Botched reporting- A Reply to The New York Times on “How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches”

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory.  It’s regularly publishing fake news.  A NYT piece that appeared on December 29, How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches, mentions me, my website DefyCCC, and WUWT, and I take this opportunity to reply. In November and December 2017, I experimented with distributing the climate realism message using advertising options on Google and some other platforms.  I will report on the results of this experiment in a separate article.  Apparently, some of my Google ads caught the attention of the NYT.  On December 4th, a NYT reporter named Hiroko Tabuchi interviewed me for 45 minutes in preparing for the above NYT piece.

In the interview, I attempted to convince the reporter that the NYT got science wrong, that real scientists are against climate alarmism, and that other countries build coal power plants and more.  The reporter was honest in telling me that the NYT piece would be about the ads, not about the climate debate (I hope NYT does not fire her for this act of honesty, unfit for its organizational culture), so I already knew what to expect.  However, the piece weaves lies, half-truths, and trivial facts so seamlessly that it elevates fake news into an art form.  I will comment only on some falsehoods related to me.

The only thing that surprised me in the NYT piece was how it used me to link Trump to Russia.

“Of course, people click,” said Mr. Goldstein, who said he had emigrated from Russia two decades ago and had worked in the software and power industries. “Google is the No. 1 advertising choice.”

The proliferation of climate disinformation, both online and off, has coincided with an effort to undermine measures to combat climate change. Republican leaders regularly question climate science and President Trump has called climate change a hoax. 

I emigrated from the Soviet Union (not from Russia) before it dissolved in 1991, the dissolution that happened twenty-six years ago.  I was born and grew up in the Ukraine, then a part of the Soviet Union. This information is present in the About page of my site.  I did not tell the reporter that I “emigrated from Russia two decades ago.”  Here, the New York Times has “slightly” changed times and names in order to evoke another conspiracy theory, one of a Trump-Russia collusion.  The rest could have been expected.  This is how the NYT linked me to the Koch brothers:

DefyCCC, the site that recently bought the “climate change” search term on Google, devotes an entire section of its site to content from WattsUpWithThat, a well-known climate denial site by the blogger Anthony Watts. Mr. Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute, backed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

Beyond that, little is known about DefyCCC. …

The reporter ran this line (except for the last quoted sentence) by me in the interview.  In fact, DefyCCC has no sections at all.  It does have a menu, and links to my articles in WUWT are collected under top menu items In WattsUpWithThat and WUWT 2016.  I explained that to the reporter.  But the NYT still published this line, falsely insinuating that I am connected to the Koch brothers.  The next sentence was supposed to cement this lie as truth: “Beyond that, little is known about DefyCCC”.  This is also a typical line in the hatchet job pieces, used when it cannot find dirt on somebody.  For the record, I also told her I have no information about other allegations in that paragraph.  Further in the piece, the NYT made another wild insinuation about me:

He received help with his site but would not say who his backers were to protect their privacy.

In the interview, I said I have colleagues and refused to name them. Then, I told the reporter about the shooting of the UAH building as a reason to withdraw personal information.  This topic was blacked out by the media, so the NYT didn’t mention it, but made up its own explanation.  This is where fake news becomes an art form.  In the sentence, the word help (from colleagues or coworkers) is followed by the word backers, subtly turning it into financial support.  And then a quote, taken out of context, cements this impression.

Having written about my imaginary backers, the NYT failed to disclose its own.  Its largest shareholder is Mexican multi-billionaire Carlos Slim, who was the world’s richest man a few years ago.  Mr. Slim has significant investments in oil and natural gas in Latin America, which compete against U.S. oil, gas, and coal industries.  The NYT’s attempts to damage the U.S. fossil fuels industry promote the financial interests of its largest shareholder.

I took record of the insults that the NYT hurled at me, but I will not dignify them with a response.

The NYT piece mentions WUWT and DefyCCC, but it links to neither of our sites.  I understand that it doesn’t want to transfer “link equity” or encourage readers to visit them.  But, when the NYT wrote about white supremacists, it linked to Stormfront with a perfect, link equity carrying link (3), although it didn’t have to, or could have used a nofollow tag that prevented transfer of link equity. When I checked in September 2017, I found that the top neo-nazi websites received most of their link equity from the leftstream media.  Just a note.

I don’t want to finish this article on the NYT links to neo-nazi websites.  Sorry, I mean, the links from the NYT site to neo-nazi sites.  Reading the NYT is not only misinforming, but also morally degrading.  The NYT published two pieces about UFOs in December 2017:  2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ (in the section Politics) and Dad Believed in U.F.O.s. Turns Out He Wasn’t Alone (in the section News Analysis).  Seems to me that the NYT is looking for its niche among tabloids.


Carlos Slim owned ~17% of class A shares of the NYT until a few months ago.  But Class A shares of the NYT elect only about one third of the board.  Class B shares are thought to be held by the Ochs-Sulzberger family.  Father and son Ochs-Sulzberger have been the NYT publishers since 1963, so the NYT was considered independent from external financial influences.  But, in the precarious financial situation into which the NYT painted itself by serving as a propaganda accessory and by false reporting — money ends up mattering more than formal voting rights.  Thus, Carlos Slim probably wields or wielded much more power in the editorial room of the NYT than previously thought.  To his credit, he is not a liberal.  Mr. Slim also owns substantial interest in the tobacco industry around the world, which makes the NYT a sister company of Big Tobacco.

Posts about the New York Times take a good part of the fakestream media category in DefyCCC.  Besides printing fake news, it was caught doing near-Orwellian re-writing of its articles to toe the party line.  I have even proposed a new logo and byline for it that better reflects its new nature.  It can use them free of charge under a Creative Commons license, just like other content of my website.

Addendum by Anthony:

The way the NYT article is written, it implies that WUWT has an ad campaign running in Google Adwords to attract readers. It does not, and never has. We have no advertising budget. The  article also implies that WUWT is funded by the Heartland Institute. It is not and never has been. Neither WUWT nor the owner Anthony receives any payroll or regular funding from Heartland. We rely entirely upon advertisements (managed by and a sharing agreement) and donations from readers. In the past, Heartland helped locate a donor for a project, and Anthony has been given a $1000 honorarium and travel expenses to speak at some Heartland conferences on climate change, just like any other speaker, including pro-warming/pro-climate change scientist, Dr. Scott Denning.

Tabuchi also insinuated that WUWT and/or me is funded by the Koch Brothers; this is a laughable falsehood. They have never sent me a dime, either directly or indirectly. They don’t even know who I am and I’ve never had any contact with them or their charitable organization; it’s just a weak conspiracy theory pushed by the weak-minded who would rather take talking points from others than do their own homework.

But, the writer, one unheard of Ms. HIROKO TABUCHI never bothered to ask any questions of me. So as a journalist, she fails miserably based by relying on and writing about her own assumptions.

Is this the best the New York Times can do? Apparently so.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Walter Sobchak
December 31, 2017 6:06 pm

I would like to be able to tell you that the New York Times has fallen down from its former greatness, but I can’t. It has always been a propaganda rag with an upturned nose. Just Google, Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews.

Anthony: You should consult with a lawyer, you may have a good libel claim.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 1, 2018 3:00 am

“you may have a good libel claim.”

……But short of that, you should remain aware of the ongoing risk of receiving an old-fashioned come-to-nature terminal baptism-in-the-raw among the ‘gators, snakes, snapping turtles and leeches in “The Goofyville Swamp.”

R. I. P. Uncle Shyster.

Mark McD
December 31, 2017 6:06 pm

One might have thought their abysmal record during the election which brought an apology to their readers might have caused a change at NYT.

Apparently they are just slow learners.

