tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post8372302040575283766..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: The CycloneDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-30680319305436454272008-05-11T10:17:00.000-07:002008-05-11T10:17:00.000-07:00The story there is very short, and Gore's comment ...The story there is very short, and Gore's comment quoted there clearly states that any individual storm cannot be linked to global warming. The ability to miss this -- the 5th, and large, paragraph in a six paragraph story -- looks like blindness to me:<BR/><BR/><I>“It’s also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is although any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming – we’ve always had hurricanes,” Gore said. “Nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms – the larger ones and trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-66206078094916683232008-05-11T00:18:00.000-07:002008-05-11T00:18:00.000-07:00Sigh.David assigns *strong* credibility to:a) Jeff...Sigh.<BR/>David assigns *strong* credibility to:<BR/><BR/>a) Jeff Poor, who writes for newsbusters.org, and the next:<BR/><BR/>b) Business & Media Institute, whose archive of environment articles is:<BR/>http://www.businessandmedia.org/archive/environment_archive.aspx<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't it be a good idea to check out what Gore *actually* said?<BR/><BR/>The relevant REAL piece starts about 27:00 into the audio file at:<BR/>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9019009<BR/><BR/>This is useful for the whole story:<BR/>http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/09/right-wing-gore-cyclone/<BR/><BR/>Indeed, Poor's audio was not only cherry-picked to remove context, but spliced out of order: this is easiest to see if you put the Wonk Room's actual transcript up, and in another window play the doctored version:<BR/>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90190092John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-22051165897393009412008-05-10T18:57:00.000-07:002008-05-10T18:57:00.000-07:00It turns out the Gore quote was doctored to change...It turns out the Gore quote was <A HREF="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/9/154426/7163" REL="nofollow">doctored</A> to change its meaning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-39247962201977603692008-05-08T14:08:00.000-07:002008-05-08T14:08:00.000-07:00David, the text doesn't match the headline. Maybe ...David, the text doesn't match the headline. Maybe that's what threw you off. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-70900251896126199562008-05-08T11:31:00.000-07:002008-05-08T11:31:00.000-07:00Would you accept "we’re seeing events that scienti...Would you accept "we’re seeing events that scientists have long predicted might be consequences of continued global warming" instead? That is probably what he was trying to say. It's hard to be nuanced in real time.<BR/><BR/>At least I can see your problem there, though. What is your beef with Mooney? <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/storm-world/#more-425" REL="nofollow">RealClimate thought he was pretty much on the mark</A>, saying<BR/><BR/>"Mooney doesn't come down on any particular 'side' of the debate. Instead, he explores the nuances of the scientific findings and views of the various protagonists, and helps the science and the scientists speak for themselves."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"There should be no misunderstanding. While Mooney is indeed balanced, he is not completely agnostic either. He recognizes that hurricane characteristics are indeed changing and that, while we may not yet have arrived at definitive answers to the underlying scientific questions, we ought to be concerned."<BR/><BR/>I admit I have yet to read my copy of his book entirely but what I have seen of it seems nuanced, fair and remarkably thorough.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com