Correction: An earlier version of this article included a quote from Pielke about "egregious errors" in reference to the IPCC's findings on the melting rate of Himalayan glaciers; however, Pielke was referring instead to the IPCC's assertion of a relationship between climate change and rising costs of natural disasters.][UPDATE 3/8: More than 24 hours pass and not even an acknowledgement of my email to the reporter and two editors. Not good.]
I talk to people in the media a lot, and occasionally I am quoted, almost always correctly. ClimateWire has a story today from a reporter who I did not talk to and whose reporting is not so good. Here is the letter I just sent to the ClimateWire journalist:
Your article today contains several major errors in its reporting of the WSJ conference last week.
1. I did not say that the IPCC Himalayan glacier error was "egregious". I used that term to refer to the IPCC inclusion of a graph on disaster costs and climate change.
2. I did not say or imply (nor do I believe) that the glacier error or UEA emails "cast a shadow on the entire body of research showing evidence of anthropogenic climate change." I did say that the institutions of climate science were poorly prepared for dealing with the allegations of error.
3. Chris Field and I are not "frequent sparring partners." We have discussed climate issues together publicly only once before.
I spent the bulk of the time on the panel discussing the IPCC's treatment of the science of disasters and climate change and the institutional maturity of the climate science community. I find it remarkable that you ignored those issues.
That said, I am requesting that you correct the two serious misquotations of my remarks and the mischaracterization of my relationship with Chris Field. If you choose to contest this I am sure that the WSJ tape from the event can set the record straight.