Nice piece… 😀

Reply to  Mark McD
December 31, 2017 7:47 pm

Like 99.9% of the Leftist media, the NYT has doubled down on its pre-election behaviour. They are incapable of any other path.

Bryan A
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
December 31, 2017 10:35 pm

Sounds like a potential Libel case

Definition of libel

1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Pat McAdoo
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 1, 2018 9:30 am

Agreed, Bryan.

If Mann can do it, so can some of we “deniers”. I am a well-known denier of anything connected to a certain political party, so they call me a “politics denier”. ‘course, politics will go on, just as climate changes, so whatthehell.

Gums sends…

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 1, 2018 7:19 pm

potential Libel case
so long as one understands that the legal system is not designed to deliver justice. it exists to resolve disputes. which it does by wearing down the opponent until they are thankful to end the dispute.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 2, 2018 8:01 am

The primary purpose of the legal system is to provide employment for lawyers.
All else is secondary.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 2, 2018 8:09 am

They object to being called a “Fake News paper” then they publish stuff like this which proves they are .. own goal.

Santa Baby
Reply to  Mark McD
January 1, 2018 12:51 am

Leftist mock trial?

Reply to  Mark McD
January 1, 2018 12:57 pm

Yeah, at about the speed of a racing glacier …

Reply to  Mark McD
January 2, 2018 3:57 am

Michel: “There is no such thing as ‘opposition to climate science’. The expression is an attempt to categorize disagreement with some conclusions and arguments of some climate scientists in a pejorative way as something completely irrational: opposition to a science itself.

It is an attempt to build into the vocabulary the crazed idea that something or other in climate science is so well established and so proven that the only way you can doubt it is to oppose climate science itself.”

I suggest everybody to Google “INGSOC” if changing vocabulary sounds too crazy to be true. Orwell described re-engineering of language for the benefit of “The Party” already 1949.

Bill J
December 31, 2017 6:10 pm

When the left wants to smear someone they insinuate that they’re linked to Koch Brothers. Says a lot about the person doing the smearing.

Reply to  Bill J
December 31, 2017 8:11 pm

I’ve read in numerous comment sections on various sites that WUWT is funded by Big Oil and have even seen one commenter post the information on the money from Heartland, then emphatically state that made WUWT funded by Big Oil. It’s out there and there are definitely true believers regurgitating the smear in many places on the net.

Reply to  Bill J
January 1, 2018 1:04 am

But an enormously large percentage of opposition to climate science IS funded by the Koch brothers, isn’t it?

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 1:51 am

Thought you would have some facts and proof?

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:01 am

Griff, what is opposition to climate science?

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:45 am

Have you apologized to Susan yet?

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:57 am

RUBBISH.. Provide proof or STFU.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 3:10 am

“But an enormously large percentage of opposition to climate science IS funded by the Koch brothers, isn’t it?”

There is no such thing as ‘opposition to climate science’. The expression is an attempt to categorize disagreement with some conclusions and arguments of some climate scientists in a perjorative way as something completely irrational: opposition to a science itself.

It is an attempt to build into the vocabulary the crazed idea that something or other in climate science is so well established and so proven that the only way you can doubt it is to oppose climate science itself.

It is not, however, an accident that people taking this line never say what it is that is so indubitable. Because if they did so, it would immediately become apparent that there is nothing in the alarmist party line which is indubitable. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is indubitable, but to argue that high values for climate sensitivity parameter, or other conclusions about the terrifying levels and supposed effects of global warming are on the same level of certainty is false.

They are not.

Actually, those who you call deniers have no problem either with science or climate science as a discipline. What they think is that the discipline is fine, its like any other science in itself, but it is not being practiced in accordance with proper scientific principles, and that many climate scientists are not in fact practicing as proper scientists but are indulging in metaphysics – finding bad reasons for what they believe on a political agenda driven instinct.

All science is subject to faked data, malpractice of various sorts, incompetence, confirmation bias, bad or wishful statistics. The problem in the field of climate science is that such practices have come to dominate publication and teaching, and there is widespread denial that they are a problem.

We need to assert over and over again: if you agree that rising CO2 has a forcing effect, but doubt that there is any real grounds for alarm in the likely extent of any resulting warming, you are not ‘opposing climate science’. You are just doubting the interpretation placed on some data by some climate scientists.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 5:41 am

comment image

“Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.”

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 6:05 am

I believe Griff would fit in quite nicely at the NYT.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 6:37 am


“But an enormously large percentage of opposition to climate science IS funded by the Koch brothers, isn’t it?”

Enormously large percentage
Opposition to climate science

Your question doesn’t have a sound footing without you providing these first.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 7:12 am

A brand new Year and giffiepooed hops in on his butt, both feet ankle deep in his mouth.

giffiepooed’s lies, falsehoods, fabrications, baseless claims, speculations, absurd correlation pretenses…
Typical giffiepooed.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 7:15 am

“michel January 1, 2018 at 3:10 am…”

An excellent comment Michel!

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 7:50 am

That’s the lie the left spreads Griff, but like CAGW it has never been true.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 8:12 am

Koch bros’ money…BAD!
Soros’s, Steyer’s, etc’s money…GREEN!

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 9:58 am

An interesting graph Toneb. It indicates that from 2003 to 2010, companies investing in Climate Realist Research have received around $500M (million) or around $62.5M per year average.
But the U.S. alone has spent ever increasing amounts on Climate Research ranging from $4.6B in 2003 to over $8.8B in 2010 for a total of $106.7B according to an article in Forbes

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 10:04 am

Griff states: “But an enormously large percentage of opposition to climate science IS funded by the Koch brothers, isn’t it?”

To Anthony and Charles the Moderator:

Iny the mind of myself and perhaps many more here at WUWT, it is patently obvious at this point that Griff’s comments at this website are in no way, shape or form intended to make any meaningful or intelligent contribution to the discussion at hand. This is probably something that has been well known for some time now. So why does he persist?

In my view, it increasingly appears that his one and only purpose here is to harass and arouse the ire of the WUWT community with his mindless and ignorant comments. Griff just does things in a more subtle way and avoids stepping over a line he knows he shouldn’t step over. He usually does not respond to those who reply to his comments and does not provide credible sources to support his claims–if he provides any at all. In my mind, the only explanation for Griff’s behavior and his comments are to direct harassment and ridicule at others and induce anger and resentment in them. And he appears to succeed in some cases. I admit to responding to him myself a number of times out of the sheer anger he induces.

From what I’ve seen, all attempts to enlighten him have fallen of deaf ears to date, and my guess is that this will probably be the case for some time to come. Responding to him is a waste of time and effort, but it keeps happening anyway. I do not know if his behavior (and what I believe the purpose of his comments are) qualifies him for being banned from this site. Perhaps it does not. But it seems more and more likely to me that his efforts represent sinister intentions, nothing less.

If I owned a blog of this nature, there would be a limit to what someone like Griff would be allowed to get away with. Respectful and intelligent disagreement with other commenters is one thing, subtle forms of harassment and ridicule are something else. At some point, I would consider banning him for the reasons presented here, but only after repeated warnings to him. This isn’t my website though, so the two of you are of course free to do whatever you want……or nothing at all.

At any rate, keep up the great work with this website and Happy New Year.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 1, 2018 10:39 am

Thanks. Yes, Happy New year to Ed Griffin too.

Richard Bell
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 11:54 am

The largest percentage of opposition to climate science actually comes from amateur climate scientists. People like me who developed their innate talent for pattern recognition looking at the data and noticing that it does not hang together.

The claim that a warmer globe will have more severe weather is a direct contradiction of the laws of Thermodynamics and observed facts. As the globe warms, the poles warm faster than the tropics, so the temperature differences that fuel weather systems get smaller as the globe warms. The observations back this up as there have been fewer severe storms as global temperatures rose– Even though fewer storms are missed.

The climate models do not predict the observed climate and cannot even be tweaked to duplicate the climate changes that have been observed. This modelling problem has even been mentioned by alarmists in peer reviewed literature. Even Michael Mann co-authored a paper about how the temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the CAGW theory. Until the climate models can be validated, they have no predictive power and every paper published that bases its conclusions on climate modelling is worthless.

Recently, the climate alarmists have been taking pages from brane theory (formerly string theory) and suggesting that a lack of falsifiability does not mean that a theory is wrong. However, the problem with this tactic is that brane theory describes nothing that can be observed, yet. As soon as someone can use brane theory to make a testable prediction, brane theory becomes falsifiable. Climate science makes testable predictions all of the time, so it must be falsifiable and the refusal to design and execute experiments to falsify catastrophic anthropogenic climate change speaks to the weakness of the alarmists’ case.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 1:04 pm

Perhaps a graph of the foundations that support “climate change” would be nice to see?

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:26 pm

Barbara – Yes.
Griff is a troll; and, really, we – including me for sure – really shouldn’t feed the trolls.


Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:29 pm

I find it interesting that one guy (Griff) can post a single sentence on this blog and get a barrage of outraged replies.

Someone explain how one supposed troll can induce so many folks here to leap to the bait. It’s like the Trumpster posting a tweet. One sentence can produce such predictable responses What a gift.

Phil R
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:31 pm


You seem to think some nice, colorful pie chart proves something. I did a quick sum in my head and may be off a little (maybe even a lot), but even if your chart is close to accurate, it’s about $600mm over 8 years, or about $75mm/year. Please do a comparison of the funding alarmists get from government grants, etc. over the same timframe for comparison/perspective (DH).

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 3:08 pm

“Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.”
Similarly, Toneb has never been convicted of having sex with farm animals.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 3:25 pm

Good lord Griff. If you actually read the articles here, you would know by now that WUWT supports mainstream climate science by debunking the climate porn pushed by witch doctors.

From your comments, one could easily conclude you’re just a paid troll.
Who funds you, George Soros?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 10:32 pm

Here’s an important point about funding that I’ve written about before, for instance:

Another common warmist lie-by-omission … is this one from Greenpeace: “Koch foundations contributed over $48 million to climate opposition groups from 1997 to 2008.”

Accurately worded, that would be “. . . over $48 million to groups with many positions, one of them being opposition to climate alarmism . . . .” Cato and the George Marshall foundation and others probably devote only 10% or 15% (or maybe only 5%) of their expenditures to climate-related activities. I bet most naive warmists would be shocked to learn that, and how they’ve been misled.

I’ve printed out and skimmed the 2013 Brulle document ToneB posted an image from; the document doesn’t make it clear that what it calls “climate change counter-movement (CCCM)” organizations aren’t devoting 100% of the donations they receive to that single activity.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 10:43 pm


But an enormously large percentage of opposition to climate science IS funded by the Koch brothers, isn’t it?

No idea it isn’t disclosed but then nor is any of the leftist loon money from GreenPeace and all the other NGO’s that are milking the gravy train.

You are a habital liar and troll.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 10:45 pm
Reply to  Griff
January 2, 2018 3:22 am

In my view, it increasingly appears that his one and only purpose here is to harass and arouse the ire of the WUWT community

I agree, this is also my impression. It also appears as if he was working in shifts with a few others. I don’t suggest banning, but I do suggest people stopped commenting him.

Reply to  Bill J
January 1, 2018 7:49 am

The left needs a boogey man that they can use to explain all of their failures.
It’s not that the people reject their nonsense, it’s that the Koch brothers are so good at spreading propaganda.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Bill J
January 1, 2018 9:31 am

I’ve found that most people who bring up the Koch Brothers in a negative way don’t even know how to pronounce “Koch” or know anything about them. It’s just like the boogeyman/bogeyman when I was a kid.

December 31, 2017 6:14 pm

This set of examples is why NYT, WaPo, and ilk will inevitably fail. It is simply too easy now to disprove their fake news. A Trump created but very true term.

Reply to  ristvan
January 1, 2018 4:46 am

Actually, CNN (and maybe some other media outlets) first used that weapon. Trump simply turned it back on them. Hoisted on their own petard.

Reply to  ristvan
January 1, 2018 7:59 am

I believe everyone missed the point of the NYT article. I know that, by way of the title, “How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches,” the NYT intends to set off a firestorm of Fake Protests against Google so that DenyCCC gets booted from Google.

See, I’ve been taught to “read the stitches on the fastball.”

Reply to  ristvan
January 1, 2018 2:33 pm

Ristvan – why will the newpapers you mention inevitably fail? Half the population, perhaps more than half, agree with them. They don’t care whether you and I agree or not.

Phil R
Reply to  ristvan
January 1, 2018 3:47 pm


With the utmost respect, this is one of the few observations that I think you got wrong. icisil is correct, the MSM (and CNN in particular) first used the term to discredit Trump. It backfired bigly, especially with the fake news that CNN started reporting, and Trump just threw it back in their faces.

Philip Schaeffer
December 31, 2017 6:18 pm

I’d find your bitter protesting at what you claim to be unfair treatment a bit easier to take if you weren’t complaining that google wouldn’t let you run ads saying “The Left Smear and Murder”, next to a picture of a bullet hole at UAH, when neither you or the rest of us have any way of knowing exactly who shot and why.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
January 1, 2018 3:42 pm

Philip Schaeffer:
After reading this article, anyone with a brain can see the NYT smeared Leo Goldstein and Anthony Watts. That explains why you think Leo is protesting bitterly but can’t deduce the motives of the person who shot at the UAH building where John Cristy works. And where in the article does Leo Goldstein say he tried to run Google ads saying “The Left Smear and Murder”, next to a picture of a bullet hole at UAH?

Are you another paid troll like Griff?

December 31, 2017 6:18 pm

The dead-tree media.

Extreme Hiatus
December 31, 2017 6:19 pm

Sorry Leo but what were you expecting from talking to these propagandists?

Fair or balanced or objective?


Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
December 31, 2017 11:23 pm

+ 100 The NY Times is a paid cover, shill, carnival barker, propaganda outlet, town-crier for the NWO, international bankers, global warming . . . ‘one of the boys’ on-call for intelligence agencies, spook assignments, ‘expert’ spokesman/woman for PBS, etc., etc. . .

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 1, 2018 4:51 am

Yeah I don’t understand the concept of indulging reportwhores. They are professional character assassins. Interviews are merely opportunities for them to find the right angle to eliminate a target.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 1, 2018 11:24 am

For very small values of “better”. Having finer skill at wielding a hatchet doesn’t make it any less a hatchet job.

Anna Keppa
December 31, 2017 6:22 pm

Hiroko’s a she, not a he. Note that her Times column does not permit comments. I wonder why?

Reply to  Anna Keppa
December 31, 2017 11:44 pm

Noted, and language updated in my addendum.

Martin A
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 1, 2018 1:43 am

But, the writer, one unheard of Ms. HIROKO TABUCHI never bothered to ask any questions of me. So as a journalist, she fails miserably based by relying on and writing about his own assumptions.

The penultimate sentence needs updating too.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 1, 2018 3:47 am

“ko” means girl in Japanese.

