Comments on: Climate Scientist: National Review ‘Misrepresented My Study Just Like CEI Did’

By: Think Progress » Steorts Issues ‘Clarification’ On Misleading Global Warming Article, Makes Another Error

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:09:58 +0000

[...] ThinkProgress has documented several critical errors in the National Review’s June 5 cover story on global warming, “Scare of the Century.” [...]

By: Think Progress » Steorts Dismisses Factual Errors As ‘Irrelevancies,’ Demands Corrections From ThinkProgress

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:26:12 +0000

[...] Jason Steorts, author of the National Review cover story on global warming, dismisses multiple factual errors exposed by ThinkProgress as “irrelevancies.” Apparently, even though Steorts concedes he made numerous mistakes, we need to correct ourselves for pointing them out. Steorts says ThinkProgress has “failed to correct the errors and omissions I have pointed out in its replies to me.” [...]

By: andrew g.

andrew g. — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:09:24 +0000

#52.

To conservatives, junk science is that science that does not contribute to increasing the profitability of a business enterprise.

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:05:41 +0000

global warming can be summed up in two words…..junk science

By: dwpittelli

dwpittelli — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:27:56 +0000

Jason Lee Steorts replies at this URL:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2JiYWI4NzQwZDJlNWJhYTE4ZjM2NTFhZjczNDY4YmE=

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:08:35 +0000

#26 – “….MUST DEVELOP A STRONGER NOISE MACHINE (ABLEIT USING THE TRUTH) WHICH BRANDS THE ELITE REPBULICAN AS A CONTEMPTIBLE, SUBHUMAN….”
Comment by JMOHR

*****This is not a good example of someone who wants to play nicely and get along with others. Allow me to congratulate you – you sound like the intolerant totalitarian of old. As honest (that being the operative word) DemSNOBS will have to admit this Aryan sounds a little like Dr. Mengele and his evil master, Herr Hitler.

By: Think Progress » Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:47:47 +0000

[...] In the June 5 global warming cover story in the print edition of the National Review, scientist Curt Davis said author Jason Steorts completely misrepresented his study to argue that Antartica gained ice between 1992 and 2003. Steorts now maintains he omitted the fact that Davis’ study only covered the eastern interior of the continent â€“ and did not consider the western and costal areas that other studies show are losing mass at a rapid pace — “for the sake of brevity.” [...]

By: Bruce Gorton

Bruce Gorton — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:43:30 +0000

I have just spent a week up at the Kruger Park (Which is to say my eyesight has been sharpened via a week of staring off into the distance trying to make out whether what I was looking at was a bokkie, or a lion hunting a bokkie) and I have to say it has fully recharged my basic belief system here, don’t let the bastards get away with destroying the world.

By: qkslvrwolf

qkslvrwolf — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:28:47 +0000

Hey..can i get some help debunking this? Friend of mine sent me this article by “M.L. KHANDEKAR,1 T.S. MURTY,2 and P. CHITTIBABU” entitled “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science”…I need some help finding or making a debunk. He claims its proof that there is a debate over global warming’s reality.

By: Wadard

Wadard — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:08:00 +0000

I wrote a counter ad to the CEI propaganda :::[They call it a spot, we call it a stain] It is my way of combating their lies so, if you like it, please link it, as quite a few have done already.

By: J Benjamin

J Benjamin — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:30:50 +0000

Right wing press and pundits are addicted to misrepresenting the results of scientific studies.

Willful incompetence like this by unqualified individuals is dangerous. Imagine paying a Physician for a biopsy and your Lawyer deciding on not giving you the results of the biopsy (yes or no) but only pointing out that your temperature came back 98.6 so you must be healthy. Imagine contracting a Mechanic to check wear on your brakes and getting your results from a Used Car Salesman who simply points out that the check engine light is not so of course the car is in 100% mechancial order.

By: FLAVIUS WORFEUS

FLAVIUS WORFEUS — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:48:39 +0000

I’m starting to get one.

By: IraqVet

IraqVet — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:23:18 +0000

CEIâ€™s response to Prof. Davisâ€™ criticism can be found online at

Comment by Richard Morrison

Okay…Lemme get this straight…

They used the scientists data…and the scientists said they misrepresented the data…

Now they say, that they acknowledge that they did not use it the way he meant it to be used, but that they are still correct in what they said…

Does anyone else have a headache???

By: gringo

gringo — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:51:19 +0000

Steorts is like Goldberg: a big fat liar. Same paper same ethics.

By: FLAVIUS WORFEUS

FLAVIUS WORFEUS — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:05:25 +0000

Yea.

Like breathing.

By: DrSinker

DrSinker — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:12:17 +0000

Flavius – a most excellent point.

Even if the vast majority of scientists are wrong (seems very unlikely) about global warming, there are lots of other good reasons to limit C02 emissions.

By: FLAVIUS WORFEUS

FLAVIUS WORFEUS — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:58:48 +0000

What I fail to understand is why would anyone even want to take the chance.

Conservatives are always talking about safety, and protecting us from harm.

What could be more harmful than our Atmosphere disolving and us being burned alive? What could be more destructive or harmful than hurricanes, floods and typhoons?

If the idea is to protect American lives, why not at least take precautions, and work to answer all questions, rather than just continue to dismiss the data of EVERY SCIENTIST NOT UNDER THE PAYROLL OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?

Why dismiss the data of the entire scientific community when soooo much is at stake, at least if your purpose it to “save American lives”?

After all, we had no solid evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but “just to be safe” we spent over 400 billion dollars, sacrificed thousands of Americans lives and limbs, leveled their cities and towns and killed over 100,000 human beings, just to be sure.

By: DrSinker

DrSinker — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:55:40 +0000

34-JJ

Bill Gray’s long since gone off the deep end, unfortunately. Here’s a quote from him from the article you linked to:

The models can’t even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

The problem is that the “weather” is chaotic. Climate models are not trying to predict the weather, they’re trying to predict the climate, something that is far more stable. The fact that Bill says the above tells you quite a bit.

By: FLAVIUS WORFEUS

FLAVIUS WORFEUS — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:48:44 +0000

You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.

Dr. Carl Sagain

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:28:53 +0000

I agree they’re dogmatic. But religiously dogmatic? Maybe they are when an election is at stake (See Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas).

But for the most part they’re market fundamentalists, not christian fundamentalists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism