« Planning on a Miracle | Main | Liberal Beliefs Revealed – This May Explain a Lot »

13 December 2009



George the lead reporter of the AP story has a serious conflict of interest he wrote some of the e-mails.

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC

Anthony Watts has examine the AP article here and writes:
Mr. Borenstein report upon the investigation of the leaked East Anglia emails, when he himself is part of the emails, is certainly a conflict of interest.

In that story today about the investigation, written in part by Borenstein it says:
The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
When the AP allows reporters to report on stories they are involved in, and for them to be able to dance around their own involvment in the same story, it clearly becomes a conflict of interest.

It is, in my opinion, time for AP to remove Seth Borenstein as “science reporter”. I believe he can no longer be trusted to report climate science without bias, due to this clear conflict of interest.

In my opinion the whole discussion of the e-mail is a distraction. They are an indicator that there was scientific fraud was taking place but the code in the computer models was the smoking gun. But, most reporters are not smart enough to examine the code. As one Economist reporter wrote “Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.” What the reporter was really saying is that he the reporter could not understand the code because he did not have a Phd, so it follows that simpleton bloggers could not either. Yet hundreds, if not thousands, of blog readers understood the fraud, especially when the programer documented the fraud in the remarks right next to the code. It is not the rocket science these dumb reporter make it out to be. So they distract us with discussions of the e-mails, avoiding the smoking gun.


The Daily Mail has a more balanced report here. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server.

George Rebane

Agreed, and thanks Russ for the expansion on this. The whole PhD requirement is a red herring and false. There is nothing that a PhD learns about statistics that can not be learned by any person with an appropriate mathematical background. A Doctor of Philosophy is awarded by accredited institutions to students who have not only demonstrated their ability to expand human knowledge (i.e. to philosophize), but to offer a body of work as evidence that they have already expanded human knowledge (i.e. their doctoral dissertation).

(Before it was debased by the medical profession in the early 19th century, the salutation 'Doctor' was an explicit recognition of such a contribution. Now they award doctorates in almost every field for just learning established knowledge. But that's another story.)

Nevertheless, the layman is bamboozled by all this, especially when professional journalists continue debasing their own profession as you have pointed out.

bill tozer

George, I am confused. In the picture above, who is that middle aged woman in the center?

George Rebane

By order of "that middle aged woman", a question like would get you shot in the workers' paradise of North Korea. But then, he does look a little like a grumpy old bag.

The comments to this entry are closed.