December 31, 2017 6:26 pm

Hiroko sounds like a female name, though. Although given that Hiroko writes for the NYT, Hiroko might identify as male, so “he” could be the appropriate pronoun.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Katherine
December 31, 2017 7:34 pm

Simple explanation: minor factual error caused by unfamiliarity with Japanese names and not helped by the fact that Watts had no contact with the reporter.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Ben of Houston
December 31, 2017 10:40 pm

She is a NYT business reporter.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Ben of Houston
December 31, 2017 10:49 pm

And she is also described by NYT as an environmental reporter. Who could doubt the words of such an expert multi-tasker?

Reply to  Ben of Houston
December 31, 2017 11:37 pm

In Japanese, girls are often given names ending in ‘ko’. The kanji is that for ‘child’.

Terry Harnden
December 31, 2017 6:29 pm

I only read MSM and use to research just how fake it always turns out to be. It seems to assume ever one is a total ignorant moron in regards to science, mathematics, economics, history, English comprehension and logic. Especially since the start of 2016.

Reply to  Terry Harnden
December 31, 2017 6:54 pm

“It seems to assume ever one is a total ignorant moron in regards to science, mathematics, economics, history, English comprehension and logic.”

This, in general, is my assumption.

Reply to  Marv
December 31, 2017 7:00 pm

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.” – Mark Twain

Reply to  Marv
December 31, 2017 7:05 pm

Michael Chrichton: “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

Reply to  Marv
December 31, 2017 7:07 pm

Correction: Michael Crichton.

Pat McAdoo
Reply to  Marv
January 1, 2018 9:44 am

Thanks, Marv.


Reply to  Marv
January 1, 2018 2:09 pm

Journalism is “a profession whose business it is to explain to others what it personally does not understand.” – Alfred Harmsworth

December 31, 2017 6:31 pm

The editorial narrative of the NYT is catastrophic human-caused climate change. In support of that they will ignore information to the contrary and misrepresent or denigrate anyone who speaks to the contrary.
If you must speak to any reporter (and especially NYT and other “warmist” organs) insist on recording the conversations and if that is refused, refuse to speak to them. Remember that reporters are paid to support the narrative; not necessarily the truth.

December 31, 2017 6:38 pm

I emigrated from the Soviet Union (not from Russia) before it dissolved in 1991, the dissolution that happened twenty-six years ago. I was born and grew up in the Ukraine, then a part of the Soviet Union.

The Ukrainians I know are two groups. One group’s ancestors immigrated in the early 20th century. The other group, or their parents, immigrated after WW2. That group hates the Russians. link

A reporter who mixes up Ukrainians and Russians isn’t paying attention. link

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2018 3:14 am

No, she’s spreading a lie since it’s dead serious to call a Soviet-Ukrainian-American a ‘Russian’ emigrant. Where did she pick that false information, and why should she believe them? Usually you check facts before you spread lies. She didn’t and ended up making an ethnic slur, because people deserve to self-identify.

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2018 4:16 am

That’s sausage, where someone comes from. All Americans come from somewhere, even the supposed aborigines. The intelligence, the integrity and the preservation are measured. And Leo is already a role model for all of this behavior. The NYT mentioned at all the immigration is already designated, apparently to be generated against certain population groups, this time the Russians. I did not think that this in the allegedly cosmopolitan America of the year 2017 by an allegedly liberal magazine is possible. But as you can see, everything is possible. Is the NYT a racism magazin?

Reply to  Hans-Georg
January 1, 2018 5:33 am

Roots are important. We need to understand who we are and where we come from. I am reminded of the following which was written toward the end of WW2:

We are trying to show him not only what we are fighting against, but what we are fighting for. So many of these boys have only a very hazy idea of the real issues of the war. About all they see is “going back to the good old days.” This is a dangerous state. If they don’t stand for something, they will fall for anything. They need to realize that we are fighting two wars—the war of arms and the war of ideas—that other war of which the war of arms is one phase. link

When they lose sight of what matters, people become unstable, insecure, and suggestible. It’s not good for the individual and it’s not good for society and the country. As Jordan Peterson points out, all hell breaks loose.

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2018 7:29 am

My Ukrainian Grandfather immigrated to the USA in 1910; as part of America’s search for immigrant miners. Grandfather taught his son, the Russian language along with Polish; and he also imparted a strong anti-Russian bias.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 1, 2018 8:42 am

Did he teach his son Ukrainian or just Polish?

The thing is, it is no point teaching foreign language single handedly – it won’t work. You need a community, or a school curriculum. I’ve learned four languages in school, from which the two active ones are usable, but the two I studied only and didn’t use since are pretty useless now. Others like Chinese, Spanish, Zulu, Japanese never reached usability though much time was invested on adult age. My uncle tried to teach me some Russian. Well, after Russians almost killed him I think his motive was know your enemy. I didn’t learn much.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 1, 2018 7:09 pm

I believe they spoke Ukrainian while at home. It would be the Ukrainian language that enabled my Father and Grandfather to speak and read Russian.
My Father would state that he could speak and read Polish and Russian; Ukrainian language was a given, just as English was.

Like many immigration surges, communities organized around similarities; gathered together frequently and tried to help each other out. Which is how my Grandfather was introduced to my Grandmother, by friends at a community social.

I never thought to ask why my Father and his parents could speak/read/write Polish. Good question! Shame you didn’t suggest it five years ago. 🙂

So, I checked my Dad’s notes from Grandmother’s letters that he was translating when he passed.
According to my Father, the Polish were influential in that region so learning at least rudimentary Polish was necessary.
Grandmother’s official education ceased at the 3rd grade level which was normal for the peasant children at that time.

My Grandmother was from the Ternopil area, and worked as a maid for a rectory, when she decided to accept an immigration to America offer.
All of the letters she received from both sides of the family, back in the “old country” are from communities around Ternopil.

The immigration offer provided transportation for men to the port and for passage to America.
Any woman accepting the offer had to make it to the deportation dock by their own initiative/funds/walking.
Maids for priests were paid very little; so my Grandmother walked from Ternopil to the deportation dock in Hamburg.
One tough bird.

December 31, 2017 6:43 pm

Anthony, I’ve followed your site for many years – ever since Climate Audit showed me that climate science doesn’t operate like normal science – and your strike me as a sincere and dedicated human being.

So I understand why you talked to the NYT with at least some expectation of professionalism. But if the last year has shown us anything, it’s that the media aren’t professional. The conclusion to your story was written before the reporter typed his first word.

They’re rather pathetic actually. They could have staked out a competitive position in the Internet age by focusing on a reputation for thoroughness and objectivity. Instead they threw it all away.

Reply to  Chip
January 1, 2018 3:19 am

Could this have something to do with a group of people who could be categorized as “journalism majors.”
I mean, after all, how many of them would have majored in journalism if they had entered college with just a whit of science aptitude?
Suck it up. What you see is what you get and what you see is probably as good as it will ever get.

George Daddis
Reply to  Chip
January 1, 2018 6:28 am

Our host did NOT talk with the NYT; Leo Goldstein did. You need to ask your very valid question of Leo.

Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2017 6:56 pm

The climate alarmism and Liberal cause communities have very deep pocketed donors that are pushing a lot of Dark Money into Democratic Party and Liberal causes.

Money is not going to the DNC party right now, the DNC and many Democrats appear as cash strapped. Appearances can be deceiving.. intentionally.

Big donors are funding politically dark efforts. Money to c(3) and c(4) that do not have to report contributions by donor name. c(3) dinations are also tax-deductable.

Environmental front groups, with merely a couple of names and a lawyer partner at a DC lawfirm, a webpage is all many of these are. They have an IRS 501c(4) or c(3) status and are running ads now with multimillion dollar ad campaigns. The NYT is no doubt being coopted into this as the Democratic Party’s main PR arm. Liberals are flat out desparate to stop Trump from further destroying their agenda.

