Thank you for your email. Unless I’ve completely misunderstood you’re directing me to this page?
If that’s the case then it doesn’t actually answer my repeated question, which included the word “amicably”. See below.
I’d be most grateful if you could confirm that my interpretation of your email is correct. In any event I shall give IPSO a call on Monday to see what they suggest.
I think I’ll head to the newsagents first thing tomorrow morning, to make sure I grab a copy of the MoS before it sells out. What “Shock News” might be next I wonder?
“New NOAA Whistleblower says Ice Age Imminent!”
Please feel free to plagiarise that one if you so desire.
4 thoughts on “An Open Letter to the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday”
It seems Snow White’s Alternative Facts detection subsystem is still working perfectly! My latest missive to The Mail’s Managing Editor:
No joke an ice age IS imminent. Runaway global warming leading to massive, sudden sea level rise will be the switch for the greatest volcanic cataclysm in billions of years. The following greatest, deepest, darkest glacial event in earths history will wipe the slate clean and its just what humanity needs. Shame about the loss of biodiversity though. I have no evidence. Not a shred of empirical data. Just a hunch and not much hope. Prove me wrong.
p.s. love ya work.
Before we get on to the dozens of other factual errors in David Rose’s three Mail on Sunday “NOAAGate” articles thus far perhaps we can concentrate on what from much past experience is likely to be a major bone of contention between us?
To reiterate, I first emailed you regarding the first article at 00:48 on February 5th. I spoke to Stephanie Condron later that day who assured me that in your absence David Rose would call me back to discuss my complaints. He never did. Subsequently a so called “correction” to the first article was published in the second article. See the attachment.
Mr. Rose admits there was an error in the “graph showing the difference between NOAA’s sea data records and the UK Met Office’s” he refers to. Now as I’m sure you and Mr. Rose are aware “a picture is worth a thousand words”. The so called “correction” certainly wasn’t discussed or agreed with me in advance. The only way of correcting the “significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion” conveyed by that graph is to prominently publish an accurate graph both online and in print in the Mail on Sunday, together with a fulsome apology for so egregiously misleading the MoS’s loyal readership.
Can we start from there?
Good morning John,
I have yet to receive a substantive reply from you to my emails of February 24th regarding the “graph showing the difference between NOAA’s sea data records and the UK Met Office’s”. Have you forgotten about me?
Here’s another egregious inaccuracy in one of David Rose’s recent series of articles that requires an apology and prominent correction in print. In his February 19th article Mr. Rose stated that:
“Since record highs caused last year by an ‘el Nino’ sea-warming event in the Pacific, HadCRUT 4 has fallen by more than half a degree Celsius, and its value for the world average temperature in January 2017 was about the same as January 1998.”
The “HadCRUT 4 world average temperature” for January 2017 has only just been published by the Met Office. It is not “about the same as January 1998”: