THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max,
Thanks for your recent comments, but I don’t have much spare time at the moment to respond.
Pete,
Didn’t Australia reject the Kyoto treaty? It would seem that there exists numerous “oddball”, “simple minded” people in Australia also?
Have you ever considered the possibility that YOUR views are out of step with the majority? Probably not………such is the elitist mindset………
That’s called leadership and confidence as opposed to groupthink, mediocrity and pandering. She’s dangerous alright; dangerous to the Leftist/Democrats that have been exposed as phonies. The Liberals are in a panic…..she has pulled open the curtain and showed the world that a politician of principle and conviction still exists and the American people are responding enthusiastically to her.
Have you ever pondered why you are obsessed with American politics? Doesn’t Australia have a political process that you could opine about? Isn’t there some Australian “cause” that you can radicalize? Wouldn’t your time be better spent agitating the Australian electorate? Aren’t there some Australia taxpayers that you could concentrate on fleecing? Some Australian government funded program that you could exploit?
I suppose every aspect of the Australian political system absolutely perfect and meet with your approval in the land down under….nothing left to “revolutionize” down there?
Are you absolutely certain that you are not a “closet” American?
Problems with the Climate Models
By Michael R.Fox Ph.D., 9/12/2008
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bcb0b0a8-86dc-4f0d-acce-dec9605c9b7a
Hi Peter,
The Hadley Arctic temperature data look similar to those of Polyakov, which I downloaded and plotted. These show multi-decadal cycles, with no apparent link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Looks like the NOAA report you cited indicates that there may be an “anthropogenic component” for “the recent warm temperatures” (although they cannot explain the earlier warming cycles). Sort of a typical NOAA reaction, when the observed facts only marginally fit the theory.
“The early warm and cold periods are associated with internal variability in high-latitude circulation patterns, while the recent warm temperatures have an anthropogenic component.”
“These contrasts illustrate that we are in a period of continuing uncertainty about the dominance of any one climate pattern over the Arctic.”
Figure A4 shows the recent cooling trend in the Bering Sea: “Winter-spring 2007 ended by being a relatively extensive ice year in the Bering Sea region. This suggests that it took two years for the warm ocean temperature anomalies on the Bering Sea continental shelf to dissipate. Because of this dramatic shift in ocean and ice conditions, the future state of the Bering Sea ecosystem is now less certain.”
Sounds like the Arctic Report Card folks you cited really aren’t too sure about what is going on, after all, drawing essentially the same conclusion as Polyakov et al. that natural variability may be the principal cause for any recent or prior warming/cooling cycles.
Makes sense to me.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
You are right the NSIDC is a good source of data since it came into existence in 1976. If you had watched the lecture on the link I posted previously by Dr Mark Serreze, who is a senior scientists at NSIDC, you will know that he is saying that the Arctic is now warmer than at any time in the 20th century.
But there are other scientific organisations working on the Arctic Climate too and I’m not putting the NSIDC ahead of anyone else. Its just that they have a good website! I’m not sure why you are getting your knickers in such a twist. Are you trying to say that there is a big disagreement between them and everyone else?
Max,
If it ‘makes sense’ to you that’s alright then is it? It made sense to you last year than ‘puny man’, all 7.5 billion of us, was incapable of causing any climate change at all. Maybe you could tell us about some of the other things that might ‘make sense’ to you too? Intelligent design? God created the earth in 6 days? Noah rescued the flora and fauna of the world in his Ark? The geologists have it all wrong about the formation of oil, and there is really an unlimited supply?
Brute,
Do you have juries like this in America? Whatever next?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
I wish it were not so, but the two elections that defined the way the world now is, ocurred in 2000 and 2004 in the USA. French presidents, German chancellors, UK, Canadian and Australia prime ministers ( I don’t know who or what they have in Switzerland) come and go but unfortunately, and even though each and every one of them has been intellectually much better equipped than one George W Bush, he’s the one who has had the most influence.
