“I will not be bullied but will make my case for objective reporting with the above data point of Seth Borenstein’s article.” (below)
Seth Borenstein posted on LinkedIn:
Scientists in thousands of peer reviewed studies detail, calculate the public health threats, deaths and illnesses from climate change. President Trump calls it all a scam. A detailed look at what the studies and scientists say about the research. The three experts quoted are both MDs and have extra degrees and are professors of public health.
Borenstein was referring to his piece, “Scientific studies calculate climate change as health danger, while Trump calls it a ‘scam’” (AP: February 12, 2026). Read the article, which blows itself up at the end with his recognition that
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
This led to an exchange with Lisa Friedman, whose bio reads:
Federal policy reporter for the [New York Times] Climate Desk, covering a beat that spans multiple federal agencies, Congress, the White House, State Department and United Nations.
Lisa Friedman: “Such an excellent piece of journalism, Seth, kudos.”
Bradley: “Are you in the tank or a critical observer of climate alarm and forced energy transformation? Be fair, right?”
Friedman: “what a baffling comment. It leads me to conclude that you did not read Seth Borenstein’s excellent piece on which I was commenting, and which, by my reading is certainly an objective look at the existing body of science. If you take issue with the science or the methodology in these papers, then that’s for you to take up with the researchers themselves.
As members of your staff with whom I have a excellent rapport know, I’m always willing to have a serious conversation about energy policy. In the future please know I find that preferable to snarky jabs. [1]
Bradley: “I did read it, and the article was classic alarmism when the author could have just said up front (not the end) that a decrease in cold deaths countered — no overwhelms — the increase in heat deaths. (And the question is begged about natural vs. anthropogenic.)
I wonder too–in the US and particularly abroad–about how climate-related electricity rate increases has reduced the number and usage of air conditioning. And, of course, ‘it is going to get worse’ as if the models’ estimate of warming is correct and adaptation under energy freedom (vs. statism) cannot reduce summer deaths.
Can’t you see through articles like this? I think most LinkedIn members following the issue can. And the general public is tired about one-sided alarmism.
Bradley: “I am glad you are working with IER on energy issues. Our exchange concerns climate science where I have been battling for two-sided fairness since the 1990s in various ways. And remember Climategate when you examine the peer-reviewed science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
—Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.
A future scholar can dissect the oeuvre of Lisa Friedman’s articles for objectivity. But another recent data point is not in her favor. [2]
——————
[1] Note Lisa Friedman’s ‘snarky’ use of incorrect punctuation responding to me. And note the implied threat that our exchange might damage her relationship (offering some two-sided reporting) with IER staff. I will not be bullied but will make my case for objective reporting with the above data point of Seth Borenstein’s article.
[2] In a more recent Times article by Friedman, this was posted (at the end):
A correction was made on Feb. 18, 2026:
An earlier version of this article misstated the Biden administration’s estimates of financial benefits from pollution reduction. It estimated that reductions would save $300 million over 10 years, not $80 billion over five years (that estimate was from the Obama administration). The article also misattributed estimates for the number of heart attacks, asthma attacks and premature deaths that would be prevented. Those projections were also given by the Obama administration.
These are easily correctable misattributions, but what about the underlying science behind the estimates that anchor the cost/benefit analysis? Would it be helpful for readers to understand the real issues and uncertainty involved rather than just state Biden-this or Obama-that?
Maybe the next generation of climate/energy reporters at the New York Times will be more scholarly and nonbiased. The trend toward neutral reporting is happening elsewhere to a growing degree.
————
Appendix: Posts on Biased New York Times Reporting
“Joe Bast vs. NYT Reporting (1999 letter re CO2/Kyoto still relevant)” February 5, 2026
“NYT ‘Big Oil’ Narrative Challenged” (January 26, 2026)
“Climate Policy 2025: Much Good News (January 13, 2026)” (January 13, 2026)
“New York Times on Climate: Now (2025) and Then (1988)” September 4, 2025.
“New York Times: From Bad to Worse (intellectual polarization in the Age of Trump)” (August 21, 2017)
“Are We Free Market Energy Types Just ‘Bought and Paid For’?” (November 7, 2011)
Borenstein has been regurgitating press releases and climate propaganda for at least two decades notwithstanding a near-complete lack of evidence of the “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE.
He’s like one of Pavlov’s dogs— he ain’t gonna stop now. It’s what puts food on his table.