Steorts Issues ‘Clarification’ On Misleading Global Warming Article, Makes Another Error
Steorts Issues ‘Clarification’ On Misleading Global Warming Article, Makes Another Error
ThinkProgress has documented several critical errors in the National Review’s June 5 cover story on global warming, “Scare of the Century.”
In the new issue of National Review, Steorts owns up to one of his errors in a “clarification” letter to the editor. Here’s an excerpt:
CLARIFICATION
My article “Scare of the Century†(June 5) quoted University of Virginia climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels as saying that “Antarctica has been gaining ice,†and, based on Michaels’s view, called 2002 a “high-water mark for Antarctic ice.†Michaels cited a study by Curt Davis to support his position. Davis subsequently noted that his study did not measure ice changes over all of Antarctica. It showed that a large part of the East Antarctic ice sheet was growing while much of the West Antarctic ice sheet was shrinking. Davis wrote in his study that, if the observed growth pattern held for all of East Antarctica, it would outweigh estimated ice loss in West Antarctica; but he did not conclusively prove this to be the case.
Steorts’ “clarification” also contains an error. Davis’ study is for the interior of Antartica only. The fact that Davis wrote that growth in the Eastern interior may outweigh losses in the Western interior can’t be used to suggest that Antartica is gaining ice overall. The study doesn’t cover losses on the costal areas, where loses are known to be substantial.
Steorts tries to argue his error was irrelevant:
The argument in “Scare of the Century,†however, did not depend on Davis’s study; in fact, it noted that research subsequent to Davis’s shows a current net ice loss for Antarctica.
Steorts, however, dismissed that subsequent research out of hand, relying on the same false claim 2002 was “a high water mark for ice.” Steorts wrote that “Alarmism over [that] study is on the order of going to the beach at high tide, drawing a line at the water’s edge, and fretting a few hours later that the oceans are drying up.”
The lesson here is simple. On global warming issues, the National Review can’t be trusted.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “Steorts Issues ‘Clarification’ On Misleading Global Warming Article, Makes Another Error”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Steorts demonstrates the only strategy the conservatives have to try to win the global warming argument: LIE. When none of the demonstrable facts aren’t on their side, what other choice do they have?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:18 pmForgive me, but I must be missing something. On what issues can the National Review be trusted?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:19 pm* “none of the demonstrable facts *ARE* on their side . . .
June 16th, 2006 at 5:20 pmSteorts:
If I were Davis, I would be seriously pissed off about this phrase. Steorts makes it sound as if Davis is backpedaling, or offering late clarification of an ambiguous point, when there’s no doubt that this information is part of the description of the study! Completely unsubtle blame-shifting for NR’s own misinterpretation.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:21 pmanyone know of a legal precedent for scientist/researches to take once their study or work has been misquoted…how can you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and months to concretely, scientificlly prove without a shed of doubt, state a finding, which then has the inverse reported as your finding?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:29 pmSo Antarctic ice follows tidal patters? That IS amazing!
Has he informed scientists of this discovery?
And when he says “a large part of the ice sheet is growing” well a mile square is large isn’t it? He doesn’t say how large.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:29 pmJudd - where is your article on Jefferson being ousted from Ways and Means? Shouldn’t that be listed under left-wing corruption?
That’s ok. Democrats are going to lose anyway. I warned a fight over ethics would ultimately be the undoing of Democrats. We haven’t even started on Pelosi yet - we’ll nail the bitch. Trust me.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:30 pmSteorts man, stop digging.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#7
Talking Points Memo covers this:
June 16th, 2006 at 5:35 pmYou looking for this #7?
Or this?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:37 pm#12 - look who’s talking. Democrats don’t even have the balls to vote against the war in the senate, but they trash it every five minutes.
The little piggies in the senate are in lock with Republicans because they know they can’t win on issues. You LIE.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:45 pmMurtha is an un-American pig who will be testifying against our military in the Haditha case. He is a traitor.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:47 pmAnn Coulter, is that you? Boy these comments sure have quickly turned away from the original topic.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:53 pm#7 Jerk,
Here’s your link dork.
Ok back on topic now.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:03 pmhis new name should be “diSteorts”
June 16th, 2006 at 6:04 pm#14 - You LIE.
Comment by Judd the Hypocrite
Hypocrite — weak and inadequate. Waaaah!