Sarah Palin in the same role? It doesn’t bear thinking about. Unless, maybe if trouble does brew up between Russia and the USA maybe Sarah and Vladimir can sort it out between themselves in an armed duel or combat in the Alaskan or Siberian wilderness?
Hi Peter,
It appears you got a bit carried away in your latest rant (1551):
“If it ‘makes sense’ to you that’s alright then is it? It made sense to you last year than ‘puny man’, all 7.5 billion of us, was incapable of causing any climate change at all. Maybe you could tell us about some of the other things that might ‘make sense’ to you too? Intelligent design? God created the earth in 6 days? Noah rescued the flora and fauna of the world in his Ark? The geologists have it all wrong about the formation of oil, and there is really an unlimited supply?”
“7.5 billion of us”? Are you counting cattle, polar bears plus kangaroos?
Haven’t thought too much about the “intelligent design” hypothesis, since this is probably based on equally questionable reasoning as the AGW hypothesis.
6 days for creation? Get serious, Peter.
Noah and the Ark? This is one of the first stories where man (and his evil ways) was allegedly responsible for serious climate change. A bit of guilt, a bit of fear; sounds a lot like the AGW mantra you seem to believe in today, Peter. Sort of a “repent now or die” philosophy. Just as silly then as now.
Interestingly, there are scientific findings by marine biologists and others that do support the concept of a major flood some 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, which could have wiped out some of the early civilizations along what is now the Black Sea, with salt water from the Mediterranean breaching the Bosporous as sea levels rose (as Earth moved out of the Ice Age). But the “camels and the elephants two by two” stuff is a legend that goes back to the Sumerians way before the ancient Jews.
Unlimited oil supply? Hmmm… The supply of oil is neither “unlimited” nor are we headed for an imminent “peak oil disaster”. Don’t forget the 200 billion barrels (worldwide) of recoverable oil from oil shale (around one-half in the USA).
But, yes, the world will need to find new sources of motor fuel, i.e. syn-fuel from coal, renewable bio-fuels, natural gas (either LNG or CNG), etc. These are all good alternates, Peter. We just need to forget all the hysteria about AGW and get on with addressing the real problem.
You are much too pessimistic and one-sided in your views, Peter. Open your mind to the many possibilities out there, and to the fact that we are living in times of great opportunity and positive challenges.
Regards,
Max
“7.5 billion of us”? Are you counting cattle, polar bears plus kangaroos?
Well no. If anything, I’m slightly understating my case. According to Wiki the world population, of humans, is now 7.7 billion. Those 7.7 billion people release 27 billion tonnes of CO2 annually into the atmosphere. How could anyone think that this tiny amount could have any possible effect?
Its good that you haven’t totally ‘gone native’ in your extended time in America. I’m assuming that you are writing these posts in the USA evening rather than at 4.30am in Switzerland. Its good that you don’t think that dinosaur footprints found in fossils and in riverbeds aren’t scientific forgeries, or the work of Satan, designed to fool us all. But, really, on the AGW debate you should pause for a while, take a look around you and have a bit of a think about the sort of company you are keeping.
What did you think of the Mark Serreze lecture? Can you listen to that and tell me that it ‘doesn’t make any sense at all’?
Max,
I meant to address your point about pessimism. Your pessimism lies in your erroneous conclusion, that the rapid progress humanity has seen in the last two centuries, largely due to the application of the principles of rational thought and scientific ideas, what is generally referred to in Europe as ‘the Enlightenment’, is only likely to be possible if science is wrong about the one issue of climate change and the dangers it presents, whereas it has been right about everything else.
You are aligning yourself with those who are so pessimistic about humanity’s ability to take care of itself, that they retreat into the superstitious and supernatural, with their idea of a ‘second coming’ which is going to save us all from our sins. How crazy is that?
I’m basically optimistic. I do feel that continued progress is possible, but only if we shut out the Sarah Palin’s of this world and apply the principles of science and rational thought.
Hi Peter,
Your last post revealed some basic confusion about “pessimism” when you wrote, “Your pessimism lies in your erroneous conclusion, that the rapid progress humanity has seen in the last two centuries, largely due to the application of the principles of rational thought and scientific ideas, what is generally referred to in Europe as ‘the Enlightenment’, is only likely to be possible if science is wrong about the one issue of climate change and the dangers it presents, whereas it has been right about everything else.”
