Steorts Dismisses Factual Errors As ‘Irrelevancies,’ Demands Corrections From ThinkProgress
Steorts Dismisses Factual Errors As ‘Irrelevancies,’ Demands Corrections From ThinkProgress
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.”
Steorts identifies four. At ThinkProgress, we take accuracy seriously. Let’s take Steorts claims in order:
1. The “assertion that I wrote that when you factor coastal ice loss into Davis’s study, it still shows that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.”
Steorts did assert that when you factor in coastal loss Antarctica is still growing. Here’s the quote “Since this unstudied area lies in the ice sheet’s interior, it almost certainly gained ice over the course of the study, and would accordingly have offset the (also unmeasured) coastal loss.”
2. The “claim that my discussion of Ola Johannessen’s study of ice buildup in interior Greenland failed to acknowledge coastal loss.”
We never claimed Steorts failed to acknowledge costal losses in Greenland. In fact we quoted Steorts saying “Various studies show that warmer temperatures are causing the ice sheet [in Greenland] to lose mass at the margins.”
3. The “claim that my discussion of Greenland’s temperature history is contradicted by average global temperature records.”
Greenland’s temperature history is contradicted by average global temperature records. Steorts claims a forthcoming study in Geophysical Research Letters found it was warm in Greenland in the early 20th century. If true, that’s more relevant than the global average.
4. The “implication that I’d denied that human activity causes warming, when what I’d said was that there is disagreement about how much warming it causes.”
We never claimed Steorts denied human activity causes global warming. We illustrated that Steorts overstated the disagreement about how much human activity is responsible for global warming.
The real test for the National Review is if they buy Steorts argument factual errors are “irrelevant.” The magazine should take accuracy seriously and print a correction in their print edition.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
61 Responses to “Steorts Dismisses Factual Errors As ‘Irrelevancies,’ Demands Corrections From ThinkProgress”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Don’t hold your breath for a correction. The national review is not a member of the reality based community.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:40 amThis kind of back and forth (pissing match) just plays into the RW media/blog hands by delibrately trying tho muddle the issue so there is no consensus or middle ground….DONT INDULGE this idiot anymore…..
We have 928 scientists on our side ….he has one who just happened to bail on him….there is no need to defend the indisputable truth….
June 5th, 2006 at 11:42 amlib4:
I agree with you that this has pretty much played itself out now. But I think we need to engage people like Steorts. The point of this is to make sure that, when people write about global warming, they take the truth more seriously. If we can place in the back of everyone’s mind that people will be fact checking their work, maybe the next peice will contain fewer obvious errors.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:45 amThis kind of back and forth (pissing match) just plays into the RW media/blog hands by delibrately trying tho muddle the issue so there is no consensus or middle ground….DONT INDULGE this idiot anymore…..
We have 928 scientists on our side ….he has one who just happened to bail on him….there is no need to defend the indisputable truth….
Comment by lib4
Plays into their hands? I dont think so. This shows that when forced to face the facts they lose. Maybe they will get sick of being constant losers and start playing the “reality game” also… and when everyone plays the reality game then we will all win.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amdis-Steorts is like a puppy with a new chewy toy. You’re having too much fun with him, Judd. Yeah, Baby!!
June 5th, 2006 at 11:48 amThe next print edition needs to do one of two things: 1) Print a correction of the factual errors, or 2) Make it clear that factual errors in the magazine are irrelevant.
They should be fair to their readers. The articles you read in National Review may contain factual errors. However, these errors are irrelevant if discovered.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:50 amIt is obvious that Steorts goal has nothing to do with journalistic accuarcy. What they are urgently attempting to do — and succeeding in my view — is to create plausible doubt in the media. It works like this:
Scene: water cooler:
Jane: This global warming stuff is really serious. I saw that movie and it scared me.
Joe: Nah, I was reading a NR article that debunked a lot of it. Those left wing blogs are full of hysterics.
Jane: I heard about that. I thought that debunking was debunked.
Joe: (laughs) And that debunking was being debunked. It’s still going on. There is always some debate going on in any science.
Jane: Well I’m too busy to sort it out.
Joe: It will work out fine, you’ll see. It always does.
