62 thoughts on “Cracked Journalist Haiku”

  7. Boris, that is a good point!

    As I was writing “Right Wing” I thought “Pitch Fork” on the left wing would be a nice counter.

    The idea behind the cartoon was the irony of someone asking about Judith’s sense of balance when the questions themselves did not appear very balanced, more like left wing/pitch fork/angry mob – more cracked than crack journalism.

    Sorry to hear you were out of beer.

  8. Well, I got it when I realized it was about our good friend Anna. The beer situation is now in control.

  9. I’ve not seen the photo in question, but there is a slight resemblance to the real Anna Haynes, who fancies herself to be an investigative journalist.

    Her self portrait is a bit more impressionist
    http://i.huffpost.com/profiles/123763.png?20081201123234

    She has told me she can’t remember ever taking a class in physics, and from my contacts in the department at Cal, most life science majors take the easy intro Chemistry classes that are not open to physical science majors. She is BA/Ph.D. in genetics but has no publications besides her dissertation and as far as I can tell never worked in her field. However, she has assured me that because she has a Ph.D. from Harvard, she knows how science works and knows how to choose the scientists to believe on climate issues.

  12. She is BA/Ph.D. in genetics but has no publications besides her dissertation and as far as I can tell never worked in her field.

    So can we agree to ignore people with strong opinions on climate science but no peer-reviewed publications in the field? If a Ph.D in genetics doesn’t give you the capacity to parse the science, how about a BA in journalism (Monckton), a graduate degree in English literature (Steven Mosher) or no college degree at all (Watts)?

  13. Why do you think Anthony has no degree? Because he stopped answering Anna’s emails, but she kept asking and then reports that he won’t answer that question when writing the Sourcewatch page?

  14. Does he have a degree? I would be happy to be corrected. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/. Despite telling us what kind of car he drives, what other businesses he is a partner in, his precise degree and type of hearing loss, and how he lost his hearing in the first place, Watts tells us nothing about a college degree. There’s nothing on his wikipedia page either.

  15. Robert– I don’t know; I’ve never asked. I’ve never asked you, SteveMc, Roger Pielke, either. I better go read my about page. I never bother much about it.

  16. Robert– I don’t know; I’ve never asked. I’ve never asked you, SteveMc, Roger Pielke, either. I better go read my about page. I never bother much about it.

    Exactly. Let’s be consistent, and not suddenly decide that a mere Ph.D in genetics disqualifies one from serious consideration.

    On the subject of Mr. Watt’s education, another blogger (not Dr. Haynes) spoke to Watt’s secretary, who declined to state his academic credentials, if any. He also appears to lack two professional credentials (Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists) which require an undergraduate degree (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Credentials_not_held).

    It’s impossible to prove a negative, but I’d say the circumstantial evidence that Watt’s is degree-less is considerable, whatever importance or lack thereof one attaches to that.

  17. Robert

    Let’s be consistent, and not suddenly decide that a mere Ph.D in genetics disqualifies one from serious consideration.

    Well… I haven’t. 🙂 But fair enough.

    who declined to state his academic credentials, if any.

    Actually, I suspect if you called a national lab and asked someone who knew the rules they would decline to tell you an employees academic credentials. I think that’s on the list of stuff they aren’t supposed to tell!

    Uhmm… I’m not really taking sourcewatch as evidence. Seriously.

  18. Sourcewatch links to the lists of members the organizations themselves maintain. Like any wiki, Sourcewatch is a handy reference point and roadmap to the evidence, not evidence itself.

  20. > Sourcewatch is a handy reference point and roadmap to the evidence

    Even if true, evidence of what?

    Rational people prefer to evaluate each individual argument or position on its own merits, rather than examining the proponents of the argument for possible guilt-by-assocation.

    Especially when the alleged associations are nearly always vague, distant, or even non-existent (X made such-and-such an argument, but so did Y, and we all know Y is an evil member of group Z).