Peter, this is utter rubbish.
Many hypotheses have come and gone over the past two centuries, and some have endured.
“Rational thought” does not automatically support the mantra of “climate change and the dangers it presents”, as you claim.
Your point of view goes more into the direction of religious thinking about the “guilt” of humans in destroying our planet and the inevitable “punishment” that will come as a result.
You said, “You are aligning yourself with those who are so pessimistic about humanity’s ability to take care of itself, that they retreat into the superstitious and supernatural.” Peter, get serious, unlike you, I am very optimistic “about humanity’s ability to take care of itself”.
It is you, Peter, that is retreating “into the superstitious and supernatural”, when you start believing the GIGO computer models that prophesy human self-destruction due to AGW.
Now to your statement “‘the Enlightenment’, is only likely to be possible if science is wrong about the one issue of climate change and the dangers it presents, whereas it has been right about everything else”. Peter, this rather convoluted statement makes no sense whatsoever.
“Science” is divided on “the issue of climate change and the dangers it presents” and the pendulum is swinging away from AGW hysteria as more facts are coming to light, temperatures are dropping rather than warming and people are beginning to recognize the AGW hysteria as a well-funded political hoax.
Face it, Peter, the AGW craze is dying a slow death, despite the billions of dollars that have been pumped into it.
But, hey, you are entitled to your own opinion, Peter.
Now to your last statement, “I’m basically optimistic. I do feel that continued progress is possible, but only if we shut out the Sarah Palin’s of this world and apply the principles of science and rational thought.”
This is a silly statement Peter. First, you are not an optimist, as all your posts have shown. You are a dyed-in–the-wool gloom and doom pessimist all the way.
Second, Sarah Palin is not opposed to “the principles of science and rational thought” any more than you are the champion of these principles.
Grow up, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
From Wikipedia, “As of September 2008, the world’s population is estimated to be just over 6.721 billion” (not 7.7 billion, as you state). Get your facts right, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
This may be unpleasant for you to read, and I am truly sorry if it brings you pain, but sometimes we all just have to grit our teeth and face the facts.
You have stated, “I do feel that continued progress is possible, but only if we shut out the Sarah Palin’s of this world and apply the principles of science and rational thought.”
I have seen Gov. Sarah Palin in the US media over the past few weeks, and I must admit that I am impressed with her as a human being and as a potential leader.
Yes, she is young (for a politician) and relatively inexperienced (particularly outside the local or state level).
She appears to have a sharp mind and a straightforward, direct approach. She appears to have been a reformer in her limited experience as a city councilwoman, mayor of a small town and Governor of Alaska, occasionally fighting successfully against the entrenched establishment, even within her own political party.
Her “experience” (as a candidate for VP) is every bit as impressive as that of Sen. Barack Obama (as a candidate for President).
Her ideas on energy development (in Alaska, but also elsewhere in the USA) seem to be practical and to resonate well with the American people. She appears to be rationally skeptical of AGW “gloom and doom” prophesies. Her ideas on abortion may leave some voters cold, but this is certainly not the most important issue facing US voters today.
But, most of all, she has captured a significant portion of US female voters who were disgruntled about the sexist way in which the Democratic Party bosses treated Hillary Clinton in pushing Obama into the nomination plus the way that Obama snubbed Clinton as a VP nominee.
Is she the one who has caused the Obama campaign to lose its momentum?
Will she be the catalyst that helps a previously lackluster McCain campaign reignite itself and move to victory in the November election?
Who knows?
But it will be very interesting to watch.
I wish this young lady all the success in the world, because I believe that she will bring a “breath of fresh air” to Washington politics.