Etc. Then another Republican gets elected. Mission accomplished.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:51 amStunning, just stunning, these assholes are advocates for what? Pollution? Smog? Cancer? Asmtha? What the hell?
I caught a recent episode of “Wait wait don’t tell me”, and Carl Kasell played that stupid ad where they say “CO2, they call it pollution, we call it life” and the audience roared in laughter just playing the audio of the tv ad, no snark or anything.
I swear, these Oil barrons, and their enabers and ALL BECOMING A TRAGIC JOKE!!
And the audience is laughing at them.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:56 amEventually these guys are going to flip-flop and “discover” global warming. Then they will congratulate themselves on not jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in. Presumably, their facts will be in when global warming becomes an election-winning issue.
Kinda like how in the 1980s only “liberal hand-wringers” complained about selling weapons to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. These guys are a little slow, but they come around eventually, recognize the problem, and then force an equally poorly-thought-out solution, while continuing to ridicule those who were right all along.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:57 amIt is scary that there people have full country of the country. People who routinely lie, manipulate and deceive. Even when their lies and deceptions are exposed, they attack the people who have told the truth and try to make the truth tellers into liars. It is a sad and sickening display that this is the path America is on. Where people are so desperately hungry for money, power and glory that any methods of achieving it is acceptable.
Seriously, just when you think things couldn’t get any worse, Bush/Republicans/Conservaitves/”journalists”/MSM stab America in the back and spit in its face once more.
It’s time people stood up and shouted to these people what Patriotism really is. And the groups listed above aren’t patriots. They hate America and democacy and freedon. They only want power and control. They will be the death of the country if they aren’t forced, somhow, to face the reality of what the constitution and fouding father wanted when they started the country in the first place.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:58 amPlays into their hands? I dont think so. This shows that when forced to face the facts they lose. Maybe they will get sick of being constant losers and start playing the “reality game†also… and when everyone plays the reality game then we will all win.
Gerald and Judd,
Believe me I want the facts exposed to shut these people up for good…
But time and time again we see how the facts dont seem to matter to these RW folks…once we shut Steorts up there will be another NRO, Hertiage Foundation or AEI heavily funded “expert” to step up and claim Global Warming is junk science….
and the cycle begins again…..
Look the facts are overwhelmingly on our side …and if the reviews of Gore’s movie are true and he presents the case for Global Warming in layman’s terms that the average American can understand, I think we will come out on top without engaging these so called RW “experts” over and over again……
June 5th, 2006 at 11:58 amThe reality-based community ignored Rush Limbaugh during the 90s and now he’s declaring victory. If you had taken the time to destroy his reputation then, we wouldn’t be in this mess now.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:01 pmEtc. Then another Republican gets elected. Mission accomplished.
Comment by Alan — June 5, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Exactly! I believe the modern term for this is “Swift Boating.”
June 5th, 2006 at 12:02 pmI’m with Gerald - these people need to be hammered hard everytime they float their little fantasy science articles. Steorts is basically a flat earth guy, or one of these people who believe in some kind of biblical timeline that history began 7,000 years ago. They latch onto disagreements or ambiguities in the scientific record to advance weak arguments based on demonstrably false assertions. Of course, they have no regard at all for the scientific method, and are only interested in confusing the public debate in order to advance their economic and political agenda. Ridicule and deirision are Steorts’ stock in trade. Those of us in the reality based community should not be afraid to throw his errors back in his face. The facts, after all, are all on our side.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:08 pmThe National Review has responded in the same manner to me when I pointed out things they got completely wrong. But kudos for taking accuracy seriously.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:11 pmEvery snowjob melts. So will Steorts’.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pmIf we can place in the back of everyone’s mind that people will be fact checking their work, maybe the next peice will contain fewer obvious errors.
Comment by Judd — June 5, 2006 @ 11:45 am
I agree with you Judd. Everyone says the left has no spine. This is how you show that you have one - but calling people on their propaganda and making sure there’s an audience to see you do it. It’s the only way to beat these fear-mongers at their deception and lies… Excellent job!
