Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 08/19/2009 9:18:33 AM PDT by ClimateDepot.com
Navy Chemist Trashes New York Times for 'Continuously regurgitating fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap of global warming propagandists'
'Your coverage of the climate issues is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy'
Guest Essay By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry. Hertzberg is featured on page 174 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Global Warming.
Dr. Hertzberg's August 19, 2009 Letter To The New York Times is Reprinted Below:
Distortions and misrepresentations of your coverage of global warming/climate change
I am a scientist who has studies the theory of human caused global warming for over 20 years, and it is both saddening and offensive to me as a scientist to see the Times continuously regurgitating the fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap it is being fed by know-nothing environmentalists and global warming propagandists in the Gore-IPCC-Hansen camp. As an example, consider the latest article in today's Times by Cornelia Dean and her regurgitation from NOAA's Climate Change Center:
"The agency also said that, on average, Arctic sea ice covered 3.4 million square miles in July, 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average and the third lowest on record after 2007 and 2006".
That description is a distortion and a complete misrepresentation of the actual data. For your benefit, I have attached the comprehensive, latest data record from Ole Humlum's web site under the heading of "Climate4you June 2009." From the data on page 11 of that site, one obtains the following record for ice coverage for the months of July from 2002 until 2009 (after converting square kilometers to square miles):
July of the year shown below Arctic Ice Coverage - Million square miles: 2002 3.3 2003 3.2 2004 3.5 2005 3.3 2006 3.4 2007 3.3 2008 3.2 2009 3.4
As the above table shows and as the graph from the "Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency" on p11 shows, there is nothing dramatic in the data.
NOAA's statement which claims a July 2009 ice coverage that is "12.7 percent below the 1979-2007 average" is the fraudulent comparison of a summer month ice coverage with a yearly average. All summer ice coverages for every year are markedly below their yearly average. The data show a 4 % decline in the yearly average Arctic ice cover from 2002 to 2007, and a 3 % increase in Arctic ice cover from 2007 to today.
If you look at the data shown for average atmospheric temperature shown earlier in the collection of data, it shows a significant decrease during the last decade or so. Data for sea level rise shown for the last 20 years or so, show a rate of rise that is about the same as it has been for the last 13,000 years, from when the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia began to flood as we transitioned from the last "Ice Age" to the current Interglacial Warming.
Your coverage of the issue of Global Warming / Climate change is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy.
It reminds me of the way your reporters such as Judith Miller simply regurgitated the Bush Administration's fear mongering clap trap about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You helped enable the Bush Administration in its disastrous invasion of Iraq without bothering to independently investigate the facts. You are now enabling the Gore-IPCC-Hansen fear mongers in the same way. The Waxman-Markey legislation for a "cap and trade" program, based on fraudulent science, has the potential to be as damaging to the Nation's economy as the Iraq war was to both our economy and our international reputation.
Is it too much to ask for the Times to diligently research the facts before simply regurgitating the propaganda it is fed?
The most egregious recent example on this issue is the article you published a few days ago on "Climate Change as a National Security". Not only was it based on the false premise that human activity is causing climate change, but you added insult to injury by publishing only those letters to the editor that commented favorably on that absurdity.
Attached is a series of web sites of "global warming skeptic/realists" like myself. The Oregon Petition has been signed by over 30,000 scientists like myself. Also attached is a talk of mine entitled "The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide" and a recent paper that appeared in Energy and Environment.
The latter can be simply summarized by paraphrasing the former President Clinton: "It's the clouds, stupid!". The so-called "greenhouse effect" was shown to be devoid of physical reality as early as 1909. If you or your science editor, or Friedman, or anyone else on your staff is really interested in the truth, I would be glad to provide you with the appropriate publications and proofs.
You, the House of Representatives, the President's Science Adviser, and his Secretary of Energy have been duped by the "Fraud of the Century"! I can only hope that any proposed legislation on this issue will die its well-deserved death in the Senate. But if it does, it will be for the wrong reason: not because of its phony science but because of its damaging economic impacts. The only sensible thing you have done recently was to publish the article in the Magazine section about Prof. Freeman Dyson's skepticism on the subject. But his skepticism was based on generalizations and his scientific intuition. There are abundant facts and scientific data that conclusively prove that the theory of human caused global warming is completely false. My attachments contain but the "tip of the iceberg" for those proofs.
I can only hope that my effort in composing this e-mail will not have been a complete waste of my time.
Sincerely,
Dr. Martin Hertzberg Copper Mountain, CO 80443
Sorry, but there's a third option not listed: Willful distortions.
Love this! Thanks for posting it.
Truth means nothing to the left.
Did NYT publish it?
Thanks for trying.
Wow-—that’s gonna leave a mark.
Remember, in what passes for minds among the Left, facts bow down before funding.
It doesn’t appear to be in today’s paper. At least not in the version of the NYT published in Texas.
This guy was doing OK on climate stuff until he decided to include his uninformed opinion about the Iraq war:
“It reminds me of the way your reporters such as Judith Miller simply regurgitated the Bush Administration’s fear mongering clap trap about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
Clown hasn’t read Gen Georges Sada book about the Russians removing the Russian WMD’s as the war started. And we let them leave for Syria and Lebanon. We saw the truck convoy with satellites and ground troops.
Clown hasn’t read the account in the NY Times expressing concern about the Bush administration’s ability to properly dispose of the yellowcake uncovered in Iraq.