But I’d be interested in what American voters, like Brute and JZSmith, think.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Yes you are quite right. 6.7 billion. I guess I’m a few years ahead of my time . It is predicted to hit 7.7 billion in another 12 years. So please disregard my comments until the year 2020 :-)
I may have made a slip over the world population but I wouldn’t argue that “It was God’s mission” for us point out the dangers of global warming, as Ms Palin has done in arguing for the Iraq war. Hearing voices in one’s head may be an excuse for a lesser sentence. Maybe a mental hospital rather than a prison. But it is not consistent with rational thought.
U.S. and World Population Clocks – POPClocks
Population Clocks
U.S. 305,147,361
World 6,723,433,902
05:54 GMT (EST+5) Sep 14, 2008
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is the equivalent of Eastern Standard Time (EST) plus 5 hours or Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDT) plus 4 hours.
Hi Peter,
You are becoming a bit redundant with your incessant Palin-bashing.
‘I may have made a slip over the world population but I wouldn’t argue that “It was God’s mission” for us point out the dangers of global warming, as Ms Palin has done in arguing for the Iraq war. Hearing voices in one’s head may be an excuse for a lesser sentence. Maybe a mental hospital rather than a prison. But it is not consistent with rational thought.’
Are you aware how ridiculous this ramble is?
Who is “hearing voices” in his/her head and “pointing out the dangers of global warming”? James E. Hansen? Al Gore? Are these guys ready for “a mental hospital rather than a prison”?
Peter, you really should try to be a bit more rational and objective.
Regards,
Max
What’s all this about “US female voters who were disgruntled about the sexist way in which the Democratic Party bosses treated Hillary Clinton in pushing Obama into the nomination plus the way that Obama snubbed Clinton as a VP nominee.”?
Why all the sour grapes? Sure, it was a close run contest. Also Ms Clinton can consider herself very unfortunate that she polled so many votes and still missed out. But, within the rules as they exist shouldn’t that the democratic process be considered fair and square?
I’m sure it is possible to make a good case for automatically offering the VP slot to the second in the primary race. I agree that the world would be a safer place if Obama was running with Ms Clinton, especially if it meant that McCain was running with Mike Huckabee.
Incidentally, how usual is it for the VP slot to be offered to the runner-up in the primary race? What happens if they don’t want it?
Bob_FJ
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is the equivalent of Eastern Standard Time (EST) plus 5 hours or Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDT) plus 4 hours.
Yes I agree. I guess you are trying to protect Max from my suspicions that he is more American than Swiss. Although as Jerry Seinfeld would say “Not that I have anything against them :-)”.
So a posting which is time stamped 3.24 am , on a UK website, and which works at 4.24 am in Switzerland ( I think they are 1 hour ahead), but sometime in the evening in the USA, would indicate to me that the writer was more likely to be located in the latter location.
Peter Martin 1562
You really do have a fertile imagination, and read things into things that are simply not there, and which anyway would be, even if true or not, totally unimportant to this debate!
I merely copied and pasted information from the world population clock, grace of Google, a la the US bureau of statistics, in which the latest prediction to-the-minute is given by whole of unit humans. Thus; to-the-minute, requires a definition of time relative to ones location.
I actually find the concept of saying that the Human population is: 6,723,433,902 at this particular definition of a moment in time to be a tad amusing.
The information I pasted has absolutely zero to do with what I think of Max as a person, his nationality, normal domicile, or where he may happen to be located, for whatever reason, at the moment.
I will be located overseas from September 24 for at least 3 weeks. Does that make me a different person?
Peter, maybe you should seek medical help?
Peter martin 1551,wrote in part what seems to be a response to my 1546, thus:
Firstly, it is YOU, Pete, that has frequently lauded the NSIDC, as the ultimate authority on Arctic sea-ice and whatnot related to it, but please don‘t tell everyone that that is also MY opinion. (It is NOT)
Secondly, somewhere above, Robin has pointed out that Serreze has been rather changeable in his opinions, and may thus bend with the breeze rather than dispassionately engineer ALL the known data AND the missing data.
Thirdly, I managed to track-down your Serreze lecture reference in your 1281, but inexplicably, (on my system), whilst the video progress-bar advances, the screen is blank of image and sound. Its index list does not mention Arctic temperatures, and I’m thus unable to comment on what he may have said.