    The only way that sourcewatch makes sense is if you believe the world is largely driven by hidden hands, and people don’t take positions contrary to sourcewatch’s unless motivated by corruption paid for by these hidden hands (never because they genuinely believe it), and that they always do so as part of a hidden network with unified goals (because even if connections are non-existent, 2 people taking similar positions is regarded as evidence of a hidden connection).

    Put simply, I believe that sourcewatch is based on same pathology that underlies Haynes’ email questions as well as some of her blog posts. The only real difference that I see is sourcewatch is written on a larger canvas and more professionally presented.

    P.S.
    When I first starting look at online sources on climate, perhaps a couple of years ago, sourcewatch (and climateprogress) were 2 of the earlier sites I encountered. I found them so over the top and aggressive that for several days I genuinely question whether they might be parodies or disinformation/trolling put out by skeptics!

  21. lucia (Comment#58669) November 4th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    bugs– Draw one and send it to me.

    Josh can show us how balanced he is.

  22. The person who oversees sourcewatch says they aren’t required to be balanced. Josh is also not required to be balanced.

  23. Robert,
    The fallacy in dredging up this PhD qualification argument is that it implies things that just ain’t so, and distracts from things are.
    I do not care what Anna’s education is. The Unibomber was well educated. The problem is the craziness, not the education.
    Of course a PhD implies certain analytical abilities. So when PhD’s look at AGW and conclude it is over hyped and fraught with ethical issues, like Freeman Dyson has done, and that same Dr. Dyson has demonstrated a life’s work of valid good work, I tend to listen.
    When Anna does a creepy Edward Gorey thing in her nowheresville way, it is clear she is someone to be watched carefully- as a precaution.
    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_arts_letter/2010/08/edward-gorey-exhibit-at-orlando-museum-of-art-opens-friday.html

  25. lucia (Comment#58806) November 5th, 2010 at 6:05 am

    The person who oversees sourcewatch says they aren’t required to be balanced. Josh is also not required to be balanced.

    According to Josh, Anna is required to be balanced, that’s the point of his cartoon, he is pointing out that she isn’t.

  26. bugs–
    The cartoon doesn’t say she’s required to be balanced. It’s merging the words she wrote in an email to Judy and the title I wrote about her to create a caricature of Anna. In that email, Anna said she had been losing her balance.

  29. a PhD in genetics from Harvard and she is a crack journalist? Sounds like either an identity theft issue or there is a problem with her meds… or a crack problem

  31. Anna always bangs on about her concern for the children. And by children we are talking about the generic, Whitney Houston type of “children of the future”.

    I wonder how deep her concern is for the specific, like when she threatened to accost Russ Steele’s grandkids, to enlist them in her crusade against him.

    So does Anna Haynes have grandchildren? How well are her relatives faring under the Climatocracy of California? Did their parents move them as far away from here as possible?
    I hope so, because one thing is constant in my neighborhood, which is not fancy, special, or out of the ordinary for CA. People with children can’t afford to live here.

    I bet if you find the particulars Anna’s kids are suffering under the political environment that Anna is advocating, just like the rest of the “generic” kids she supposedly cares about.

  37. Anna–
    I consider your reasons to be silly, and suspect the reason you wish those reasons not be discussed is that you do not wish people to laugh at your reasons. I am not planning to write a blog post sharing your reasons.

    However, contacting me privately doesn’t put your emails under the mask of attorney-client or doctor-patient confidentiality. The contact form is merely a way to send email to my private (i.e. personal) address.

    In this instance, because you included two requests, one for me and one for steve mosher, I forwarded your email to him. That was a low effort way to provide him your email along with an explanation of the topic you wished to discuss with him.

    While I understood you did not intend your email to appear on the blog, I had no reason to believe that the information in the email you sent me was somehow top secret, or classified. So, I did not edit the email you sent me to tease out the request to him from that to me.

  38. nov 16th.

    Lucia: >>>> I am not forwarding you steve Mosher’s email,
    >> because I do
    >>>> not share other people’s
    >> emails. I will
    >>>> forward this email to him if you wish me to
    >> do so.
    >>>> This will give him the option of contacting you if
    >> he wishes
    >>>> to do so.

