Seth Borenstein: AP Has a ‘Science’ Writer Problem
[Click images to enlarge.]
[ABOVE: AP "Science" Writer, Seth Borenstein, Lead Apologist for Climate Alarmists]
SETH BORENSTEIN:
GIVING THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SCIENCE BEAT THE SAME OBJECTIVITY IT’S BROUGHT TO POLITICS
AP’S SETH BORENSTEIN PROBLEMS
Seth Borenstein’s byline is usually ‘Associated Press Science Writer’. It should read ‘Associated Press “Science” writer’ The scare quotes around “science” are necessary because Borenstein practices a type of reporting that is anything but objective–at least when the subject matter is climate change.
Anyone who’s familiar with Borenstein’s body of work on climate science for the news cooperative can be certain of two things. 1-That when the AP does a story on climate science, Borenstein’s name will likely be on it; and, 2-Whenever a Borenstein AP story and climate science meet, Seth will do his best to scare the bejeezus out of readers: there ain’t no happy ending.
A quick look at what this objective “reporter” has written–and the AP has distributed–since the CRU leaked emails surfaced. Readers can make their own judgment.
Recent AP articles by “Science” writer, Seth Borenstein, include:
* Review: Scientists’ e-mails don’t devalue climate theory Sun Dec 13, 2009
* AP verdict: Climate emails show science not faked, but not pretty either Sat Dec 12, 2009
* United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak Fri Dec 4, 2009
* Global warming may require higher dams, stilts Thu Dec 3, 2009
* Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails Wed Dec 2, 2009
* ‘A million small changes’ to better climate Fri Nov 27, 2009
* ‘We are in more trouble than we thought’ Monday Nov 23, 2009
Keep in mind these were all written after the ClimateGate emails were made public on November 19, 2009. One question upon perusing the above list: is Seth Borenstein responding as an objective reporter would?
In case anyone missed his politics, Borenstein also found time from his intrepid AGW journalism to write this paean to President Barack Obama, in which Borenstein compared Obama to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock: CAPITAL CULTURE: Is Obama another Mr. Spock? Monday Nov 30, 2009.
The piece had the expected Borenstein M.O.: a heavy reliance on “experts” who already agreed with Borenstein’s thesis and the quote of one person, former Bush science adviser Jack Marburger,–for “balance”–who disagreed, which was relegated to the last paragraphs; which are the very ones newspapers most likely will cut when pressed for space.
One such “expert” is Chris Mooney.
“I keep being amazed at how much attention he’s [Obama's] spending on science policy,” said science policy and journalism blogger Chris Mooney, author of the book “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.”
Chris Mooney, in case readers haven’t guessed, is a typical Borenstein witnesses for the prosecution: another of Mooney’s three books is titled, “The Republican War on Science”.
Others were a bit more circumspect. From Seth Borenstein
AP Writer: Is Obama Too Spock-like?
Have Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein and Chris Matthews had a Vulcan mind-meld? Two weeks ago, you may recall, the MSNBC “Hardball” hosts wondered if the president was just “too darned intellectual.”
Today, AP’s Borenstein wondered, “Is Obama another Mr. Spock?”
Borenstein’s use of those who agree with his preconceived notions as sources is evident in AP verdict: Climate emails show science not faked, but not pretty either. DBKP’s LBG investigated the “impartial” sources used by Borenstein, et.al. in the article.
The results of that investigation are in AP Verdict Climategate Sham: Expert’s Biased Ties to Climate Change, Global Warming. Not surprisingly, ALL of the sources used by the AP “science” writers were AGW proponents, including several labeled as “moderates”.
It seems that Seth Borenstein cherry-picks his sources–just as some of the climate scientists he covers are accused of doing with their data.
MY OWN PRIVATE CLIMATEGATE
Say what you will about Seth Borenstein: he seems to have no qualms about asking for help–especially from those who are alarmists–and about whom he writes.
Nowhere in any of Borenstein’s many articles will the reader find that he asked the subjects of his articles for guidance in what he should write.
FRom the East Anglia leaked emails:
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
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
Breezy–for a junior high girl. Not so much for a so-called objective journalist.
As Anthony Watts put it: “But to have 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.”
Clearly.
Watts again:
Here is a sampler of AP practices on questions involving possible conflict of interest. It is not all-inclusive; if you are unsure whether an activity may constitute a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, consult your manager at the onset.
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:
Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.
To say the least, the Associated Press has a Seth Borenstein problem.
WHAT’S IN AN AP CLIMATE ARTICLE BY SETH BORENSTEIN?