June 5th, 2006 at 12:20 pmThere’s something wrong with your point #3 - quotes missing, words dropped - it doesn’t make any sense as written.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:24 pmRefuting the lies told by people whose sole purpose is to confuse and distort the issues, time and time again, can get old. But it is the result of allowing the other side to dominate every argument, no matter how inaccurate, for years, that has created the need to come back at them again and again. And it is working. They are so used to presenting unquestioned opinions, that the truth became irrelevant to their reporting. But now that they are being forced to back up their arguments, they can’t do it. But they are going to put up a fight. And we need to be willing to fight back. Finally.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:25 pmIt is obvious that Steorts goal has nothing to do with journalistic accuracy. What they are urgently attempting to do — and succeeding in my view — is to create plausible doubt in the media.
Dead on, Alan. This is a textbook case if the “wingnuttery” technique that has worked virtually non-stop for them over the last twenty years. It is likely that it is also working again in this case. But unlike some of the commentors, I think we have to engage them on the distortions and outright lies. If we can’t stand up for the truth in spite of the fact “we see how the facts dont seem to matter to these RW folks…once we shut Steorts up there will be another NRO, Hertiage Foundation or AEI heavily funded “expert†to step up and claim Global Warming is junk science….”, then all is truly lost. If nothing else in this struggle matters, speaking the truth should be the mission.
Just because people don’t want to listen does not change the facts. We have to keep beating the drum. We are the only ones doing it.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:25 pmIt is time to stop arguing with right-wingers over whether water is wet or not–An argument they love to keep going, ad infinitum.
I now use the line from “Dances With Wolves”:
“You are not worth talking to; I have nothing
to say to you”.
It’s like arguing with a Nazi over why it is wrong to gas millions of people to death.
If you start arguing over points like that, the Evil Ones have already won the argument–Stop wasting your time and start building alliances with other sensible people.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pmBut they are going to put up a fight. And we need to be willing to fight back. Finally.
Comment by Cyra Brown — June 5, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Good point, we have to make them think before they speak that someone with the facts will stand up to them if they lie. Begin to turn the tides so that their lies will be seen as tired and cliche rather than our defending the defensible.
Jefferson would be proud Judd. Now, if we can just get the Democratic Party to see the value in standing up to bullies with lies…
June 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pmI think your choice of issues to slag NR with could have been better. By and large, the only rhetorical issue that Steort’s is culpable of is over-hammering the issue of uncertaintly. The bulk of warming is from CO2 and other green house gases. What is the “extent”? How high a level of certainty do you require? It’s like quibbling over whether the corpse was killed with a .38 or a .45 — the guy is still quite dead.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:35 pmStop wasting your time and start building alliances with other sensible people.
Comment by nikto — June 5, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
I don’t think you realize that this is how it works in this country. He who speaks the loudest is the one who is ‘right’. Crazy, I know - but after watching 60 Minutes last night in an opening piece in which Ed Bradley gave no conclusion to how a person should feel about the bi-partisan information he’d just presented, I realized that this is what the Average American does - looks for someone to tell them what to think about the facts. They don’t decide for themselves. So, when the right (or the far left for that matter) starts to lie, we have to call them on it.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:35 pmIt’s like quibbling over whether the corpse was killed with a .38 or a .45 — the guy is still quite dead.
Science is all about the numbers… and we dont want to wait until “the guy is dead” to get this right. Sure there are alot of things that NR could be trounced on, but few things are as clear cut as numbers and science. We could go on all day long about how Iraq was unAmerican, but how can you come up with an equation to prove it? That is probably why it is much easier to go after them when they try acting like they know science. Faith based science is easily disproven and the snake oil salesman selling faith based science is easily discredited.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pmThe right will back down as they haven’t in the past because fighting back every point will introduce many more opportunities to be branded a complete liar.
Previously, we just gave up after a while, and they saw that as tacit permission to drive the debate. Now that they’re getting caught, time and time again, the cockiness will diminish over time, and they’ll be more cautious.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:47 pmBetter yet, Just tell him to go over to RealClimateand make his argument directly.
It would be quite entertaining to see him get munched on and spit out like a hairball.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:03 pmTP -
Keep up the good work and hammer this worthless imbecile Steorts even harder. The National Review is periodical that cares nothing about accuracy in the pursuit of partisanship. The National Review is not worth lining bird cages because I am sure even the ink is toxic.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThe problem is that people will engage in the kind of water cooler conversation that Alan posted in #7. They will get confused and wind up doing nothing.
