Bishop Hill Koch fights back
Feb 29, 2012 Climate: fakegate The Charles Koch Foundation has issued a strongly worded denunciation of the New York Times' reporting of the Fakegate affair.
One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity. Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.
Indeed.
Bishop Hill
In related news, Heartland has issued an open letter to the Pacific Institute.
Bishop Hill
And Revkin has replied.
Reader Comments (60)
Robin @2:11
;)
If I reported something nasty and untruthful about Revkin - and I said I had authentic documents to prove it - I take it that would be alright by his logic, provided I later said it was just an opinion report?
Outside his bubble of post-modern stupidity... the reality is that regardless of how he classifies himself and his articles, he did make factual claims that were both unverified, and now appear to have been untrue. The honest thing to do would be to correct those factual errors.
Slightly O/T but I've had a nagging thought that I can't shake off. If Gleick was sent the strategy paper in the post, why didn't he ask it to be sent to him with the other documents? If it existed, as he thought it did, surely the best way of proving that was to ask for a copy as a board member? Asking for a copy of a document he thought to be real would have led only to two outcomes. 1. They could have said that the document wasn't ready for the board members to see, 2. They could have said they knew nothing about the document.
Or he could have phrased it something like, "Oh, and if the strategy document I saw a draft of is ready for distribution, could you please send me a copy."
So why didn't Gleick ask for the actual document he was trying to authenticate? then he'd have had them bang to rights.
@Geronimo
Sensible line of reasoning, unless Gleick would never ask in a million years for a document that (1) did not yet exist b/c (2) he had not yet forged it........
Revkin's comment is completely fair, it's a reply to the Koch letter.
The Koch letter complains about:
- factually incorrect reporting on Koch
- implied incorrect reporting (putting their HI donation between two paras on CC, for example)
- failure to subsequently correct
- failure to fact-check with Koch
Revkin is guilty of none of these, and cherry-picking one opinion quote from an opinion blogger, not a news reporter, is not clever, whether done by Koch or Joe Romm.
Revkin has answered Koch's specific and general complaints, as they pertain to him, just fine.
I haven't checked every word, but I'd be very surprised if he'd said anything about Koch that was unfair in connection with this affair.
Koch are not Heartland, as we know.
Also consider that bloggers quite like complaints - it gives them another post! The Bish, Pielke Jr, Revkin, they always respond. Recall that Pielke Jr gave Gleick a post to himself when he complained about RPJr's post. Or recall the tremendous Forbes Gleick/HI exchanges that may have triggered this popcorn moment.
@those replying to Phil C
I think an apology to Phil C is in order. By all means set him straight, but there was no need to be quite so rude about it. Not everyone with a slightly different point to make is a troll.
Mar 1, 2012 at 12:50 AM | pat
Lol Fantastic! So Laden and Otto have finally dug down to the possibility Gleick was set up by Heartland and Mosher! I was waiting for someone to come up with that "obvious" solution
Now let us see if Gleicks defenders now encourage him to give up the original material to the FBI for investigation fingerprinting etc. I mean he doesn't need to worry about defending his source now does he?
Roddy Campbell
Perhaps you should check. Before posting.
Gixxer, I don't know you, but you should read before posting snark.
Of course I read the Revkin articles, and I believe none of the comments above managed to find a Koch quote that the Koch letter might apply to.
My words were 'I haven't checked every word, but I'd be very surprised if he'd said anything about Koch that was unfair in connection with this affair.'
So, surprise me. Always happy to be politely corrected.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=9212
'FBI agents are urged to grill others linked to self-confessed climate criminal, Dr. Peter Gleick in the 'Fakegate’ climate counterfeiting scandal. Evidence now points to NASA’s Dr. James Hansen as accomplice in global warming racket.
Dr. Peter Gleick resigned last Thursday as chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office confirmed an FBI probe is under way, “We are currently working with the [Heartland] institute and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago.”
Climate criminals seem to gravitate to the AGU with circumstantial evidence now tying Gleick, Hansen and the AGU in a climate conspiracy.
Dr. Gleick's rapid fall from grace has mired other top tier climatologists in what may become a full-blown wire fraud and RICO racketeering investigation by federal authorities. Leading critics are sure that the elements of 18 USC 1343 appear already met under admitted facts.
Questions will now need to be asked about AGU’s role in enabling Hansen make a notorious presentation to Congress on June 23, 1988; all thanks to a dubious ‘peer-reviewed’ paper of his that AGU brusquely shoehorned through.'
Gleick was a student of Holdren, O'bama's science chief, who was a student of Club of Rome member and alleged Eugenics; supporter Erlich.