Pick out any random article on climate change by Seth Borentstein and it will exhibit one, if not all of the following features:
* Heavy reliance on “reliable” sources whom he quotes generously;
* A discrediting of contrary views, even if those views are supported by data;
* Dispatches littered with hopes, dreams and opinions masquerading as settled science;
* Ethical problems, including chumminess with sources who support alarmist scenarios.
One may add the following charges to the list, though they are subjective: Borenstein’s been advocating climate alarm for a while; and, if Seth ever gives up his day job, he might apply for a position as a climate alarmist–he’s got plenty of experience torturing data to fit his pre-conceived notions.
Maybe Borenstein should invest two minutes in the following video.
Most likely, he will not. One images that he might ask his climate scare buddies what to do with the information the video contains, however.
OTHERS HAVE NOTICED
It’s been hard to overlook Borenstein’s increasingly-shrill point of view over the last few months. Others have noticed.
- AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it
-
“On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Marc Morano has a website aggregating news stories on the other side of the climate change fraud, Climate Depot. AP’s Science writer was asking the East Anglia CRU guys to help him out. Material surfaced in a legitimate journal refuting their version of things and Borenstein in an apparent sweat wanted to know how to handle it. This email is in the public domain.
–AP’s Seth Borenstein in ClimateGate emails, July 23, 2009 -
Climate GatekeepersThese people have just produced a piece of propaganda disguised as credible reporting. The intent is to fool the public and is itself a fraud. You wonder why people don’t read the papers any more? — Here’s a hint, it ain’t because we’re trying to save the earth from tree farmers.
A link to the propaganda is here. I put the link on the period to prevent accidental IQ loss from inadvertent clicking of it. Read it at your own risk. tAV accepts no responsibility for damages real or perceived from reading it.
- CLIMATE: Be relieved that warming isn’t happening:
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
Taking apart Borenstein’s latest effort: AP “science” writer, Seth Borenstein’s latest: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty. There’s no information contained in this article–which he helped author–about whether he was coached this time by discredited climate fear-mongers.
- ‘Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting’
-
AP: ‘Global Warming Is Accelerating. Time Is Close to Running Out’
Borenstein wrote:
The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level. [...]
Scientists fear that what’s happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
What kind of media outlet would publish this hysterical nonsense with much of the nation in the grips of extremely harsh winter conditions? Does the AP have any idea?
It snowed in Houston Wednesday tying a record for the earliest appearance of the white stuff in the city’s history.
There were rare snowfalls in Southern Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi Thursday.
They’re expecting possible record-breaking cold in the Pacific Northwest.
Record cold in Montana.
Record cold in Denver.
Supposed to snow in the San Francisco Bay Area Monday.
- The “Statisticians: ‘Global Cooling’ a Myth†story takes on
AP’ Reporter Seth Borenstein Latest: ‘Statisticians: ‘Global Cooling’ a Myth’. Again, readers may judge who’s the objective writer.
BORENSTEIN HAS BEEN ON THE ATTACK FOR A LONG TIME
If the reader thinks that Seth Borenstein is a late convert to pushing climate change scaremongering, he would be wrong. Borenstein has not only been skewing his articles by quoting AGW proponents as primary sources–many times, the only sources–he’s been attacking any who question his beliefs for a long time.
Read the following article Borenstein wrote on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and ask yourself if this is the work of someone who’s reporting news–or someone who’s preaching a set of beliefs.
Borenstein’s rave review in Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy:
WASHINGTON — The nation’s top climate scientists are giving “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president’s movie _ replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets _ mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
–Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The article labors to project a veneer of objectivity amid all of the climate scare boosterism that’s taking place.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
“Excellent,” said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. “He got all the important material and got it right.”
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
“I sat there and I’m amazed at how thorough and accurate,” Corell said. “After the presentation I said, `Al, I’m absolutely blown away. There’s a lot of details you could get wrong.’ … I could find no error.”
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn’t surprised “because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right.”
The tiny errors scientists found weren’t a big deal, “far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue,” said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation’s global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.
“I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus,” said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.
Of course, a British high court later found An Inconvenient Truth to contain nine basic scientific “untruths” which would have to be corrected before the film could be shown to Brit schoolchildren.
But, how could an AP “Science” writer be expected to foresee that happening?
Especially one so busy pimping for a particular viewpoint?
BORENSTEIN was also on the attack against Michael Crichton’s novel, “State of Fear” in 2005: Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up
Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder, however, said the Harvard-trained author is bending scientific data and distorting research.
