http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/north-pole-ocalypse/
For some reason, Andy avoids talking about the beginning of the 1881 NYT article.
I don’t think that Marc Morano has linked to this story, so I am not sure why Andy made reference to him. Anyway, here is the end of the New York Times story. [update – Marc tells me that he E-mailed the story to Andy.]
Hey Andrew (insert hand wavy thing)
Andrew is a visitor to Goddard’s site! At least he’ll get regular history lessons. Here are a few Andrew, just for you.
Ice free Arctic ocean during the Holocene
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
elements later in the article clearly show the author was a typical New York Times moron and doesn’t know where Siberia is…………….
…and is in bad need of a map and a lesson in geography
But a typical reporter non-the-less…………….
Surprised that Andrew would not catch the fact the reporter was a moron…
…I though Andrew considered himself a whole lot smarter than that
but thanks for the advertising!
He’s a reporter……..sophistry and hubris, only outdone by alarmists.
lol, congrats!!! quasi-publicist?
Read the piece and weigh in on whether you see it as alarmist or the journalistic equivalent of a wink and a nudge.
The wink and a nudge……..so, what would be the impetus of such an article? Perhaps that the alarmism of that day was overblown?
Maybe, we can draw parallels to today. Let’s see, could there be
an example of rampant an unwarranted alarmism today?
Read the link and weigh in on whether you see it as alarmist or the blog equivalent of a lmao.
We should treat many recent alarmist pieces the same way, since they look and sound the same.
it’s a writing style that’s taking centuries to perfect…………
I think Andy made reference to Marc Morano because it seems (valid assessment or not) that a large number of your posts are h/t’d to Marc. I read Climate Depot regularly and often find stuff linked to here the following morning after you post.
O/T – It seems Judith Curry is getting a lot of attention over at her blog with 1200+ comments in 2 posts whereas Rantin’ Joe is becoming less and less relevant as the comments on his echo chamber continue to dwindle; less than 100 comments over the past 7 or 8 posts.
MrC
which has to be a kick in the gonads……….
So Revkin trolls Steve’s blog? lol
Curry…… I hope she understands what she did. And I hope she understands what happened. Regardless of her mindset and beliefs, in the alarmist world, she is firmly planted as a turncoat skeptic. Yesterday was simply a spraying by the alarmists. Skeptics showed up to engage, but it wasn’t about engaging, or bridge building or reconciliation. She threw a gauntlet down. I don’t believe she was prepared for the vitriol the alarmists would bring. But they responded.
When she stated,……. “McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.” ……… she lost all standing in the alarmists eyes. She seems to be a strong woman. I hope she is prepared for what she has coming. These are people of a very vile nature.
James, I think Judy has had it.
She knows exactly what she’s doing, she’s had plenty of time to think it through. Don’t cut her short, she has been researching all this for months.
They really can’t touch her, she has her position established.
Plus, you know what they say, any advertising is better than none. Her name is well known now, which will bring funding to her school.
Latitude:
Years! Not just months! I could read some doubt when she first started posting at CA. I was not respectful of her position on Hurricanes at that time nor her position which appears to have changed when she found most of her work had been built on corrupted data.
Hell Hath no Fury like a Woman Scorned! She has had some revealing conversations with members of the team and how she was treated at RC was probably why she decided to start her own site!
That is conjecture on my part.
It’s outrageous that somebody accuses Steve of cherry picking!
Andy
Imagine that. And Andy Revkin didn’t bother to discuss the meat of the article :
The growing heat of our Summers, the drying up of streams, and the increased frequency of hurricanes, yellow fever, and earthquakes have latterly attracted the attention of thoughtful persons. Various theories have been formed to account for these phenomena, but none of them has hitherto been entirely satisfactory.
I thought the start sounded like a typical Revkin article! The insertion of no theory being satisfactory was the tipoff that Andy was not the author. If it was a typical Revkin piece there would have been no uncertainty and humans would be blamed for ALL.
Steven:
He ma have thought you were Mocking his style! A couple of visits to Dotearth was my limit!
cheap shot Andy hits and runs
Steve, with all the apocalyptic flames and snarky Twain-references you get you need a good pair of asbestos underpants.
Another good one Steve. As a bonus you exposed the fact the the NYT climate guy doesn’t even read the NYT.
New York Times: sucks so bad even their reporters won’t read it!
I thought New York Times let him go a while back and his only connection now is the Dot Earth Blog!