Month: November 2009

You’ll love this…

You’ll love this…

Below is a text of the letter sent to clark Hoyt, the public editor (ombudsman) for the New York Times:

Mr. Hoyt,

Shouldn’t Andrew Revkin haved recused himself from his Nov. 21 front-page article, “Hacked E-mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute“?

First, as Revkin briefly acknowledges in the article, he is part of the story. Isn’t it a breach of journalistic ethics for a reporter to report on a story of which he is part?

Moreover, his story to a great extent defended his sources. It’s one thing to rely on sources; it is quite another to defend them at the expense of unbiased and accurate reporting about them.

This is not an innocent faux pas either.

Revkin tried to whitewash the significance of the story — including distracting readers away from the embarrassing/incriminating contents of the files and, instead, focusing them on the alleged hacking.

Finally, as we will report tomorrow, there seems to have been no “hack” at all.

The files appear to have been accumulated in preparation of a possible court-ordered FOIA release on a server to which the public had access. It is not “hacking” to access files that are publicly available. It may have been unwise/improper to store the file on a public server, but that is a different matter. There is no evidence that anything illegal occurred in the release of the files.

The hacking allegation, of course, was a terrific distraction device.

Perhaps a journalist more interested in unbiased reporting and less interested in defending his personal relationships with the subjects in the e-mails and his personal pro-climate alarmist agenda would have investigated and caught this. But then Andrew Revkin was the wrong man for the job.

Steve Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com

Below is a text of the letter sent to clark Hoyt, the public editor (ombudsman) for the New York Times:

Mr. Hoyt,

Shouldn’t Andrew Revkin haved recused himself from his Nov. 21 front-page article, “Hacked E-mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute“?

First, as Revkin briefly acknowledges in the article, he is part of the story. Isn’t it a breach of journalistic ethics for a reporter to report on a story of which he is part?

Moreover, his story to a great extent defended his sources. It’s one thing to rely on sources; it is quite another to defend them at the expense of unbiased and accurate reporting about them.

This is not an innocent faux pas either.

Revkin tried to whitewash the significance of the story — including distracting readers away from the embarrassing/incriminating contents of the files and, instead, focusing them on the alleged hacking.

Finally, as we will report tomorrow, there seems to have been no “hack” at all.

The files appear to have been accumulated in preparation of a possible court-ordered FOIA release on a server to which the public had access. It is not “hacking” to access files that are publicly available. It may have been unwise/improper to store the file on a public server, but that is a different matter. There is no evidence that anything illegal occurred in the release of the files.

The hacking allegation, of course, was a terrific distraction device.

Perhaps a journalist more interested in unbiased reporting and less interested in defending his personal relationships with the subjects in the e-mails and his personal pro-climate alarmist agenda would have investigated and caught this. But then Andrew Revkin was the wrong man for the job.

Steve Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com

Unlike most fossil fuel company CEOs, Massey Energy’s Don Blankenship knows his global warming.

Nevertheless, in a new interview, E&E TV reporter Monica Trauzzi seems bent on making a fool of him

Blankenship, however, is more than up to the challenge.

Click here to watch the duel and/or read the transcript.

If more U.S. CEOs were as knowledgable and articulate as Blankenship, our nation wouldn’t be on the precipice of a swan dive into junk science-fueled totalitariansim.

Unlike most fossil fuel company CEOs, Massey Energy’s Don Blankenship knows his global warming.

Nevertheless, in a new interview, E&E TV reporter Monica Trauzzi seems bent on making a fool of him

Blankenship, however, is more than up to the challenge.

Click here to watch the duel and/or read the transcript.

If more U.S. CEOs were as knowledgable and articulate as Blankenship, our nation wouldn’t be on the precipice of a swan dive into junk science-fueled totalitariansim.

From the Times (UK):

“Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.”

How do the never-say-die alarmists respond?

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.

Pope’s explanation is why most people accept that

2 + 2 = 4.

They are aware of the “scale of the problem” of believing that

2 + 2 = 5.

I guess Guardian worry-wort George Monbiot is going have to write harder and to think of new names to call his “sceptics.”

From the Times (UK):

“Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.”

How do the never-say-die alarmists respond?

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.

Pope’s explanation is why most people accept that

2 + 2 = 4.

They are aware of the “scale of the problem” of believing that

2 + 2 = 5.

I guess Guardian worry-wort George Monbiot is going have to write harder and to think of new names to call his “sceptics.”