“Wrong, wrong, wrong,” said Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. “The best face I can put on this is that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. The worst is that he’s intentionally deceiving people as he accuses environmentalists (of doing) in ‘State of Fear.’ ”
The majority of climate scientists say the world is warming, mainly because of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The biggest increase in those gases comes from the burning of fossil fuels. U.S. and foreign authorities predict a 5-degree Fahrenheit increase in the world’s average temperature by the end of the century. Ice sheets are melting, and species of birds and animals have moved to new areas because of warming.
Again, Borenstein provides cover for himself by writing that Crichton declined a request to be interviewed. Might the writer have known which way the Borenstein climate wind was blowing?
WHAT WILL THE AP DO ABOUT SETH BORENTSTEIN?
When it comes to the reporting of climate science, perhaps the AP should stand for “Associated Propaganda”? After all, Seth Borenstein has been pushing a particular side of a controversial subject for some time. Some might call that “propaganda”.
Why hasn’t the AP done something about this problem? For some AP readers, Seth Borenstein’s “science” is the only science reporting they will read. Doesn’t the AP have a responsibility to present news of an important subject like climate change in an objective manner?
Apparently not.
It’s hard to take the AP and Borenstein seriously when they refuse to treat an important scientific subject in an even-handed–dare we say “scientific”–way.
But perhaps the AP is not aware of this problem. Seth Borenstein may think he is doing actual reporting.
Readers could help the AP out and let them know that there is a problem. Maybe Seth Borenstein would do more reporting and less proselytizing?
Contact information for the AP is at the end of this article.
The pushing of a particular viewpoint would be no problem for Seth Borenstein, private citizen. Or, Seth Borenstein, director of PR for some AGW think tank (Perhaps he’s auditioning?).
It’s a huge one for Seth Borenstein, AP “Science” Writer.
Yet, Seth Borenstein still writes, churning out opinion pieces masquerading as news. He continues citing sources from one side of the debate, colluding with the subjects he’s writing about, and attacking those who disagree with his favored views–very unscientific for a “science” writer.
Seth Borenstein is also ensuring that his views on climate change–and the AP’s as well–become increasingly irrelevant, overtaken by time and the science about which he pretends to write objectively.
by Mondo Frazier
images: I Own the World; DBKP
|
The Associated Press contact information:
Headquarters Main Number Paul Colford Jack Stokes info@ap.org |
NOTE: Seth Borenstein was not contacted for his views on this piece.
[...] at DBKP: * Seth Borenstein: AP Has a ‘Science’ Writer Problem * Climate Change: Sixth-Grader and Father Post Urban Heat Effects Study on [...]
NOTE: I’ve tried to update this piece several times and it seems that internal server problems are preventing me from doing so. Therefore, I’ll just list some other interesting items below. Sorry for any inconvenience.
* About that AP piece claiming climate scientists didn’t fake data
* AP’s Seth Borenstein’s Climategate Bias‎
UPDATE @ 1935 EST 121409: Since I’m still getting the “internal server” message whenever I try to access the story above, I’ll make them in this comment, which is accessible.
There are one set of quotes which got clipped in the putting together of this story. The quotes end after the paragraph beginning with EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:, ending with “…support of causes or movements.”
The next paragraph is also quoted, but from the original article.
To avoid any further confusion about what is and what is not AP Policy, here are the AP Policy in full:
There is more at AP Policy link above. Bold text are mine. Readers can come to their own conclusions on whether they believe that Seth Borenstein tried to write in an objective, unbiased manner on climate change. I have my opinion and here we will clearly mark it:
Make NO Mistake:
MONDO’S OPINION:—->
“Seth Borenstein, on the subject of climate change, writes NOT in an objective manner, but is more of an alarmist preacher. He cherry-picks sources, relegates those with contrary views to the end-of-the-story paragraphs (if they’re included at all) and leaves out information which would help the reader make a more informed decision on that which he is writing. This is not the sum total of his faults, nor is it meant to be a total listing of any strong points he may possess. I will have the good taste not to say that I think his writing on the subject is somewhat like a Doomsday cheerleader.”
<—-MONDO’s OPINION
Reply
It’s a little ironic that you base so much of your assertion that AP should do something about a reporter who violates this supposed policy —
“When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity”
– when in fact that is not in the AP policy. It’s the opinion expressed by the blog you lifted that excerpt from. It’s clearly set off as opinion on the other blog, but not on yours.
