Comments on: The NYT’s Andrew Revkin shows why he’s a top climate change reporter

By: George F. Will goes platinum « Greenfyre’s

George F. Will goes platinum « Greenfyre’s — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:50:23 +0000

[...] The NYT’s Andrew Revkin shows why he’s a top climate change reporter [...]

By: The Will Affair … struggling to keep up

The Will Affair … struggling to keep up — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:19:12 +0000

[...] Tom Yulsman, Center for Environmental Journalism, [...]

By: Michael Tobis

Michael Tobis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:49:44 +0000

It’s “Michael”, not “Mike”, thanks.

Um, I am not saying Revkin is evil.

If I didn’t feel that I had been handed the torch to flame him as he deserves for this episode, I think we’d get along fine if we met.

I am saying his behavior in the case of the Will/Gore column was unethical. Evil if you like. And consequentially so; it’s nothing I feel able to dismiss lightly. I think that his ethical course is to provide us with some reflection and something like a retraction.

This doesn’t dismiss all the valuable service he has done in the past and will do in the future. On the other hand, if he doesn’t see fit to recognize the problem, especially since he’s likely to repeat it, that leaves me in a position where I can’t say I’m comfortable with his contribution as a whole.

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:52:00 +0000

Is every reporter who has made the mistake of false balance evil?

Am I evil too, Mike?

By: Michael Tobis

Michael Tobis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:46:46 +0000

“So while there is no comparison between George Will’s absurd columns and Al Gore’s detailed presentation, the former vice president still appears to exaggerate to advance his case. My guess is that he continues to do it because he knows that natural catastrophes connect viscerally with the public, whereas melting sea ice and thawing ice sheets in remote polar regions do not. That’s fine, he’s a politician. But a reporter like Andrew Revkin is also quite right to point out the errors.”

While Romm may disagree with the above, I don’t.

What I think is wrong, not just incorrect but unethical, is this. You acknowldge that there is no comparison between Will and Gore, and presumably Revkin knows it. Yet he presents them as not just comparable but as very closely parallel. What possible justification could that have?

By: Anne

Anne — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:54:17 +0000

Another good post. Since you wrote this, Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander has finally acknowledged Will’s misinterpretation of the 1979 ice cover data. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/27/ST2009022702494.html)

He’s also noticed a trend in the fallout: “There is a disturbing if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you’re-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate.”

I agree. Also, I think we’re getting too mired overall in arguments about climate change. I think it’s a distraction from the solution-oriented work that could be happening instead. I’ve been feeling a bit Pollyanna-ish, going around reminding people on feisty climate change blogs (via comments) to drive less, eat less red meat and plant trees. But now I feel vindicated, because Andy Revkin is pleading for the same sort of thing (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/expers-big-flaw-in-wills-ice-assertions/):

So my suggestion, if you’re serious in your concerns about a human-disrupted climate, is to stop posting when there’s an occasional — and unavoidable — piece here about the political side, and to send my posts on the solutions side to everyone you know, expanding this Dot Earth space and getting more people involved. Deal?

By: dANNY bLOOM

dANNY bLOOM — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:09:58 +0000

good POST, WELL SAID, HEAR HEAR,,,,REVKIN IS VERY VERY GOOD.

POLAR cities coming in 2500?