    Anna: Nov 16th 2 hours later

    >> On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Anna Haynes wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hello Lucia – yes, please do forward my email to
    >> Steven Mosher and ask him to get in touch with me
    >> privately.

    1. You asked Lucia for my email.
    2. she said no, but would forward your mail.
    3. you asked to have your mail forwarded.

    Anna, You have questions for me ask them in public and I will answer them in public. Given your history that’s the way it will have to be. BTW if you want to meet for coffee, I’ll gladly meet you at Ellis and Hyde.

  39. BTW if you want to meet for coffee, I’ll gladly meet you at Ellis and Hyde.

    It is a date! Who knows where it may end?

  43. Nick–
    Lots of people contact me requesting email addresses of people who post here. Not just Anna. I tell them I can contact the blog commenter and ask if the email address can be shared. In this case, Anna told me to forward the full email she sent me– which included her request to SteveM.

    But now, in comment, she wants to say the contents were private. Well…

    (I need to go ether this post to keep it from auto-closing again!)

  44. Ya, Nick.

    It’s very clear. Anna asked for my email address. Lucia said no, and offered to forward THE MAIL.

    Anna requested her to FORWARD the MAIL.

    Lucia complied with the request. Now Anna wants to claim that the mail was private. Sorry, Anna loses this one. you wanna know what the rest of her mail to Lucia said?

    Sorry, I’m not going to share that. I’ll share enough for folks to dtermine that

    1. Anna asked for my email.
    2. Lucia said no and offered to forward the mail.
    3. Anna agreed unconditionally,

    If Anna disagrees with this, she is welcomed to come her and discuss it.

    But saying one thing in email, and then suggesting in public that Lucia is doing something wrong, is grounds for debunking.

  46. FWIW: Anna Haynes emailed me yesterday to verify I had forwarded the email to SteveM. The time stamp was 4.03 pm my time, which suggest that she emailed after I posted my comment 1:44pm comment saying I had emailed SteveMosher. But, of course, I don’t know that she was reading comments here.

    I assured her that I had, indeed, forwarded her email to Steve Mosher as she had requested. Since I don’t want any possible future misunderstanding about the degree of privacy in a particular email, and it seems I may be misunderstanding Anna’s intentions about forwarding or not forwarding email, I would prefer all communications between Anna and me be done in comments, not by private email.

    I’m over-riding my auto-close comments option on this post to permit Anna to discuss any concerns about the cartoon or whether or not I forwarded her email here in comments.

  48. Ya, Lunch with Zeke was Fun.

    I think Anna is prolly scared to go into the TL, belly of the beast. I would suggest farmer browns? Also, there is a great sushi place on Taylor, just up the hill from the hood.. taylor and sutter.

  49. Steven– I think you’ve now got me scared off of the belly of the beast. If you come to Chicago, I’ll suggest the neighborhood. We can have Pupusas.

  50. FYI to all, when you see the text “Comments Closed: If you would like them re-opened, Contact Lucia”, do not draw the conclusion – as I did, mistakenly – that Lucia *will* open the comments again at your request, even on a post *about* you. (For her Nov 1 post on me, where Mr. Mosher had some fun making dark insinuations in the last comment, she refused.)
    Further comments over here (link) at what I’m amazed to hear myself referring to as a “more reputable blog”.

  52. Anna– People can contact me to request that comments be open. I do not guarantee I will open them for every person who contacts me.

    I’ve read and re-read the Nov. 1 thread after your request. I see no “dark insinuations” made by Steve Mosher on the Nov. 1 post, and you have never pointed out which comments are supposedly “dark and insinuations”. If you wish to discuss those, you can do so on this thread, which I have kept open. I don’t wish to keep two threads open.

    As far as I am aware, no comments are disappearing on the Nov. 1 thread today or on any day. If you believe they have, let me know and I’ll try to figure out what could possibly cause such a thing because I have not deleted any comments on that thread.