The CERES group though is a key player in coordinating these attack actions and lining up donors. The CERESgroup is evil beyond words. Sedition and treason are not too strong a words to describe this group. But they have their 1st Amendment. A 1st Amendment right they want to take from the right and conservatives.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 1, 2018 1:57 pm


Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2017 7:19 pm

Last comment is 90 min old on top story.
[WP is apparently sending comments to the Bit Bucket.]

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2017 7:20 pm

30 min. I forgot I am currently in CT (+02 from WUWT time).

December 31, 2017 7:20 pm

Can we start referring to the NYT and WP as purveyors of fake climate news like our President does.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Mohatdebos
December 31, 2017 7:26 pm

They are right behind CNN and MSNBC.

It became very clear during the HRC campaign in 2016 that the NYT had allowed itself to become the PR outlet of the Democratic Party.

Steve of Brisbane
December 31, 2017 7:22 pm

Mr. ? Hiroko Tabuchi

The reporter is a female as the provided link to her confirms and also noted in the post.

“For the record, I also told her I have no information about other allegations in that paragraph.”

Reply to  Steve of Brisbane
December 31, 2017 7:33 pm

Who cares?

Reply to  CyclinB1
January 1, 2018 1:58 pm


Larry Hamlin
December 31, 2017 7:31 pm

The WUWT article addressing editorial narratives in science additionally describes the role that virtually all liberal media like the dishonest New York Times apply to articles it publishes that address climate and energy issues where the climate alarmism propaganda narrative must be pushed through the use of deception and distortion.

This policy by the main stream media is now reaching near hysteria after the Trump election and the Trump Administrations effectiveness in properly destroying the Obama war on science where Obama used deception and distortion that politicalized science thereby allowing government policy to be based upon scientifically unsupported foundations.

The main stream media will never allow an honest discussion of accurate climate science data and analysis. Only alternative communication vehicles like WUWT can carry this battle forward and the Trump Administration should take careful action to support in a systematic manner how accurate and comprehensive climate science information can be presented to the American people.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
December 31, 2017 7:47 pm

The LA Times had this to say as to why the LA Times will not print letters contrary to their views concerning climate change (from 2013) ….

“Before going into some detail about why these letters don’t make it into our pages, I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.
And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”


Reply to  Marv
December 31, 2017 8:14 pm

If one calls a thing a fact, that allows the speaker to denigrate those who disagree. Whether or not there is any truth in the “fact” is irrelevant to the speaker in most cases.

Reply to  Marv
December 31, 2017 8:26 pm

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

Or sumtin’.

Terry Harnden
Reply to  Marv
December 31, 2017 8:32 pm

It seems they have no one on their staff or association intelligent enough to asses errors of fact . Just like our politicians, medical doctors, weathermen and various assorted spin doctors . Not to mention google. and Wikipedia.

Reply to  Marv
January 1, 2018 12:13 am

It’s worse than that. They appear to pay staff especially to keep the real facts off their pages. Everything is about sticking to the narrative, these days.

Reply to  Marv
January 1, 2018 2:04 am

The fun will start when the writer of the NYT cope out ever receives conflicting information of what may be or not a serious disease.

Reply to  Marv
January 1, 2018 8:01 am

The error here is the assumption that only those who agree with you qualify as experts.
There are as many if not more, equally qualified “experts” who dispute your so called facts.

Reply to  Marv
January 2, 2018 9:36 am


Your comment clearly illustrates the failure of appeals to authority with regard to controversial issues.

What happens when there are two groups of scientists whose peer reviewed advanced research arrives at opposite conclusions, as is the case for climate science? The MSM is clearly biased to one side and tries as hard as they can to hide the side they don’t like, as they do for all political issues, but that doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t exist and any astute observer should be able to see through this partisan fog.

You’re seriously deluded if you think that most, or even a simple majority of scientists agree with the conclusions of the IPCC, which BTW, is as far from a scientific authority as you can possibly get, This is evidenced by the transparent agenda of the IPCC, UNFCC and World Bank who’s goal is to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the developing world under the guise of climate reparations. Given that the IPCC is the authority you’re appealing to, how can you be so blind to this obvious and dangerous conflict of interest that has led to science being determined by conformance to a far left political narrative, rather than conformance to the scientific method?

michael hart
Reply to  Marv
January 2, 2018 1:39 pm

Even if what they say is true, the LA Times doesn’t seen to have asked themselves the question of what their attitude would be if they were only 51% certain. And why.

It’s not a particularly deep exercise in thinking, but they seem unwilling to even go that far.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
January 1, 2018 8:48 am


December 31, 2017 7:37 pm

I recommend you to Kip Hansen’s post 6 or 7 posts down below, about narratives in journalism, especially the New York Times. Very on point to the discussion here. He provides a link to a Deadline Hollywood article about editorial narratives guiding NYT articles. Here’s a quote from that article by Michael Cieply:

“For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

Having lived at one time or another in small-town Pennsylvania, some lower-rung Detroit suburbs, San Francisco, Oakland, Tulsa and, now, Santa Monica, I could only think, well, “Wow.” This is a very large country. I couldn’t even find a copy of the Times on a stop in college town Durham, N.C. To believe the national agenda was being set in a conference room in a headquarters on Manhattan’s Times Square required a very special mind-set indeed.”

Reply to  tw2017
January 1, 2018 12:17 am

If you think the NYT is bad, try the Fairfax press in Australia… the Canberra Times especially, should be renamed the Socialist Times.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 1, 2018 5:56 am

The Guardian…

Reply to  Hivemind
January 1, 2018 6:18 am

I think the problem of editorial narrative limiting what the content of the journalism is, is much wider than a few newspapers like The NYT, or a few broadcasting companies or national such as the Beeb or NPR.

There is a huge confirmation bias, there is also an enormous echo chamber. And there is the police of politically correct. These three work as a pillar for the editorial narrative.

The echo chamber is being boosted by persons like Stephan Lewandowsky who don’t let facts spoil their advocacy, and activists who’ll grip on all hit pieces created by advocate scientists.

The hard core of advocates is not large, you hear names Oreskes, Cook, Mann, Lewandowsky all over and again. But they have large impact on the echo chamber, and they’re completely supported by the narrative guardians.

December 31, 2017 7:46 pm

In addition to buying keywords, the organic search criteria can be ‘tuned’ by user actions. Something that affects the search results order is when people click through links presented by a search. Another thing that will positively affect search results is that after the first search on anything related to the climate, do another search excluding results from Real Climate, SKS and/or other warmist sites that showed up in the first set of results and/or add the names of skeptical sites to the search criteria.

December 31, 2017 8:28 pm

This is why, when Mother Jones reached out to me a few months ago for an interview, I did not respond.

December 31, 2017 8:35 pm

I was just involved in a blog that I recommended WUWT to learn more about man-made climate change. A poster immediately responded with the Koch Brothers and Heartland Institute statement. He also stated that he only dealt in facts and deniers do not, it is the way they shut down the conversation and debate. We are not worth debating or talking to. It is sad that this is where so much debate has turned into. I requested from the poster exactly how much money was paid to WUWT by those organizations since he only dealt in facts. No response.

Karl Baumgarten
December 31, 2017 8:37 pm

It’s just another slime of the Times.

December 31, 2017 8:48 pm

Fake News, what would it be without the NYTimes it’s worst than the National Enquirer minus the color photos.

Brandon M. Sheffield
December 31, 2017 9:17 pm

A bit off Topic but not to far off. Fox News has an article “Arctic New Year’s Eve: Freeze warnings, dead sharks and bitter temperatures”

In the comment there is a Troll hounding people (demanding there credentials when they say something smart that he can’t answer) trying to have an intelligent conversation. Troll was shut up by a poster I have pasted the comments below.