Fourthly, and anyway, (WTF), I’m not looking for something that emerged as an opinion (or rhetoric) at a talk-fest somewhere, by an individual known to vacillate, but from a written statement from NSIDC that they have good data to conclude that recent Arctic warming is significantly different to what Polyrakov, has reported for the early 1900’s.
Fifthly, I remind you that my question relates to air temperatures, and that you should not to be distracted by NAO, Sea-ice cover, (whatever that is), air circulation patterns and so-forth.
And so:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My way-way back question 3) remains:
3) Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
This question was in the context of your following statement:
However, given your newest obfuscations above, I now refine the question to:
3a) Would you please identify a HARD TEXT reference from the NSIDC, which represents the view of the body of the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion, that according to the NSIDC, the Polyrakov data is false?
P.S. Pete, please ask me if you do not fully understand my refined version of the question, such as; what do I mean by HARD TEXT.
Peter Martin, I chuckled so much over your 1553, that I weakened and chose to comment, for I am spiritually weak. I quote your post in part:
***27 billion tonnes of CO2 annually***
That’s:
***27 billion tonnes of CO2 annually***
OH MY GOD! Oh! OH! Gasp! It’s enough to send me into hyper-mal-tachycardia!
DID YOU SAY 27 BILLION TONNES (You mean billions of tonnes…. unbelievable great walloping heaps of tonnes begad!) of CO2 annually!
Oh Lordy Lordy, that’s how many pray; PPM (PARTS PER MILLION) of the atmosphere? Per favori?
Sheez, What’s that measured in percentage, to how many decimal points?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter, let’s put a cap on reality here:
According to your revered Wikipedia, under ‘Biomass (ecology)’:
Humans comprise about 100 million tons (0.13%) of the Earth’s biomass
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Virtually all biomass is very well known to involve a cycling of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Could you please enlighten us in your concern expressed above, not in emotive/alarmist billions of tonnes, but in relative quantitative terms such as PPM or percentage?
Bob_FJ,
Are you suffering withdrawal symptoms from your usual Merlot tipple? You sound cranky enough for that to be so. Maybe I shouldn’t have advised you to lay off it.
I don’t think I would have said that the NSIDC, was the ‘ultimate authority’ on Arctic sea-ice. Mind you, I’m not saying that they have it wrong either, I’m sure that there is a general consensus on the state of the Arctic which is shared by nearly all scientists who are working on the rapidly changing conditions to be found there.
You are correct, though, in saying that I have written “The Polyakov graph appears to show that the Arctic was warmer in 1940 than the present time. This isn’t the view of the [NSIDC] who say it is warmer now”. You are also correct in saying that this was on the basis of watching Dr Mark Serreze’s (of NSIDC) Nye lecture.
I’m really sorry that you seem to have technical problems, because I’m sure it would do you the world of good to listen to it. If you can get the link working I’d direct you to the section where he Dr Serreze talks about sitting on the fence seven years ago. That was because, at that time, he wasn’t sure if the mid-century warming that you, Max, and Robin are fond of mentioning, and which everyone agrees was due to mainly natural causes, wasn’t being repeated in the late 20th century.
However, he has since concluded that the effect is qualitatively different and can only be explained by the inclusion of anthropogenic factors. He also produces a graph which shows the temperature to be warmer at the end of the 20th century than it was at its mid-century peak.
Now you’ll know I can’t expect to get away with just making this stuff up. Max, for instance, would take great delight in tripping me up!
I have had a look for a transcript of the Nye lecture, but I’m afraid I haven’t managed to find anything on the net. It would be good if you could maybe find another PC to watch it on.
Peter 1566:
A quickie irrelevance before I retire at around 11:45+ pm Oz EST. (I know the time-zones in which we exist are IMMENSELY important to you)
1) Your previous recommendations to modify my consumption of vino, has in no way modified my enjoyment of such, and hence I do not suffer withdrawal as a consequence of your recommendation
2) I have not chosen to consume Merlot by preference for many years, because I prefer a red with more grunt.
