NYT soils itself, AGAIN!

[FourScore]

NYT soils itself, AGAIN!
by pollwatcher
Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:53:23 AM PST

In the same approach to journalistic irresponsibility that helped lead us into a costly and unnecessary war in Iraq, the NYT is now repeating it's embarrassing performance by parroting right wing propaganda aimed at the IPCC report on global climate change. Only this time, the consequences will be much, much, worse.

The last thing our nation needs now is a News media, that once took it's responsibility as the fourth estate seriously, now capitulating to the creed of being "fair and balanced" by giving equal weight to minority opinions that have been repeatedly discredited. We need facts, we need informed and credible opinions, we need researched stories; we don't need opinions that have failed to stand up to even the most basic rules of reason and truthfulness.

Like the "aluminum tubes", the "mushroom clouds", the "chemical weapons" of the lead up to the Iraq war, the NYT is now repeating baseless accusations by the Global Warming denialists. In this article:
U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege

The NYT goes after the head of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, for receiving speaking fees. The irresponsible implication is that because the lead of the IPCC received these fees, that a report that was produced by input from more than 130 countries, more than 2500 scientific reviewers, and more than 450 lead authors, was biased and incorrect.

It goes on to nit pick a FOUR VOLUME report for errors that denialists have found. Can ANYONE produce 4 volumes of science from 450 different authors without having errors? The biggest error was misreporting the rate of Himalayan glacier melt. The IPCC has apologized for the error...

SNIP

...By publishing personal attacks on one of hundreds who had input to the report, and by publishing an error or two out of many hundreds of pages of findings, the NYT is repeating the nonsense reporting it did that helped convince the public we had to fight a senseless war. A misinformed general public who has little to no knowledge of how science works, or what is real science compared to pseudoscience, will be left with the impression that Global Warming is a "theory" like evolution and we should not take any action until the theory is "proven", whatever the hell proven means in the minds of the general public.

The NYT should be embarrassed at this tabloid journalism and should either retract the story, or publish a story about all the extremely strong science backed by an overwhelming amount of quality data and professional opinion, that led to the civilization threatening conclusions of the IPCC 2007 report.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/9/835371/-NYT-soils-itself,-AGAIN!

[Jim__]

1. The Times story doesn't seem that negative.

I guess I don't know how this story popped up now. If there is a lot of churn going on about this, then I don't see the problem with the Times reporting on it. If it's just based on one or 2 calls from RW critics, then it doesn't deserve the space it is getting.

Excerpt from the Times article:

Several of the recent accusations have proved to be half-truths: While Dr. Pachauri does act as a paid consultant and adviser to many companies, he makes no money from these activities, he said. The payments go to the Energy and Resources Institute, the prestigious nonprofit research center based in Delhi that he founded in 1982 and still leads, where the money finances charitable projects like Lighting a Billion Lives, which provides solar lanterns in rural India.

“My conscience is clear,” Dr. Pachauri said in a lengthy telephone interview.

The panel, in reviewing complaints about possible errors in its report, has so far found that one was justified and another was “baseless.” The general consensus among mainstream scientists is that the errors are in any case minor and do not undermine the report’s conclusions.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Ohferchrissakes-- if anyone actually READS the Times article...

they'll find that it simply describes a conflict surrounding Pachauri, and does not by any stretch of the imagination say that the charges are anything but insignificant. it even specifically mentions those that aren't. It's not a hit piece and does not attack any current global warming thinking. Pollwatcher is full of shit, not the Times.

It does bring up the reasonable question of conflict of interest, but goes out of its way to say that there is no evidence of bias in the institute's, or Pachauri's. work.

I swear... with the hysterical wing of the Left looking for boogeymen in every corner and under every bed, half of the Right's job is done right here.

Frakkin' idjits.

[azul]

3. Tabloid stuff and nonsense informs and pinches imperial jingoists

-bingo.

Way to go NYT, misinform and play on emotions on the dead serious issues. But where is the authoritative competition? Who calls them out? DK? Guardian?

The FT has been more subtle, giving Pachauri an interview to explain the situation, but then publishing an article the next day reporting the same accusations and pitiful science stance. It must be a powerful industrial interest that is funding this false position, investors take note.

[snagglepuss]

4. Pachauri does have explaining to do and not about speaking fees. How many scientists

live in a 12 million dollar house, in one of India most exclusive gated communites (Mittel, one of the world's wealthiest men, is a nieghbour)? The following article raises some serious questions about Patchauri. Could it be that he was paid to produce a false report? Is he a complete opportunist?





snip

"Despite heading the UN body on climate change, Dr Pachauri has no background in environmental science. He began his career as a railway engineer, graduated in engineering and gained his doctorate in industrial engineering.

In an attack on Dr Pachauri in a Delhi magazine article on Friday, headlined The Great Climate Change Fraud, Indian commentator Ninad D. Sheth said: ‘Mr Pachauri has no training in climate science yet he heads the pontification panel which spreads the new gospel of a hotter world. How come?’

Yesterday, in a statement from Mr Chhibber, Dr Pachauri insisted that he would not resign over the Glaciergate controversy – and, ironically, urged people to use public transport to help reduce global warming.Dr Pachauri said people should take ‘practical lifestyle steps’ including ‘use of energy-efficient transport, including public transport – and in general become conscious of our carbon footprints as individuals’."


Very hypocritical since he uses a Toyota Corolla to drive one mile from home to office despite the fact his institute encourages people to use buses and bought the battery-powered cars with the express aim of reducing pollution on short trips by staff around town. One of those cars was set aside for Dr Pachauri which he doesn't use.



snip

"Another concern for Dr Pachauri could be the questions being asked about his portfolio of business interests in bodies that have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations –including banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds involved in carbon trading. His institute is said to have received £310,000 from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5million EU grant after citing what have now been found to be the bogus Glaciergate claims in grant applications."


This given the fact that he lives in a 12 million dollar house, in one of India most exclusive gated communites, makes me wonder whether this guy isn't a complete sham. Could it be that he was paid to produce a false report?



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-12473...