Climate is not to be measured in days, months, years, decades, centuries, or even millennia, but in tens of thousands of years, even in hundreds of thousands of years. The natural cycles of the sun, orbital mechanics, precession of the Earth’s axis, and even the fact that the northern hemisphere has more land than the southern, are the significant factors in climate change. CO2 is, in the scheme of things, so insignificant a bit player on the climate stage that it barely rates as a cameo appearance. Unfortunately for the CO2-obsessed, while CO2 rises and warming rises are positively correlated, historically the rise in CO2 follows the rise in warming. This is because warming waters release CO2 while CO2 remains longer in colder water, as any Pepsi fan knows. Worse for the fans of CO2, once cooling commences, CO2 levels do not drop for some time and have stayed as high as 700 ppm during periods of great cold. Effects don’t precede causes, at least not in the non-quantum realm. There is good astronomical and geological evidence to believe that we are leaving our long interglacial period and that any warming in current years is the climate version of Indian summer



And your science degree is in?
1 Like


You actually read that?



My background is in astrophysics and geology. I possess a BSN as well, and I am well versed in statistical analysis and research design. To get there I have to know not only astronomy, physics, and math, I must be well-versed in chemistry, organic and biochemistry, paleontology, etc. I am quite capable of assessing scientific claims in any field, but then, so is anybody with a good foundation in scientific principles, though I am minded to remember that 50 percent of all degree holders graduated in the bottom half of their classes. In fact, people are perfectly capable of being autodidacts, so I would recommend that you be less arrogant and narrow-minded. The basic principles of science don’t change. While many people want to discount people who are not “climatologists”, that is a worthless critique. Climate science is so new that it can fairly be said that there are no experts in climate. Your question is nothing more that the logical fallacy of appeal to authority by which you argue that others should just shut up and let the experts handle things. This is, of course, stupid. Anyone who watches talking head shows can hear experts vigorously disagreeing. As Truman is reputed to have said about economists, if you line experts up end to end, they would point in all directions. I’ll trust my own experience and knowledge, if it’s ok with you. Even if it’s not ok,with you.

December 31, 2017 9:33 pm

The NYT does not have a single writer qualified to write about actual science. Basically, they are Democratic Party political hacks pretending to dispense facts. Facts are not party-centric. No one. No one. Should ever read a word from this paper with trust.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Pat Childs
December 31, 2017 10:51 pm

It’s no wonder the BBC is always quoting the NYT and interviewing its reporters.

Tom Harley
Reply to  Pat Childs
January 1, 2018 12:27 am
John F. Hultquist
December 31, 2017 10:53 pm

. . . funded by the Koch Brothers . . .
A few years ago when I first learned of the “Koch Brothers” (meaning Charles & David — sons pf Fred) I spent about 2 hours looking for information on the things they support. I was impressed.
They control a large productive set of companies employing many people. They have foundations that give substantial sums to causes doing serious work. The Charles Koch Foundation gave $77,000,000 in 2016.
Here’s a report regarding David:
<Grants for Disease
Every progressive agency in the USA seems to have a site claiming the Kochs are evil. Thus, one has to learn enough, such that things such as ‘they fund WUWT’ is know to be false. So, it takes awhile to follow some of this stuff. Also, a person may not like their politics. Do a lot of reading and you will find they do much good.

Non Nomen
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2018 2:05 am

Do a lot of reading and you will find they do much good.

Exactly. They are owed gratitude and not slander. I wonder whether the Koch Brothers have NYT stocks in their portfolio…

Mr Bliss
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2018 8:28 am

One day the Koch brothers are going to start looking at how they are portrayed in the liberal press, and decide to do something about it

December 31, 2017 10:58 pm

I realize one shouldn’t make any statements to police w/o a lawyer – but it would seem like a wise idea to take one with you when you have an interview with a reporter as well…

Non Nomen
Reply to  4TimesAYear
January 1, 2018 2:06 am

I do recommend the Attorney General instead of a lawyer.

Reply to  Non Nomen
January 1, 2018 4:50 pm

Actually, the best way to deal with ‘journalists’ is to reduce them to tears – especially if you happen to be the only person with the knowledge they are trying to wring out of you, for what you know will only be for a ‘hit piece’. They just can’t handle it – and it makes for a certain perverse delight.

Reply to  Non Nomen
January 3, 2018 10:46 pm


Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
December 31, 2017 11:38 pm

As I was reading your essay, Leo – as well as the NYT article,to which you provided a link – it occurred to me that the NYT’s timing and tone was somewhat reminiscent of Harvey et al‘s recent “execrable piece of junk science” [h/t Tom Fuller via CliScep].

And sure enough, the concluding paragraphs of Tabuchi’s hit piece read as follows:

Jeffrey Harvey, a population ecologist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, recently published a study on blogs that deny the well-documented impacts of climate change and Arctic ice loss on polar bears. He said that contrarian ads on web search results, which many users considered to be neutral territory, were especially problematic.

“If you search for ‘global warming’ and ‘polar bear,’ you’ll often get bombarded with sites that are ignoring the scientific evidence,” he said. “I think this is something that search engines need to address.”

Amazing, eh?!

Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
January 1, 2018 2:55 am

The lefties can only demand more censorship.
The NYT to academia are unable to actually communicate or discuss issues. They are out of ideas and capacity, but not power.
Dangerous times.

January 1, 2018 1:11 am

“slave to climate alarmism”

“miserable failure in Paris”

“continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory”

“regularly publishing fake news”

These phrases are not journalism or debate on climate science. They are unsupported tabloid style assertions not backed by evidence.

Emotive, not constructive and far worse than the position of the fact checked NYT – which I note does contact people before publishing about them or their work, unlike some websites…

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:09 am

Griff you are amazing and scary at the same time. You should try for a spot on SNL your talent would fit right in.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:12 am

Thanks for concisely naming just some of the problems of the NYT. There are a helluva lot more. Feel free to publish them all here. The NYT won’t allow you to do that in their publication.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 3:00 am

Those 4 items seem to describe you quite well, griff.

Did you take a truth serum , by accident ?

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 3:28 am

Griff you have correctly , but probably inadvertently , identified the problem with NYT in comparing and contrasting it with WUWT .
Yes NYT sends out reporters to conduct interviews, because it is a newspaper, and it employs reporters. That , along with gathering in ad revenue , is its business . The problem is that the interview can then be incorrectly reported to the public if the owners of the paper have an agenda , and all evidence is that it definitely does. It then no longer becomes a reliable journal of record .
WUWT is not a newspaper. Anthony Watts does not (so far as I know) employ a team of reporters , and it exists as a discussion forum on the subjects that the website owner has an interest in . Yes there are featured posts, and mostly these are from a climate sceptic viewpoint ( except when about pure science news like that one recently about LIGO) , but no-one is forbidden to comment , and only pornographic or libelous
That newsmedia have an agenda is not in itself news . The Times of London was so famous ( or notorious ) for its opinions in 19/20th Cent that it was known as the “Thunderer” and echoes of its thunder can be heard in the novels of eg Trollope like “the Warden” . In our present day Rushbridger when editor of the Guardian definitely had a left/liberal agenda but made no secret of that. The charge against the NYT is that it sends out reporters to get facts , then distorts them in the editing . WUWT certainly does not do that because commentators may get facts wrong or push an opinion but it is all done openly and without the hypocrisy that appears to characterise the NYT operating procedures.
(All IMO of course – I have not interviewed anyone at the NYT).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 7:20 am

“Griff January 1, 2018 at 1:11 am

They are unsupported tabloid style assertions not backed by evidence.”

