Jan
Quote of the Day: NYT’s Andrew Revkin to NASA’s James Hansen
This excerpt is pulled from the NRO’s Planet Gore’s piece “Watts up with NASA” by Chris Hormer. We found the quote they posted from Andrew Revkin sadly hilarious.
But for now, take a gander at this e-mail from the New York Times’s Andrew Revkin to James Hansen — included below one of Hansen’s missives massaging Andy’s late entry into the fray with an apologia for which NASA’s Reto Ruedy later gushed in thanks (causing Andy to despair, in apparent further apology that he couldn’t do more, that the issue had become difficult for him to ignore). The thread is dated August 23, 2007:
i never, til today, visited http://www.surfacestations.org and found it quite amazing. if our stations are that shoddy, what’s it like in Mongolia?
Oh, dear. Quite amazing — yet not quite newsworthy. Surface Stations is the brainchild of 25-year-veteran meterologist Anthony Watts, who created it to survey and catalog the quality of the sites that collect U.S. temperature data. Surface Stations propelled Watts’s other site — Watts Up With That? — to its initial prominence, on the way to becoming the most heavily trafficked “climate” site and its selection as best science blog in 2008. So why should a Times environmental reporter bother with publicizing the work of a man so many (too many?) people were discovering on their own?
Possibly related posts:
love it! Such a dry sense of humour much admired by us Brits : )
“Watt’s Up With That” was one of those strokes of genius with which the skeptic camp seems blessed. Keep bringing the good stuff. We will need every last bit of it to bring off the political gotterdammerung we are planning for the greenwieners here in the US.
Shoddy data then tortured into submission by Mann, Jones, Briffa & all the other pseudo- scientists ilk, AKA “Grant Whores”. Has anyone demanded to see the science that says we can save a planet that doesn’t seem to be cooperating/lol. The number of deaths from cold greatly out numbers heat related, oops.
Hello from Canada,
There is another scandal here and that is the failure of the MSM to follow this story. There are a few exceptions. I don’t think anybody objects to working towards a more energy efficient and cleaner environment. Plain and simple, AGW is a trojan horse for the theft of money from (jack and jill who pay the bill) I got that line from another poster from somewhere…forget where.
The general public will clue in once this BS starts hitting them in the pocket book.
Talk about BS read this in today’s NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?exprod=myyahoo
Well, it is the NYT! When they going bankrupt? I know they have been bankrupt of real science reporting for decades, but I’m talking$$$$. Anyone who believes what Hansen says also believes in AGW & the tooth fairy.
I just spent a little time on the NASA facebook page this A.M. I certainly admit my bias, but what I see there doesn’t look like science to me.
On facebook, one can look at the comments, and then study the Author and what’s on his/her page. I think there’s a great source of information there, and it would be nice to save some of the conversation for future use.
As I reflect, the first question that comes to mind is how much does a NASA Scientist cost? But the more one looks at NASA, the follow up question… How much did all of NASA cost?