3) You have also falsely accused me of tippling Chablis, yet I recollect the last time I sampled such was on a particular occasion in ~1982, and I remain of the (my) opinion that Chablis is generally a mediocre wine.
WHY DO YOU MAKE SO MANY IMAGINATIVE ASSUMPTIONS?
Pete,
I’ll try to be succinct here as this is absolutely off topic, (I don’t know why I’m trying to appease Tony with that comment; we’ve drifted off topic so many times).
Reading through your comments regarding Sarah Palin and her faith; you ridicule her for what you describe as “hearing voices” and adhering to the tenets of the Bible and the Christian faith. Considering your previous statement of desiring to participate in the United States presidential election, (as well as you’re absolutely consumed with American politics), and your condemnation of Palin’s personal beliefs….. one would assume that your preferred candidate is Obama. Is Obama’s religious belief antithetical to science? Using your standard regarding Palin; would you categorize Obama as a religious kook? I’m just searching for some consistency in your standards. Is Obama’s Christian belief system somehow different than Palin’s? Did he just say the things he said, (below) to appease the audience at the time?
Obama sets record straight on his religion
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/
You Wrote: 1551
If Obama is a Christian as he has repeatedly exclaimed; these things would all “make sense” to him also; wouldn’t they?
Pete,
As far as your comment regarding Palin’s remark i.e. “Holy war”. It seems that you have been misinformed……….by the way, the LA Times is anything but Right Wing.
L.A. Times rebukes ABC for distorting Palin remarks
Charlie Gibson misquotes governor, assuming she saw U.S. in ‘holy war’
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75091
I’m certain that you can grasp the concept of editing text and editing interviews; especially when the interviewer and the news organization is politically biased, (as you have accused Fox News of doing).
As for juries, I can only suggest that you review the evidence and jury verdict as it pertains to the OJ Simpson trial. What you fail to grasp is that, (according to the verdict you cite and the precedent it sets), it is well within my rights to burn down your house because I feel that you and Mrs. Martin are consuming too much electricity.
Also, why the Director of the American governmental space agency became involved in a court case in The United Kingdom involving vandalism has also left me scratching my head.
Hi Brute,
More on the media attempts to trash Gov. Sarah Palin.
David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun tells us how ABC anchorman, Charles Gibson ‘kept his steely focus and kept Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin off balance’ in the recent interview. Zurawik goes on to opine, ‘Like Thursday’s interview on World News, rounds two and three also went to Gibson, who gave voters a much better sense of Palin’s limitations than they had before he and she sat down to chat.’ http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/custom/today/bal-to.gibson13sep13,0,3793415.story
Leaving Zurawik’s one-sided comments to the side, I saw the interview and came away with two impressions.
First, Governor Palin did an excellent job, despite the many attempts by Gibson to trip her up. I predict that as she gains more experience in dealing with the vultures of the press, she will become even better at this. Next week’s Fox interview by Sean Hannity will be the next test for her.
Second, I was appalled at the obvious media bias on the part of Gibson, when comparing this interview with his June 2008 interview of Sen. Barack Obama. Here there were no hard-hitting questions; there was no ‘steely focus’. But instead it was a friendly and almost fawning chat allowing Obama to expand on his views and on his recent victory over Hillary Clinton.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=5000184&page=2
I had previously thought that Gibson at ABC was one of the less-biased anchormen. I’ve had to revise my opinion on that.
As for Zurawik, he has clearly demonstrated his limitations as a journalist.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
In a recent post to Bob_FJ on NSIDC, you opined, “I’m sure that there is a general consensus on the state of the Arctic which is shared by nearly all scientists who are working on the rapidly changing conditions to be found there.”
Rapidly changing conditions, indeed.
Et the end of August 2007, the sea ice extent was 5.36 million square km; end-August 2008 it has grown to 6.03 million square km, for a net 2008/2007 growth of 670,000 square km (or almost three times the surface area of Victoria state in Australia in new sea ice). Wow!
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Aug/N_08_area.txt
Regards,
Max