat Michael’s reported it back then on his pioneering World Wide Web newsletter:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol1/v1n2/feature.htm

    • The 1995 IPCC report is notorious because that’s the one that Ben Santer changed to claim a discernible human impact on climate.

      Fred Seitz, past president of the APS wrote a WSJ op-ed about it, documenting the changes and saying he’d never seen such blatant fraud. For that service to integrity, Seitz was crucified by the usual line-up of progressive ranters.

      • That’s the IPCC report where Santer inserted his personal opinion into the summary which was completely at odds with the findings of the scientists who did the IPCC report. The scientists said there was no indication of humans altering the climate, and Santer changed that to say humans *were* altering the climate. A blatant lie that he couldn’t prove then and he can’t prove now.

        Santer should have been the one figuratively crucified. it’s still not too late.

      • that is the one, do a google search on that and you will see how his alterations no longer have the same meaning. google is a lie, santer is a liar and i think people in the future will not know how much people like santer turned climate science hard left. my memory of him was, and always will be this –

        https://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

        along with all those other authors of that paper. jones, wigley, karoly etc

        around 2000 i read a few excuses that jerk had about the reason for picking those dates, and they were pathetic but enough for the believers to carry on. the start was due to the equipment, the end was apparently because the paper was finished earlier, and the change happen after it was written. what, like 9 years !?, it should have not been released.

  4. Upon reading parts of this report (final draft 4th NCA) on topics for which I am familiar with the data (ocean acidification, sea level rise, temperature, agriculture) I find the report is severely lacking of so-called evidence to support a “warming planet”, “affects on agricultural productivity” and ignores data not supportive of their pre-disposition …. Page 496 speaks to sea level rise of 4 meters in last 7,000 years. In fact sea level has fallen 2 meters in last 5600 years to expose micro atolls in the Great Barrier Reef (cited by Bob Carter). Morner cites evidence of sea level fall in the last 2,000 to 4,000 years. Greenland ice core evidence (Alley, Penn State Univ., GISP) is ignored which indicates a temperature fall of 6 degrees F since 3500 BC. If one takes the time to extract and examine raw NOAA-NWS weather stations data from rural US stations, they will show temperature falling since the highs in the 1930s-40s period. There is also evidence to oppose the report’s views on ocean acidification which the report conveniently ignores. For example, if one examines NOAA’s world ocean database (OSD) for 0 to 10 m depth worldwide collected since 1910 (492,485 subset of records of 2+ million pH records) it shows the ocean pH rising with a least squares trend y=0.0047x-1.046 (for period 1910-2014) clearly shows the oceans are rising above pH=8 and becoming more basic. How much clearer can one be. The authors make no mention of land subsidence to complicate their glossed-over assessment of sea level rise as witnessed by the well known examples in coastal Virginia and Galveston TX (perhaps for reason due to fresh water withdrawal) areas to explain sea level changes, and there is no mention of sea level fall of inches per 100 years on the US west coast shown by several gaging stations (Neah Bay, WA, Crescent City CA, Tofino BC) or the obvious ignored examples of sea level fall of 40 inches per 100 years at Yakutat, Juneau, Skagway and Kodiak Alaska. Clearly there are gage stations in the western Pacific (Rabaul, and Philippines) that show sea level falling.

    But its greatest fault is that the report does not supply evidence, but only opinion. It does not allow one to weigh original evidence pro and con so the reader is unable to make an independent assessment, a point which annoys me greatly.

    Its quite clear. This report does not justify the time for a repair. It is one-sided, written by a group of an Obama-McCarthy era with a pre-disposed opinion that temperatures are rising, that this causes every ill possible and that carbon dioxide is the reason. It is pure hogwash, junk and should be tossed in the trash heap, or dissolved in a septic tank never to see light of day.

  5. Andrew Revkin won’t be writing a dotearth defense of the Times, since he’s announced he’s leaving NYT’s “Dot Earth”.
    He’ll be moving to ProPublica as “senior reporter on Climate Change”, so doubt he’ll do anything differently.
    More of the same, just somewhere else.

  6. NYT discovers now a document US administration published for consultation over half a year ago? Who pays for something like that?

  7. Now that is VERY INTERESTING!!!!

    I was studying the Third Draft yesterday, and when I came back today I noticed a couple of changes.
    After reading it back and forth for half an hour, and thinking I was cracking up, I finally twigged that I was now looking at the latest Fifth Draft, that Hayhoe says is still secret!!

    If you follow the NYT link to the report, the Fifth Draft is fully downloadable here:

    • Yes, it’s true. I am feeling the effects of climate change. This is the fourth year in a row – or is it the fifth? – that I have not had to run the air conditioner even once in the summer. Not. One. Time. in five years. Is it possible that a prolonged cooler weather might have something to do with that? Stay tuned. I’ll let you know by AD 2,217
      Sure has saved me some money on the electric bill.

  8. This was a lesson in how to make (fake) news. Fox news website posted an article noting NYT front page article “leaking” a report that proved CAGW, and “some scientists” feared Trump admin would suppress it. Fox quoted Kayhoe and another author saying it was not leaked, it was publicly available, review period still pending (calling all scientists here-please submit comments asap) and there was no chance admin could suppress it. This was before NYT brought up “5th Report” weasel, and Kayhoe said “compare side by side, its not leaked, it’s public doc.” Driving home about a half hour later, NPR reported story just like NYT, emphasizing that finally science could show exactly how much warming attributed to human CO2 (“1.2 deg. C since 1950), huge increase in storms and rain due to man, ability to see CC affect at “granular” level (tough to drive when you laugh so hard) and “some scientists” again. Clearly NPR just read the NYT with no checking at all. I decided to watch network news (rarely do that, but occasionally one needs to know what the enemy is up to). It was all NoKo missile stuff until CBS covered this. At least they didn’t segue with something like “On a more serious threat to Nat’l security (than NOKo missile!), Climate change is here, real” etc. CBS quickly said “NYT reports, some scientists fear blah blah,” but they jumped to another story of the “whistleblower” in EPA who insists Alaska coast erosion is AGW and gov’t is suppressing story. Included video of houses tipping into crashing waves. The “whistleblower” was classic activist on EPA payroll, so earnest in his concern for humanity I was touched. CBS reporter was a real pro, not weeping on camera.
    My lesson learned (for zillionth time): Progressive media continue to act as cheerleaders, (no, not strong enough) like bobbysoxers at the airport fence screaming at the mop-topped eco-activists getting off the plane. When CAGW collapses, the press will not notice.

  9. Who ever is running the NY Times should be fired and sued for destroying the iconic brand .
    Too stupid to do real reporting . The NY Times epitaph . Good riddance .

  10. Regarding the 2003 England alltime high temperature record being set at a location which only started recording the temperature in 1998: Other locations in southern England with longer records also on 8/10/2003 set new alltime high temperature records, including Heathrow Airport for the first time ever exceeding 37.8 degrees C (100 degrees F).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s