Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Letter of the Day | Teaching Evolution Causes Scho... »

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Reichert vs. the Seattle Times, the Seattle P-I, and Global Warming

posted by on October 3 at 12:33 PM

Last week Jonathan Martin of the Seattle Times landed a rather eye-opening scoop about the environmental views of eastside Republican Congressman Dave Reichert: The congressman, Martin reported, isn’t convinced that global warming exists.

It was a shocking report given that Reichert claims to be a moderate and an environmentalist. As I noted here on the Slog after Martin’s story was published, Reichert’s reluctance to believe in global warming puts him to the right of President Bush, who at least admits global warming is real (even if Bush still claims to be unsure as to why global warming is occuring).

One thing Reichert doesn’t want this election year is to be caught taking a position to the right of a president who has a 71-percent disapproval rating in Reichert’s moderate eastside district. And so, with the Times and P-I both noting Reichert’s right-of-Bush global warming position in recent days, Reichert now appears to be doing damage control by blaming the media for supposedly misrepresenting his views.

In a press release posted on his web site yesterday, Reichert’s office said:

Media reports… have not portrayed Rep. Dave Reichert’s (WA-08) position on global warming accurately.

Oh, really? First, let’s listen to Reichert’s new position, which his office is now claiming has always been his position:

I do not question the reality of global warming. The question I have and am investigating is whether global warming is caused by man’s activity or if global warming is one of the natural temperature fluctuations we’ve seen over the course of the earth’s history. And the follow-up question for me is, what can we do about it?

Now, here’s what the Seattle Times reported on Sept. 27:

Last week, Reichert, of Auburn, said he remained unsure about climate change or what role humans might play.

“The problem is, you have some scientists who say it’s happening, and some who say it’s not happening. The problem is the Sierra Club says that every scientist says it is,” said Reichert, a member of the House Science Committee.

I’m going to wait until all the facts are in. There were many scientists who used to say the world was flat.

Reichert was very clearly comparing scientists who say global warming is happening to people who once thought the earth was flat. And if that’s not clear enough, here’s another excerpt from the Times article:

Reichert said global warming is a “possibility” but views the science with the same sense of skepticism he held as a homicide detective for the King County Sheriff’s Office.

“I will be convinced when I’m convinced,” he said. “As an investigator, I’ve not been conclusively convinced.”

Reichert apparently feels the above excerpts misrepresent his views. But did Reichert ask Jonathan Martin for a correction? “No,” Martin told me this morning. Martin continued:

The story I wrote is accurate, and Reichert’s office has said as much.

Here’s an email Martin sent this morning to Reichert’s spokeswoman, Kimberly Cadena, registering his concern about the Congressman’s press release:

From: Jonathan Martin

To: Cadena, Kimberly

Sent: Tue Oct 03 13:34:47 2006

Subject: RE: NEWS*Reichert Clarifies Position on Global Warming


Kimberly - I hope you aren’t counting my piece as journalism that did not accurately report Dave’s view on global warming. Because that’s the impression this leaves…

To which Cadena replied:

From: Cadena, Kimberly

Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:38 AM

To: Jonathan Martin

Subject: Re: NEWS*Reichert Clarifies Position on Global Warming


Nope, doesn’t reference your piece at all. I think it would be bad form to point out which of your peers (in journalism, not at the Times) it does reference, so I won’t. :-)

Bad form, huh. Well, it’s not hard to figure out which of Martin’s “peers” Cadena is referring to here. In this morning’s P-I, there’s a correction to Chris McGann’s story on Reichert’s surprising global warming views. (The correction doesn’t appear to be online yet, but when it is I’ll post a link.)

The bizarre thing about all of this is that McGann’s P-I story was very clearly an attempt to catch up with Martin’s Times story from five days earlier. It reported essentially the same thing as the Times did: That Reichert has said he doubts the existence of global warming.

So here’s a question for Reichert: Why did he ask for a correction from the P-I, but not from the Times?

And here’s a question for the P-I: Why in the world did it give Reichert the correction?

The P-I’s (convoluted) correction allows Reichert to now claim something that is demonstrably false: That the media has misrepresented his views on global warming.

In fact, based on the email sent today from Reichert’s office to the Seattle Times, a story reporting that Reichert doubts the reality of global warming is not a story in need of correction.

RSS icon Comments

1

I think using the phrase "I have and am investigating" is even worse than being stupid on global warming. The guy's a boob.

Posted by Fnarf | October 3, 2006 1:35 PM
2

I think Darryl's piece on this at Hominid Views says it very well: http://hominidviews.com/?p=552

Posted by Daniel K | October 3, 2006 2:45 PM
3

Funny, I always call people who doubt global warming "flat earthers". They're the ones desparately clutching to an outdated way of viewing the world, vs. those who push the boundaries of knowledge.

Posted by him | October 3, 2006 2:47 PM
4

If you doubt global warming, you probably doubt the Big Bang theory too.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2006 3:56 PM
5

/* Reichert was very clearly comparing scientists who say global warming is happening to people who once thought the earth was flat */

No, he's trying to dilute the title of "Scientists" by saying they used to think the world was flat. Obviously, there were "Scientists" who did not agree, obtained data by natural means and methods, and supported what we later proved to be very true.

Using his line of thinking, however, supports the SCIENTISTS who are bucking the "flat earth, status quo, church line" that everything is hunky dory. The massive MAJORITY of scientists whose expertise is in the specific area of global weather and temperature are standing up to the "used to" belief that humans have no impact on the earth's weather system.

At what point will he have "All the facts" ? What is the final "fact" he requires before he can suck it up and make a decision?

Posted by Durin | October 3, 2006 4:18 PM
6

No scientist ever believed the world is flat. Not in 1492, not in 1492 BC. The roundness of the earth was a very obvious and well-known phenomenon to the ancient Greeks, who were probably the first "scientists". Anyone who's ever seen a ship sail into the horizon can confirm it; the boat disappears before the mast.

Posted by Fnarf | October 3, 2006 4:28 PM
7

Please eat organic sustainable food, and if you have to fly choose and airline that uses biodiesel fuel. If we all do what we can we can prevent global warming.

Posted by Kimberly | October 3, 2006 4:57 PM
8

Kimberly, get your "globes" over here and starting doin' some "warmin'"!

And where the Hell did you put my copy of "Jiggly Jugs"?

Posted by Kimberly's BF | October 3, 2006 10:23 PM
9

This is funny because we all know of at least one journalist who still believes the world is flat! And he also believed we should go into Iraq!

So funny! Anybody wanna guess his name? (hint: initials are TF)

Posted by skagit | October 5, 2006 8:49 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).