My question to Steorts, the NR and anyone else who doesn’t think global warming coud be the most serious problem we face in the next ten years: what if you are wrong?
June 5th, 2006 at 1:36 pmTo the conservative mind, accuracy is an overrated concept. When you have a political position to extol, truth and accuracy will just get in the way.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:51 pmTo the conservative mind, accuracy is an overrated concept. When you have a political position to extol, truth and accuracy will just get in the way.
Comment by KnightErrant — June 5, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
But looking foolish publicly is something else entirely.
June 5th, 2006 at 3:03 pmMy question is what happens in say 10 years if we start to go into a period of global cooling? Will the left and everyone else on the GW admit they were wrong? It will happen as the sun goes through its 11 year cycle of heating and cooling. Mark your calendar.
June 5th, 2006 at 3:48 pmRandy, what percentage change occurs over that 11 year cycle? And if there is a sudden global cooling in 10 years, the scientific community will have to admit they were wrong, and publish peer-reviewed papers on exactly what went wrong with the past ten years or so of scientific advancement.
I heard on Fox News that this is part of a much larger cycle and we can expect strong storms over the next 10 or 20 years. If, after 20 years, the strong storms don’t abate, will you and the CEI think tank types admit you were wrong to put so much energy into debunking the results of scientific research?
June 5th, 2006 at 4:05 pmSeveral years ago Dr. Fred Singer, former director of the National Weather Satellite Center and author of “Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate.” [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19633] pointed out that “the atmosphere changes.” Sure, there is global warming; however, there is also global cooling. In the last century we had:
a warming trend before 1940;
a cooling trend between 1940 and 1975;
a warming trend between 1975 and 1980;
and essentially NO trend for the last 20 years.
Real scientists tell us the sun has an 11-year cycle and you “clearly see this in some of the temperature records.”
Proponents of Al’s fiction often cite the list of “2,500 scientists” who subscribe to the Gore concept of global warming.
Singer says: “That is not really true. You hear about 2,500 scientists who worked on this report for the United Nations. First of all, the number is less than 2,000 and secondly, of these, perhaps 100 are qualified to say something about the climate … and they have never been polled.” [my emphasis]
On the other side of the coin (which you never hear about), there are some 17,000 for-real scientists who say global warming is a hoax. And 17,000 “actually signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol.”
When I told Dr. Singer that there is no unanimity within the scientific community about global warming, he replied, “That is the point … that there is a debate going on … and the public is entitled to know that there is a debate and that the debate is not finished.”
June 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pmNRO says: I’ll sign off here, wishing Think Progress luck in pleading the case that we should all hyperventilate over something we don’t know.
No need to hyperventilate, just think about the solutions, and quit distorting the truth.
Check out this quote from science writer Chris Mooney:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ democracy-climate_change_debate/ 2579.jsp
June 5th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#33 Absolutely.
June 5th, 2006 at 4:11 pmAnd #36?
June 5th, 2006 at 4:14 pmCan anyone tell me why 15,000 scientists would sign a petition rejecting the Kyoto Protocol?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR50801b.html
June 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pm#38 Without knowing who the 15,000 are or what exactly the organization defines as “scientist” it is impossible to say.
And you didn’t answer your other point: What is the percentage change in heat output over the Sun’s 11 year cycle? And why doesn’t that 11 year cycle match the warming/cooling trends you cite (which take decades)? If last year was a record breaker, then 11 years prior (1994) should have been unusually cool, no?
June 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pmYou mean the one signed by Hawkeye Pierce, Perry Mason, and
one of the Spice Girls?:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
June 5th, 2006 at 4:31 pmcorrection: In an 11 year cycle, 1994 would have been equally hot. 2000 (5.5 half cycle) would have been unusually cool.
Not many people know this, but the only significant effect of the Sun’s 11 year cycle is increased sunspot activity (sunspots are cool spots on the Sun’s surface) and radio interference.
June 5th, 2006 at 4:34 pm#39
http://www.junkscience.com/news/sun.html
June 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pmDude, even Wikipedia has something on it. You should do some research before you post a comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
June 5th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#40 I always wondered what happened to the Spice Girls. With their heavy research load, no wonder we haven’t heard from them lately!