And you continually quote The Guardian as “evidence”.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 8:08 am

It really does amaze me how upset Griff gets when facts that counter his belief system are published.

Reply to  MarkW
January 1, 2018 8:09 am

BTW, everyone of those items listed by Griff has been documented on this site and others, over and over again.

Barry King
Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 2:44 pm

” far worse than the position of the fact checked NYT” – and pray, who is the fact checker at the NYT?
I don’t suppose he is the pheasant plucker’s son?

Reply to  Barry King
January 2, 2018 8:11 am

The work experience kid was but he couldn’t read so was of limited value in the position.

Reply to  Griff
January 1, 2018 4:17 pm

What? Can’t you read?

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
January 1, 2018 4:22 pm

(that was directed at griff, of course, but others got in first (rather more intelligently)

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
January 1, 2018 4:59 pm

Pretty well true, CDB. Poor Griff is (or appears to be, IMO) what is often referred to in Oz as ‘a two handed wanker’. No one gets that silly by playing with themselves with one hand – and he obviously ignored the warnings from his father/Minister/teachers/others. That he can’t read is probably from his eyes glazing over at the crucial moment? We have a lot of them down under, as well… unfortunately!

Scottish Sceptic
January 1, 2018 1:51 am

These lies by the press are just normal behaviour for them. They do it to everyone and before the internet there was absolutely nothing anyone picked on by these scum could do, so politicians either had to play the press Nazi’s game and roll over to all their demands to ignore some issues (immigration) and push forward on others (gay marriage). Or politicians had to have a really thick skin and expect to be cast as an “extremist”, “ultra” … “sex-scandal” person, and basically expect very reasonable parties to be cast as hated extremist “bigots” (as was UKIP in the UK). In contrast, those politicians playing the press game could indulge in any behaviour they wanted and get away with it as it would never be reported – hence the “the swamp” in Washington.

The big difference now, is not that the press behaviour has changed … but that now through the internet we sometimes get to hear the other side of the story. And that is why the press hate the internet, that is why they hate sites like this which do tell the truth. That is why they hate Trump, that is why they have this relentless campaign to cast anyone outside the real fake news outlets as “fake news”.

The simple truth is this, almost everyone is more honest than the press. So, if you want to know the truth, there’s absolutely no point whatsoever in reading a newspaper or watching TV. Instead, you’ve got to go out and look for first hand accounts on the internet where you don’t get the fake news bias of the media. And the benefit of that is that the fake media will lose advertising or gov. funding and it will eventually decompose into its own vile excrement.

January 1, 2018 2:51 am

Your mistake was in agreeing to be interviewed by the NYT.

M Courtney
January 1, 2018 3:06 am

It’s called globalisation.
The NYT and the Guardian are now taking up each others space. There isn’t room for them both. So they have to fight for the role of Official Journal of the Left.

No “softness” can be shown on any subject .
When one or the other goes bankrupt more nuanced journalism could resume.

January 1, 2018 3:10 am

Just now I typed WUWT into my searcher (duckduckgo).
This was right at the top of the results.
“Wuwt is a blog promoting CC denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.
See more at Wikipedia.”
Just about sums up the Lugen Media controlled by the New world order.
Happy New Year to you and yours Anthony.

Non Nomen
Reply to  waterside4
January 1, 2018 3:46 am

With kuugle “WUWT” is in #1 position, about 155.000 results (0,48 seconds), followde by Watts Up With That? – Wikipedia, WUWT | …and Then There’s Physics and Wott’s Up With That? | A response to Climate Change disinformation at …. So they do not seem to suppress the results rightaway but manipulate them with adding controversial blogs just right behind.
I do suggest that everyone in this community just enters the search word WUWT once or twice daily in his searcher.

Reply to  Non Nomen
January 1, 2018 4:06 am

If you want to tenderly kick a shin, do not leave a space after the hyphen, like in: WUWT -wottsupwiththat -hotwhopper -sks.

Reply to  Non Nomen
January 1, 2018 4:29 am

You have to hide “WOTTS UP” from your thoughts or filter out this program with U-Block origin or adblock plus from the search results. That works too. But such programs are currently sponsored by “BIG Money” with “BIG Money”. Anyone with a lot of money can buy them and place them first on Google or change the search order. Google is for sale, they do not do anything in vain. Or what do you mean, where the wealth of the owner comes from? Of free use certainly not.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Non Nomen
January 1, 2018 4:45 am

@ Hans-Georg
You are right. I did not deactivate AdBlock and uBlock. They make life on the internet a little bit easier…

Reply to  waterside4
January 2, 2018 8:16 am

If you really want to see how biased the search engines are type in “koch brothers conspiracy” and the top article is usually wikipedia, “Political activities of the Koch brothers”. It doesn’t deal with it like it’s a standard flat earth, or USA never went to the moon conspiracy.

January 1, 2018 3:37 am

The world of fake news fed to the masses.

January 1, 2018 3:59 am

Do you reckon that the Koch brothers are knowledgeable enough and intelligent enough to realize that their business interests are not being threatened in the least by the perversions of science that are being conjured out of dogmatic minds? The Goofyville on the Potomac politics that are fueled by the perversions may be a different matter. But then may you R. I. P., Uncle Shyster.

And, by the way, they are among the largest donors who contribute to the financial support of NOVA on PBS.

Henning Nielsen
January 1, 2018 4:20 am

It’s baffling that the alarmists can’t come up with any other bogeyman than the Koch brothers -same thing here in Norway. As if they all quote from the same script -or scripture, maybe. Why not refer to some other “evil capitalist” for a change? But it is typical of a myth that it needs to be repeated again and again, the simpler the message the better, and no deviations from the story.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
January 2, 2018 8:20 am

I agree it’s a pretty poor conspiracy especially if they were actually trying to do what is suggested and the sums they are supposed to be spending you could just go and buy all the media outlets 🙂

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
January 2, 2018 9:55 am

The ‘progressive’ left abhors success, progress, job creation, capital accumulation and the redistribution of wealth by the private sector, where the Koch brothers embody all that they despise. When you don’t have the truth and facts on your side, the alternative is to demonize those that do.

Bill Illis
January 1, 2018 4:44 am

We like to think to ourselves that the media should be factual and completely unbiased.

Well, it is not.

They are all niche-marketing and pandering to a certain base of readers now. The NYT and CNN’s audience is now middle of the road left-wing. MSNBC is marketing to the far-left. Fox’s audience is middle right-wing, Brietbart is far right-wing.

This is what “news” is today. You are not getting unbiased news, you are getting biased news.

When a CNN headline says “Trump is right”, they lose 50% of their audience for a day. If they said “climate change is mostly exaggerated”, 25% of their audience would switch to MSNBC and never come back. It is just business. CNN used to be, long ago, an unbiased source but now they get their revenue from the democrat voters. If they switched back to the middle of the middle, they would likely end-up bankrupt before they captured enough middle of the middle audience.

You can just read headlines today and know which side that media source is “pandering to” in the current environment. Not hard to wade your way through that when you understand it from this point-of-view.

Reply to  Bill Illis
January 1, 2018 6:18 am

Bill, +1. If you work in media, then you must identify your customers and give them what they want.

Reply to  Doug
January 1, 2018 8:00 am

“If you work in media, then you must identify your customers and give them what they want.”

Isn’t this true for any business?

Reply to  Bill Illis
January 1, 2018 8:08 am

The worlds second oldest profession.

Reply to  Bill Illis
January 1, 2018 8:23 am

Bill, don’t you think that there would be a niche for factual and completely unbiased?

Bill Illis
Reply to  afonzarelli
January 1, 2018 11:42 am

There certainly is but the media source would have to sacrifice ratings and advertising revenue until they rebuilt an audience base. $100 million or so for a large network/newspaper.

Shawn Marshall
January 1, 2018 4:48 am

The Grey Lady is into Yellow journalism. All the news that’s fit to $hit – in baby poo yellow.

January 1, 2018 5:20 am

From: How Carlos Slim Built His Fortune

“Slim has a hand in literally hundreds of other companies, largely through Grupo Carso SAB, Slim’s global conglomerate. Grupo Carso has or has had stakes in enterprises as diverse as Elementia, one of the largest cement companies in Mexico, retail including Sears and Saks Fifth Avenue, energy and construction (via CICSA) and automotive (via Grupo Condumex). He even has a stake in The New York Times.”

ME: Of all industrial uses of hydrocarbon-based energy, the making of cement uses a tremendous amount of energy and generates a tremendous amount of CO2 and particulate emissions. It seems to me that any person who is both in the cement business while at the same time campaigning for reductions in CO2 emissions via ownership in mainstream media properties has great conflicts of interest.

Reply to  buckwheaton
January 1, 2018 8:02 am

“It seems to me that any person who is both in the cement business while at the same time campaigning for reductions in CO2 emissions via ownership in mainstream media properties has great conflicts of interest.’

It’s just business.

January 1, 2018 5:34 am

I canceled my subscription to the NYT years ago due to this sort of slanted National Enquirer sort of nonsense, obviously I’m not missing anything of value.

January 1, 2018 6:14 am

This is precisely why Rush Limbaugh stopped doing media interviews years ago. He quickly became aware that the story was written before the interview and that whatever he said wouldn’t matter, so why waste your time?

January 1, 2018 6:59 am

I’m not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish. But it would fail because of the Streisand effect. I never heard of defyccc but the first thing I did was visit the site

January 1, 2018 7:10 am

Thanks for this post, which along with Kip Hansen’s post from Dec. 30 on “Editorial Narratives in Science Journalism”, paints a clear picture of the problem.

Nothing surprises me any more when it comes to the NYTimes. I maintain the minimum possible subscription so that I can access it on line to get a jolt of adrenalin when I need it.

Reply to  Mark Silbert
January 1, 2018 8:10 am

Because I am cheap and because I do not want to support the NYT I get to enjoy five free reads per month (down from ten as of December 1) per computer. And because I have access to ten computers at work and elsewhere I get to read – for free – fifty NYT articles a month.

Life is good.

Reply to  Marv
January 1, 2018 8:18 am

I do understand that by reading the NYT for free does in fact support the newspaper in that I support the newspaper’s ad revenues each time I give the newspaper a computer hit but I am okay with that in that the revenue does not come out of my pocket but instead it comes out so somebody else’s pocket.

Reply to  Marv
January 2, 2018 2:45 am

Marv, why would you consider the time well-spent by reading fake news?

January 1, 2018 7:26 am

If you ever get interviewed don’t do it unless you can video tape whole thing

Reply to  Stevek
January 1, 2018 8:16 am

Howdy bstarr, (signed dmeredith)

January 1, 2018 8:07 am

The New York Times

“All the News That’s Printed to Fit”

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  afonzarelli
January 1, 2018 11:48 am

“All the news that fits we print.”

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 1, 2018 8:35 am

Tabuchi also insinuated that WUWT and/or me is funded by the Koch Brothers; this is a laughable falsehood. They have never sent me a dime, either directly or indirectly. They don’t even know who I am and I’ve never had any contact with them or their charitable organization; it’s just a weak conspiracy theory pushed by the weak-minded who would rather take talking points from others than do their own homework.

Interesting the Koch brothers are still the Left’s favorite bogey-men, given they’re both never-Trumpers. Whatever happened to the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 2, 2018 8:04 am

It’s a standard green eco warrior conspiracy theory, they are called leftist loons for a good reason. The dumb and stupid always find it easier to blame some conspiracy than face reality.

K. Kilty
January 1, 2018 8:39 am

Beyond that, little is known about DefyCCC. …

With that little is presented about DefyCCC. The paragraph from the NYT article had about 4 degrees of separation between DefyCCC and the Kochs. Tis’ a relationship so tenuous it doesn’t actually exist.

January 1, 2018 10:00 am

From the end of the article:

“Jeffrey Harvey, a population ecologist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, recently published a study on blogs that deny the well-documented impacts of climate change and Arctic ice loss on polar bears. He said that contrarian ads on web search results, which many users considered to be neutral territory, were especially problematic.

“If you search for ‘global warming’ and ‘polar bear,’ you’ll often get bombarded with sites that are ignoring the scientific evidence,” he said. “I think this is something that search engines need to address.”

I wondered soon after the Harvey et al Bioscience #tantrumpaper came out at the end of November that one of the objectives might be to use this paper as “evidence” for Google to censor searches, removing from searches any links to my blog posts (and any of those that repost them, including WUWT).

This is not over, by a long shot.

January 1, 2018 10:26 am

This is the garbage that bubbles to the top:

No Joke. During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming

Then they outright ban the rest:

Congress Should Break Up Hatebook into Independent Identity Facebooks

The True Face of Fascism is Socialist Big Government Not Conservative Small Government

January 1, 2018 12:09 pm

A journalist lies and fails to do some basic research on the subject on which they report , in other ‘news’ bears find woods a good place to get rid of personal waste.

The worst bit, the next time the ‘story ‘ will be how you refused to be interviewed because you had something to hide , not because you caught them lying about what you said.

January 1, 2018 1:29 pm

The NYT is full of it. I did my own browser search test and got the complete opposite.

January 1, 2018 3:12 pm

It has become obvious that modern reporters are nothing more than frustrated novelists. FICTION novelists, looking for that big book deal.
If you’ll notice (and you don’t have to look hard) you can even find so-called news articles that begin with the words: “It was a dark and stormy night…” or something very similar.
It’s not fake news-just fiction.

January 1, 2018 6:49 pm

“Evil is never done so thoroughly or so well as when it is done with a good conscience.” — Blaise Pascal

Richard Greene
January 7, 2018 9:11 am


“On December 4th,
a NYT reporter
named Hiroko Tabuchi
interviewed me
for 45 minutes
in preparing for
the above NYT piece.”

My comments:
My first reading
of your article,
provided me
with specific details
of how fake news
is manufactured,
which was interesting.

(1) I first assumed
you allowed the
the interview
for an opportunity
to write about
the New York Times
leftist agenda, and how they
manufacture fake news
to support their agenda.

If so, you were brilliant,
and your strategy led to
this interesting article.

Then I sent your article
to someone else who assumed
the Times fooled you into
thinking they would be fair
and balances.

(2) Perhaps affected by,
the extremely cold
“global warming” in Michigan,
I wondered if the N.Y. Times,
actually caught you by surprise,
and you inadvertently
allowed them to smear
your reputation?

Did you expect the N.Y. Times
to say anything that made you
look good? … or to be honest?

… If so I would like to sell you
my 1/100 ownership
of the Brooklyn Bridge,
which I purchased in 1977,
when I lived in Brooklyn.

So please tell me the truth, Leo,
did you “ambush” the N.Y. Times,
or did they ambush you?

Either way, I’m going to
visit your website “DefyCCC”,
and hope it is as interesting
as your article here.

And by the way,
how much money
did you get,
from the Koch brothers?

I have a climate change blog,
never got money from
anyone, but wouldn’t mind
getting some money !

I don’t have any expenses,
but I’d love to be able to include:
“Partially sponsored by the Koch
Brothers”, on my home page,
just to annoy any leftists
who visit.

As a close personal friend,
do you have any personal
phone numbers for
them there Koch brothers?

I hope this comment is not too late !

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights