|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1349
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:28 am Post subject: concerns about article "Momentum on Climate Pact... |
    |
|
Dear New York Times Public Editor,
I would like to raise concerns with regard to accuracy in scientific reporting, and opining in the guise of reporting, around this recent Andrew Revkin article in the New York Times:
Momentum on Climate Pact Is Elusive
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html
"The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years."
The entire article is based upon two unfounded presumptions:
One assumption is that there is a likelihood worthy of reporting that, "global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years."
This appears to be factually incorrect as a matter of science. I would appreciate your concrete review.
The other assumption is that somehow real time global temperature effects - and even some hypothetical effects in the future - present some kind of direct challenge to current climate discussions.
This is a point of dubious opinion, broadly unsupportable by logic. Keep in mind that the "average global temperature" is not directly perceptible by any human senses, but exists only as a matter of scientific data collection and analysis. As an abstract value, it has no tangible existence, let alone any form of independent political influence.
I think you will find, despite the sometimes harsh tone of (understandable, I believe) frustration, that Revkin's "facts" in this article are substantively contradicted, in detail, in this Joe Romm blog posting:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/22/new-york-times-andrew-revkin-suckered-by-deniers-to-push-global-cooling-myt/
In fact, it appears one specific order of magnitude value correction may have already been incorporated in the article from that posting - without notation of change or attribution - while the fundamentally misleading thrust of the article remains quite intact.
The facts around climate change are a matter of first importance. I doubt sincerely that this Times article does them any fair kind of justice.
In light of these considerations, I would respectfully suggest that either a retraction or a comprehensive and accurate correction may well be in order.
With best wishes,
Kevin Matthews
Editor in Chief
ArchitectureWeek
ArchitectureWeek ...the world magazine of design and building
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
The way of architecture... Artifice, Inc.
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
http://www.archiplanet.org
http://www.greatbuildings.com
http://www.designcommunity.com
http://www.architectureweek.com
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
541-345-7421 vox . 541-345-7438 fax . 800-203-8324 USA toll free
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