  53. FWIW– Moshers comments on http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/tough-questions-from-source-watchs-crack-journalist/ are:

    steven mosher (Comment#58015) Clearly not insinuating anything about Anna.
    steven mosher (Comment#58071) Clearly not insinuating anything about Anna.
    steven mosher (Comment#58302) Clearly not insinuating anything about Anna.
    steven mosher (Comment#58304)Clearly not insinuating anything about Anna.
    steven mosher (Comment#58502) Mocks Anna, not “dark insinuation”.
    steven mosher (Comment#58765)Clearly not insinuating anything about Anna.
    steven mosher (Comment#58768) Discussess Anna’s uninvited visit to Watts office directly. No insinuation.

    There are no “dark insinuations” made by Mosher on that post. I’m not going to open two threads just because you want two threads to be opened. This thread has recent comments– the other thread’s comments block had died a natural death. I deem this one sufficient.

  54. I got a chuckle out of this at the blog linked by Anna:

    Anna Haynes said…

    p.s., re Josh’s cartoon – I love it.
    (wasn’t expecting to; thank you Josh)
    Reply November 04, 2010 at 04:52 PM

  55. Yes, Lucia; what’s unfortunate, is that a subsequent comment I made there, pointing out that I had 2nd thoughts and had asked that the cartoon be taken down, is one of the comments that keeps disappearing.

  56. Anna Haynes (Comment#61396)

    Yes, Lucia; what’s unfortunate, is that a subsequent comment I made there, pointing out that I had 2nd thoughts and had asked that the cartoon be taken down, is one of the comments that keeps disappearing.

    Do you mean this one:

    Anna Haynes (Comment#60701) November 17th, 2010 at 9:48 am
    Yesterday I asked Lucia (and earlier, Josh) to take this cartoon down.

    It hasn’t disappeared.
    Nor has my answer which begins

    lucia (Comment#60737) November 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm Edit This

    Anna–
    I consider your reasons to be silly, and suspect the reason you wish those reasons not be discussed is that you do not wish people to laugh at your reasons. I am not planning to write a blog post sharing your reasons.

  57. Apologies Lucia, it seems I haven’t been making myself clear. The comments that I’ve posted that have been disappearing were made over at the blog that I provided a URL to above, describing it as a “more reputable blog”.
    Perhaps it’s not.

    For the record, here were 2 of the 3 comments I left at that blog Friday, that subsequently disappeared (as have further comments reprinting them & asking about them):

    1. (and for the record, I had 2nd thoughts and asked Josh and Lucia several days ago to take the cartoon down)
    November 19, 2010 at 10:54 AM

    2. (this is odd – I thought I’d left a later comment here asking if “Martin” was Martin Light of CABPRO, & saying to Russ that I assumed that if I’d misidentified this “Martin”, that Russ would speak up.)
    November 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM

  58. I just checked with Russ, and it’s not a bug, he is deleting my comments (including my comments asking if my comments are being deleted…)
    So Lucia, I take it back, Rank Exploits *is* the more reputable of the two blogs.
    :-}

  59. Anna–
    Ok. I thought you meant comments were disappearing here. I rarely delete comments. That said, I can understand why someone would delete your comments asking if person “X” is related to person “Y”. Those questions are generally wildly off topic. BTW: In my opinion, they make you sound like a conspiracy theorist– in a bad way. So, if Russ took it down, in my opinion he is doing you a favor. (I get that you might not see it this way, but that’s my opinion.)

  60. I know Anna Haynes as a person dedicated to do what she can to help change our reliance on carbon-producing energy sources. Anna’s scholarly knowledge of the complex scientific processes operating within and beyond this planet forms the basis of her desire to help people understand the immediate need for changing our patterns of living. She lives with integrity and a genuine concern about losing the opportunity to make the world a better place for the generations to come.

  61. Lucia, you and I don’t seem to communicate effectively; and I don’t have time to keep clarifying what I meant, sorry.

  62. Anna–
    I thought what you meant is that your of the comments removed by Russ included text that said:

    2. (this is odd – I thought I’d left a later comment here asking if “Martin” was Martin Light of CABPRO, & saying to Russ that I assumed that if I’d misidentified this “Martin”, that Russ would speak up.)
    November 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    If that was one of the comments he took down, then I think he was doing you a favor.

Comments are closed.