June 16th, 2006 at 6:06 pmThat dis-Steorts guy just keeps digging his hole deeper. Thanks Judd for staying on his antics. Yesterday, it rained a little, and there was some slush that melted quickly when the large drops hit the windshield, I mean you had to really pay attention to see it. Does that mean global warming is now over?
June 16th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#21 - I really think it must be fixed, because it’s the middle of June and it’s still cold here, too. Gee whiz, thanks disSteorts! /sarcasm off
June 16th, 2006 at 6:11 pmZoo,
Probably colder where you are. Here at 7000 feet in AZ, we can go from 85 degrees to 55 in a matter of minutes when a summer storm hits. Mostly we have been warm, but yesterdays brief storm really cooled things off for a while.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:14 pm#23 - For Truth,
We’ve been hovering around 65-70 most days, with rain or thunderstorms almost everyday. At night down to around 40. Colder than usual, for sure. We don’t have the altitude you have, so I’d think you’d have colder weather. We had a week of 90+ temps about a month ago, but that’s it for the heat, so far. I keep thinking summer is going to kick us hard…the freckles — no!!
June 16th, 2006 at 6:19 pmI don’t know folks - this is beginning to resemble a piling-on of sorts, seeing as how the only people actually paying attention to what Steorts says are Steorts and TP, no?
June 16th, 2006 at 6:20 pmHey Zoo,
I actually like 65-70 with rain every day, then 40 at night. Thats my kind of weather. Since we are so far south, our average summer temp is 84.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:22 pmTP,
I absolutely LOVE how you are not going to let this idiot get away with his bullsh*t.
That’s the pattern they count on. Progressives lob a complaint or two, backed up with facts, (as always), but then they lack “follow-up” skills.
Keep it up!
Great work!
June 16th, 2006 at 6:23 pmDrSinker,
You’re likely correct.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:24 pmHey dumbshit, 156 democrats voted against the war. You are pretty dense.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:26 pmHi TrueBlue,
Its already well into Friday night for you, how about an Absolut and CranRasberry? Or “have a little cranrasberry with that glass of vodka”.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:27 pm#26 - I don’t mind the temps so much, although I hate the rain, it’s just so unusual. Our swimming pool, where I never go, because, you know, terminal freckles, is only open in the summer months, and when I drive by the lifeguards are all huddled in their jackets. So funny. By now we’re usually in the 80s, then in July & August 90s, and sometimes 100s. I fry up in an instant in 90s & 100s — just a little puff of steam out of the top of my head — and I’m gone. If your average temp is 84, that’s heaven on earth.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:28 pm#27 - trueblue! Long time no see! What For Truth said in #30. You know how I live vicariously through your lovely drinks.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:32 pmSteorts, do yourself a favor. Shut up.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:37 pmZoo,
Sounds like you would like it, we don’t have a lot of swimming pools here, lots in Phoenix though. Due to our elevation and latitude, your freckles would take over. A person can get sunburned in minutes. People who work up at our ski area, base is at 9500 feet, top is 11500 feet, some of them had to have skin cancer removed from the face.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:40 pmHere’s what I don’t understand: if all the hoopla concerning global warming is wrong and we still act to hold down carbon dioxide emissions, what does it hurt? What do we lose? However, if it’s true and we do nothing, it could very well mean the end of life on Earth as we know it. Is the $$$$ argument more important than our very survival? And what if developing green technology turns out to be an economic windfall? Is that not, at least, possible? Just wondering?
June 16th, 2006 at 9:21 pmThe lesson here is simple. On global warming issues, Judd can’t be trusted. On most issues in fact, Judd can’t be trusted. He is simply a dishonest shill.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:10 pmWhy are the Bush loving trolls attacking Judd on this thread?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:28 pmThere’s no chance in changing the mind of mr. steroids. The fact that he has a single kook on his side is enough for him. A man with a closed mind is dangerous, as we all know, but continuing to rebut him is all the justification he needs or wants. Part of a silly debate (because we know the truth about this) to draw your attention from issues that the right would like you to miss so they can carry on their “mission to accomplish.”
June 17th, 2006 at 9:13 am#36 Back up your claim, jackass.
June 17th, 2006 at 11:01 pm[…] Jason Steort’s “clarification” of his misleading National Review cover story is accompanied by a letter-to-the-editor by Pat Michaels. Mr. Michaels is the one who told Steorts that 2002 was a “high-water mark for Antarctic ice†based on a grossly inaccurate interpretation of a study by Curt Davis. […]
June 21st, 2006 at 10:23 am*** 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 11:44 am