Clown also can’t connect the attempted overthrow of Jordan with two truckloads of chemical weapons from Syria.
Guess that stuff didn’t happen, selective memory is a disease. This guy has it.
And BTW I signed the Oregon Petition Project back around 2002, I was in around 15K signatures.
I have no respect for CLOWNS who fail to know all the facts and pretend they are “experts”.
could have skipped the Bush bashing. I didn’t care to read further.
The letter did not appear in NYT, that is why he gave Climate Depot permission to print it. As for Bush bashing, it just shows that there are many “progressive” or liberal skeptical scientists out there.
I’ve only got a Master’s, the clowns with PhD’s were the clowns who couldn’t get a job. I got my Master’s and let my employer pay for it.
This CLOWN needs an anal exam, I’m betting you find a died in tbe wool socialist.
Note he’s touting his own website. Posted some truth and then comes in without any facts.
This CLOWN has only been around since May and seems to be a Hit and Run loser. Mixed messages, aka disinformation, inconsistent, unrealiable = AKA LIBTARD!
I sure hope so.
Because what you posted from Dr. Hertzberg is so easily refuted, so demonstrably wrong, that I wonder if the NY Times actually did publish the letter to show how someone with such credentials and such blusteriness can be so, so, so, wrong.
Easily refuted, like this:
Arctic sea ice extent tracking below 2008
"On July 21, Arctic sea ice extent was 8.28 million square kilometers (3.20 million square miles). This is 617,000 square kilometers (238,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007 and 1.36 million square kilometers (523,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. Ice extent on July 21, 2009 remained 8.06% higher than the same day in 2007, yet was 2.44% below the same day in 2008 and 14.06% below the 1979-2000 average for that day."
The similarity of the 12.7% percent negative anomaly quoted for the month of July 2009 and the 14.06% negative anomaly cited for the day of July 21, 2009 demonstrates that the comparison was not to a yearly average, as Dr. Hertzberg contends.
I think I shall quote Dr. Hertzberg back to you, FReeper ClimateDepot.com: "Your coverage of the issue of Global Warming / Climate change is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy."
Actually, if you are running ClimateDepot.com, I think more accurately you just grab anything that seems to attack the scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming without filtering for quality. Hey, why should you change your modus operandi now?
Well, I doubt I shall correspond much with you here... but should we meet again... adieu, 'til next time.
Looks like Dr. Hertzberg's letter has changed a bit on your site. Too bad we can read the original claptrap here, eh?
Here's what it says now, on ClimateDepot:
"NOAA's statement which a July 2009 ice coverage that is "12.7 percent below the 1979-2007 average." [Note: Dr. Hertzberg has amended his comments regarding "yearly" vs. "monthly" NOAA Arctic ice data.]"
I wonder if I had anything to do with that, or if some of your other astute readers emailed you. Well, anyway, the demonstration is nonetheless sound. Your aggregator has no quality filter.
Demonstrable lack of quality, part 2: the post from "theblogprof", a mechanical engineering professor at Oakland University, about methane hydrates.
Earth blows big fart, global warming alarmists run for cover!
(I could try to acquaint him with the Suess effect, but I doubt he's understand that it's about Hans Suess, not Dr. Suess.)
Contrast with: Methane hydrate stability and anthropogenic climate change
Section 2.3.1 and Figure 4. Why not tell the "blogprof" about it? But he's not a physical chemist familiar with thermodynamics, is he?
Keep 'em coming, FReeper ClimateDepot.com. The more junk posted on that site, the more demonstrable scientific incompetency, so easily refutable and so easily dismissed, the more you discredit yourself.
I guess I will be watching for your next post here, to see what other falsities and drivel you feel are worth foisting upon the good and upstanding citizens of FreeRepublic. But you wouldn't be in the business of misleading us, would you? Certainly no one with integrity would do that to honest American citizens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2284144/posts?page=27#27
"I worked at Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and that is merely a glitch in his testimony."
Just so you know; I dissected hapless Happer's testimony right here on FR. I did entertain some dissenting views in Happer's defense in subsequent discussion, by one of the rare FReepers who actually has a decent understanding of the issue, but nonetheless it was still fairly obvious that Happer is yet another example of someone borrowing arguments and demonstrating little grasp of the actual science, and acting like an expert in an area far out of his expertise. (Like many others of the 700+ you tout so widely.)
I see you've posted this now:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/confirmed-orbital-cycles-control-ice-ages
The IPCC has never been wrong on this issue, FReeper ClimateDepot.com.
What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?
"Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for."
Yet another example of the demonstrable incompetency of your climate news aggregator.
There may be some science involved in comparing the results of Drysdale et al. to those of Clark et al., but any such discussion would be way over your head, wouldn't it?
What will be your next example of demonstrable incompetency?
Dr. Hertzberg is exposing his own naivete here. OF COURSE the New York Times understands that "global warming" is a con job, just as the UN does. "Global warming" has nothing to do with global warming - - it's all about global socialism. The New York Times is neither negligent, nor illiterate - - it is simply pushing the political agenda of the political party it represents.
Here is what James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, explained back in December, 2007:
"It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."
Unfortunately for that argument, in no way whatsoever has the science reversed on the “alarmist” crowd. That’s pablum and snake oil that FReeper ClimateDepot.com and the Heartland Institute want you and other like-minded conservatives to believe. They are misleading all of us on the actual state of the science to serve their own political ends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.