Progressive Progress: Daily newspaper refuses correction of wayward reporter

The Daily Progress protects its writers, even when they pilfer and even when they slant.

When the DP recently ran a Brian McNeill-authored story that contained critical and potentially misleading omissions, the newspaper’s editorial department declined to run a letter-to-the-editor (LTE) setting the writer (and the record) straight. According to the paper’s internal policy, such responses cannot be published and instead are referred to the news department.

While it is unknown how—or if—the news department will process this information, in order to provide a permanent record of correction to McNeill’s errant reporting, the Schilling Show will publish what the Progress would not: Dr. Charles Battig’s rejected LTE.

5/3/2010

Brian McNeil’s article  (Attorney general demands papers on climate data from UVa—Daily Progress April 30, 2010) regarding the actions of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in the case of former UVA climatology professor M. Mann contains two misleading misstatements.

The claim that “an investigation by Penn State into the allegations cleared Mann of wrongdoing in February” is incomplete and inaccurate.   Penn State RA-10 Inquiry report, February 3, 2010, is posted on line.  Perhaps reporter McNeil had not read this original report or perhaps he chose to not report the full findings. DP readers deserve better.

Page 9 of the report contains “Decision 4” including the bold-type statement: “In sum the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists.”  Note that this is a new committee of scientists, not of university administrators.  The five named faculty members are charged to consider whether Dr. Mann engaged in any practices which seriously deviated from accepted university practices.  They were given 120 days to respond.  Dr. Mann is still under investigation.

McNeil’s article contains the opinions of the environmental activist Virginia Sierra Club, but no counter views in his one-sided reportage.  The claim that “two independent investigative inquiries have cleared the British researchers at East Anglia (U.K.) is also suspect once the nature of those investigations is a little bit more looked into.  The appointed head of one such committee, Lord Oxburgh, is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables.  Claims of conflict-of-interest surfaced in the British press, much the same way physicians whose research is funded by private pharmaceutical firms  are often assailed by activists here in the U.S.  The jury is still out on the actions of the British climate group as a third panel headed by Sir Muir Russell has yet to complete its investigation.

Virginia taxpayers will be on the hook for much more than $250,000 if faulty climate science is used to justify the onerous taxes of cap and trade.