June 5th, 2006 at 4:41 pmjunkscience — a more unreliable source can hardly be found.
“sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other kinds of solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth”
This sounds believable to you?
“Some experts contend that the majority of the century’s warming occurred before 1940 and that most of the gas buildup occurred after that.”
Some experts? Who, exactly? More Spice Girls?
He does have an interesting write-up of what the solar cycle is, but in no way does he tie it to climate change, except for that “some experts say” part. Of course, sun affecting climate change is a given in the first paragraph I cite here.
June 5th, 2006 at 4:47 pmKyoto is DOA. Always has been, always will be. Why didn’t your boy Clinton sign it?
June 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pmYour recommendation is do nothing. See #36.
June 5th, 2006 at 4:50 pmhttp://web.mit.edu/ globalchange/ www/ wheel.degC.html
June 5th, 2006 at 4:52 pmYep, that’s the oil company think tank position. Do nothing for twenty years (does the “Party of No” ring a bell?), block research, then admit we were wrong if necessary.
That’s a risk Randy is more than willing to take. With all of us.
June 5th, 2006 at 4:57 pmAnd that wheel, by the way, is out of date:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ science/ story/ 0,,1719607,00.html
June 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pmWhat is your game plan to convince China, the world’s worst polluter, to change their ways? Lord knows you can’t force regime change given the example of Iraq and the government controls all media etc. You know I don’t buy into the all of the global warming fear mongering going on. If you can’t convince me, how are you ever going to make the rest of the world buy in?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm#48 Does the MIT coalition know they have one professor who disagrees and is cited ad nauseum? I bet they do. Funny how one professor gets more attention from the think tanks than the larger group at MIT. I wonder why…
June 5th, 2006 at 5:02 pmFor some people, it always breaks in the direction of doing nothing. Why?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:02 pmNo dude. We are: http://www.ucsusa.org/ global_warming/ science/ each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
June 5th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#51 They’re already convinced and have tougher auto standards than we do. All we need to do is share green technology with them. But of course, first we would have to develop it ourselves. Of course, if you don’t buy into the science, you wouldn’t care how much coal they burn anyway, or how dirty the burning is. Why aren’t you arguing to relax our own emissions standards, back to the 1800s? If it’s all just hype…
June 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pmBy the way, signing off this thread… I’ve given enough reading material to keep our “skeptic” troll busy for a while.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#56 If he didn’t read the widely-available literature before coming here, why would he read it now? Bush and his supporters constantly make fraudulent claims. Debunking their bunk may seem like tilting at windmills, but it needs to be done publicly and often.
The good news is, they have nothing new. They’re rehashing the same old arguments from ignorance, reshuffling to hide the inconsistencies for the nth time.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:10 pmAt least blaming sunspots is something new :)
June 5th, 2006 at 5:15 pmNice post!
——
http://www.htlounge.net
News: Gadgets, High Tech, Automobiles, Software, Games, Players, Phones, Multimedia …
http://www.softdatabase.net
June 7th, 2006 at 6:47 pm10.000 Free software downloads: Freeware and Shareware
*** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling…
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2… Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen… The circle of life, nature always provides a balance… Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2… Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more… So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath… Sorry couldn’t resist… It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it…
The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so… i.e…. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home… Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages… Hmmmm… Sounds logical to me… Hotter sun = Warmer Earth…
That makes as much sense as a “scientist†telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants… Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for “science†to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system…
That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output… Unless all that shade led to global cooling…
PS; CO2(Carbon Dioxide, the global warming gas) is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath…
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:48 am- - - = = = H i ! _ G a y s _ T h a n k _ y o u _ f o r _ s u c h _ a n _ i n f o r m a t i v e _ w e b s i t e . . V e r i _ i n t e r e s t i n _ a n _ e a y _ t o _ c o m p r e h e n d - T h a n x ! - - = = A l l , N i c e _ s i t e , _ I _h a v e _ b e e n _ s e e i n g _ s o m e _ r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g _ c o m m e n t s . . . _ g o i n g _ t o _ t e l l _ m e _ f r i e n d _ l o u i s e _ a b o u t _ t h i s _ s i t e ! ! = = = - - -
January 31st, 2007 at 8:59 pm