Beam me to Planet Gore !
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.
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.
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."
Global Warming on the rocks....ping
bump to the top
Fair or unfair - when I hear the New York Times talk about global warming, I hear them saying, "we're the biggest fools on the block"...
Unbelievable. They compare a summer month with twelve month averages THAT INCLUDE THE WINTER MONTHS and find....there is less ice.
Breathtaking.