Presenting opinion as fact and using it as the basis of you argument that a reporter is too biased because his name appears in one e-mail? That seems rather unfair.
Reply
admin Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 18:26
Scribe,
Read the article before you make your comment and you’ll suffer a lot less from looking foolish.
– when in fact that is not in the AP policy. It’s the opinion expressed by the blog you lifted that excerpt from. It’s clearly set off as opinion on the other blog, but not on yours.
Here’s a link to the Associated Press policy: AP policy. I’ll provide a few paragraphs:
and
So I guess that you don’t know as much about the AP policy as what you present here, huh?
Presenting opinion as fact and using it as the basis of you argument that a reporter is too biased because his name appears in one e-mail? That seems rather unfair.
You have a problem with “Opinion as fact” being presented as journalism? I’m rather unfair?
His name appears in one email?
Genius, he sent the email. Asking for guidance. About the subjects he would be writing about.
Here’s a newsflash for you: if Seth Borenstein had labeled his “findings” and “AP IMPACT” articles as “Opinion” or “Op-Eds”, then there would have been no basis for this piece. He did not and and has never done so. He presents his stories as “news”. In Journalism 101, I learned that news and opinion should be clearly labeled and separated.
Where we’re coming from at DBKP is clearly marked on the masthead, in case you missed it. Readers can and should take that into account when reading. They are constantly reminded to make their own judgments. I do straight news from time to time, but this article, although it contains news and analysis contains my bias. They are on display for all the world to see.
I didn’t dress my piece here as straight news and try to pawn it off on people who are depending on it for an unvarnished look at science. Seth Borenstein does. I think that should be known. People might then take that into consideration when reading his stuff.
And it’s not that Borenstein can’t do good work when he’s not emotionally invested in the subject matter, as he is in climate change. His other work, as far as I could tell, appears competent.
If that’s all “rather unfair”, I suggest that you’d be better served by reading the latest opinion by Seth Borenstein, when next it surfaces in an AP outlet.
PS–”lifted” implying stealing or without attribution. The blog in question was attributed twice in this article.
That being said, thanks for stopping by and taking the time to leave a comment.
Reply
Scribe Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 20:02
If you taken a moment to read my comment correctly, you’d see you now not only misrepresented AP policy, but misrepresented what I said.
From the top: You clipped the excerpt from the Watts blog and presented it, in one indented chunk, like this (I can’t indent so I’ll juse quotes):
“Here is a sampler of AP practices on questions involving possible conflict of interest. It is not all-inclusive; if you are unsure whether an activity may constitute a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, consult your manager at the onset.
” EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:
“Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.
” When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.”
It’s the final sentence that’s the problem. It is not AP policy, but no one reading your blog would know that; it just comes right after the AP policy, which is correctly quoted. So a reader of your blog would think that the reporter was guilty of violating AP policy for callling some people by their first names. In fact, that’s Watts’ opinion.
I appreciate your pointing out that what you do is opinion, but even in opinion writing, it’s the obligation of the writer to clearly show the reader where fact leaves off and opinion begins. Otherwise, you’re being intellectually dishonest.
You can take that to heart and maybe raise the level of your commentary to “credible,” or you can just keep up the attitude and call me names like “genius.” Doesn’t matter to me. I’ve made my point and have other places to go.
Reply
Unfair?
The content and familiarity of the “one email” more than implies there were others. Borenstein has yet to disclose his association, instead, he mounted his own “investigation”, then rendered his own judgment, then clothed it as “news”.
Reply
It’s the final sentence that’s the problem. It is not AP policy, but no one reading your blog would know that; it just comes right after the AP policy, which is correctly quoted. So a reader of your blog would think that the reporter was guilty of violating AP policy for callling some people by their first names. In fact, that’s Watts’ opinion.
In fact, that’s also my opinion. See? It’s not so hard to label things as opinion–especially since I’m writing at a site that does opinion/commentary.
Wonder if we’ll see any of that from ol’ Seth?
And, it’s not the “calling of people by their first names that’s the problem, but I strongly suspect you know that. It’s the easy familiarity. That’s my opinion too, Scribe
How about investigating a matter of which you’re a part of? Then helping render judgment? Boy, think anyone would have reached a different conclusion with ol’ Seth’s article if contradictory sources had been used? Wonder if another conclusion by the reader would have been reached if Seth had mentioned that one email that we know about? Better hope there’s no more leaks…
Hahaha….you’d make a fine AP science reporter.
We’ll leave it at that, Scribe.
Thanks for another go-around.
Reply
This guy wouldn’t know science if it pissed on his silly fur coat.
Reply
[...] not the first AP writer to have violated AP’s stated guidelines. AP Science Writer, Seth Borenstein, also has done so while shilling for climate change [...]
[...] is noted scaremonger, Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press? When the subject was the now-discredited fear that warmists pushed as science, Borenstein was [...]
seth borenstein is a moron,…. with all due respect.
his latest article states that there is snow in all 49 states and the holdout is hawaii.
in fact, hawaii has had record snowfall in its 14,000 feet high plus or minus mountains this year.
for someone who claims to be a global climate science editor , he is not very bright.
aloha and howdy,
dr james aubrey
dallas
Reply
Guys, what if global warming is some big stupid hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Idiots like Seth Borenstein are just playing out the awful role of the “science” writer who is just raising “awareness” to “serious global problems” that, if unfixed, will either “destroy the world” or “make it a shittier place to live.” Who does he think he is, telling us that our pollution is making the world a worse place to live? Unacceptable.
Reply
Mondo Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 14:46
Justice,
Who does he think he is, telling us that our pollution is making the world a worse place to live?
If that is the message that Borenstein wants to convey to his readers, then he needs to man up and say it.
Don’t frighten them with bogus science death scenarios masquerading as truth with the AP’s stamp of approval. Of course, if “pollution = bad” was all that is in play here, then we both agree.
But, it’s not. The real equation is “let Seth define pollution = lethal = give me your money.”
Nice try at sarc, bet you’re a big hit at the HuffPo.
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.
Reply
To: SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer The Associated Press
Since you are talking about the oil spill by the numbers tell me, what are your calculations on the damages to the eco-system? What of the damages to our health and that of our children?
Are not human and animals dependent on a food chain, that is dependent on fish, seaweed, coral or algae? A dependence that goes from the birds that flies to the bottom feeders in the ocean.
Have you figured out the impact to many human and marine lives that are affected or will be affected by the tar and oil? Will you eat any of the seafood that comes from these waters? Will you fish in our waters or let your children swim in these waters and play on the beach?
What about the livelihood of people living on the coastline? Just the prospect of oil possibly washing onto the beaches will keep the tourist away which will have a domino effect on local employment and the economy near and far.
Is our health not dependent on the health of the food we eat? Who is to say that the fish you are eating has not eaten a tar ball or ingested any oil?
What about the nesting, migration and breeding of birds and fishes?
What is the lasting affect on the food chain and for how many years will this affect plague us?
How can Tony Haywood or anyone else call this disaster, “relatively tinyâ€? As in your article dated “Monday, June 21, 2010 5:50 AM EDT.â€
Reply
Se_ th_ Bor en Stein by the numbers, what are you thinking, great science. So you think that the BP leak is something to make light about you fool. In just a short nano sec it could fill your ( you fill in the restof the line. Bor en Seith go do something else with your life.
Reply
AP publishes stupifying attempt to belittle the impact of Gulf oil leak.
That’s the headline that should have been published with Seth Bornstein’s June 21 article on the actual volume of oil being
released into the Gulf by BP. A beer cup of arsenic does not seem like a lot when compared to the Superbowl it was sold in, but that amount would kill hundreds of people. Volume is not the issue, it is he kind of substance that is causing the contamination that is the problem. Anyone with an IQ of 50 understands that. “Science” writer indeed!!
Reply
[...] perusal of “AP Science Writer” Seth Borenstein’s articles on climate change and the subsequent slighting of the news of the leaked ClimateGate emails is only one egregious [...]
Your November 27, 2011 article CO2 Emuissions fell in 2009
Was filled with”expecterd”,”probably”,”helped”,”Nearly” and other limited words.
Global warming and CO2 emitted with the Big Bang and/or
Adam and Eve. Our bodies naurally expel Carbon Dioxide and will continue.
Until the Industrial Revolution were smoke stack emissions???
Yet we had an Ice Age and subsequent Global warming “note; Gfrand Canyon”
These cycles took muillions of years and are questioned by few.
Take a deep breath and try to understand what any sixth grader understands,1e are not in charge and won’t impact nature very much unless the. Run amuck third world econoo
Mies get involved…Jin Croce sang about “don’t mess with the lone Ranger and don”t spit in the wind”
Believe what you will but do it in your closet!!
Dowm Home Guy
Reply
My over-riding observation from all Borenstein’s writings is that until last week, I had never read one that he managed to leave
out some form of the verb “to spew.” He must really like the
sound of it coming out of his word processor.
HL
Reply