Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
engsoc again
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's see. The original claim of Peiser was that his review, rejected by Science, showed that only about 1/3 of all the articles reviewed supported the "consensus view", and only 1% explicitly. Later, he said that he no longer doubts that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." (So even your expert
What do you mean "my expert"? That is clearly not the case. We are just watching you try to slander an entire organixzation based on one sentence. I did not pick the fellow; nor did you characterize the whole article.
From 1/3 to an overwhelming majority. I would say that he has changed his mind and agrees to the conclusion of the study he had previously criticized.
Yes, in a letter much latter, he seems to have made that statement. I wonder why Cato's time machine boys did not look out into the future before they wrote that sentence you dislike so much.
Even so, he maintains that there is controversy and it is not settled science.
Plus you are unfairly mixing up terms.
His original claim was only about the nature of the published studies (1000 or so, as I recall) and the last statement concerns the opinion of all scientists --- even those not in the field. So, he did not go from "1/3" to "overwhelming majority" unless you mischaracterize his statements.
You would not want to do that now would you?
... you will see that to claim that nobody has any idea of the role of water vapors and that no one even quotes climate historians... how shall I put it... preposterous is the only word I can think of.
What climate model takes water vapor into full account? How long has this been going on, as I have been reading for years that we do not yet have the computer muscle to build models that take that very complex phenomenon into account.
I find it utterly preposterous that you believe that we can understand and model on a computer the actions of water vapor as it interacts with the whole system. If so, why can we not predict hurricanes? We damn sure need those predictions down here and the forecasts for even 5 days out are worthless.
By the way, when was the last time the popular press mentioned Hubert Lamb in a report? Or any other real climate historian for that matter. Does the man in the street ever hear of the Climate Optimum? The Little Climate Optimum? The Little Ice Age?
I think you will have to belittle the Cato Institute based on more than you have shown here. If you still think that Cato is wrong, why not write them with your accusation and ask for a retraction?
-
Yellow Journalism
[Read the article: The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some here correctly point out that 'yellow journalism' has been with us for a long time. They do not mention examples from the very beginning of the Republic, but it was there also.
The problem is that people tend to believe these sources no matter how many times they see the news outlet is in error. Blogs are no better, you still must wade through the muck and realize that even the best have blind spots and agendas. Sometimes the blogger him/herself does not even consciously recognize his/her agendas.
What to do? Realize that the overwhelming majority of 'news' is slanted or flat out wrong and read many outlets. Read outlets in many countries as they seem to see us better than we do. (I wonder why?)
The real problem is that we need to convince the 'man in the street' to stop believing things just because he read in in the local 'YourTown Slantinel'. That will not be easy.
-
re: Give it a rest, Bucky
[Read the article: Why has world opinion of the U.S. changed dramatically since 2000?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ron Paul panders to simpletons like you because only a simpleton buys that nonsense. ...
Truly sad to see a sub-human like LWM post here. He has never given one position of Ron Paul's that he disagrees with. In fact, he never gives a position.
Hey, LWM who can you support for president this cycle?
:-)
-
re: Settle down, Bucky
[Read the article: Why has world opinion of the U.S. changed dramatically since 2000?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Note: Much better to be free in hell than serve in heaven."
It's reign in Hell, minion, not "be free." We know.
Back to work.
I was under the impression only one was going to "reign" there and I know it is not me, so I avoided the usual wording of the saying. :-)
-
LWM harasses Mona again
[Read the article: The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope the regulars here note that LWM is yet again way off the topic of Glenn's post and harassing a valued reader and poster here. I suppose that most here just look the other way, but I notice that this mania of his to have someone to hate each day is looking more and more Orwellian.
Do we need this crap here every day?
I mean, now a shot at antiwar.com & a fellow in the Spanish Civil War all in one post. What does that have to do with newspaper reporting in America? I think he is on a campaign to ruin Glenn's reputation by making it look like the people here are worst than those crazies at LGF.
Mona can take care of herself, but this whole campaign by a crazy man/boy/child is getting old.