tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post1032951115028137859..comments2024-03-26T15:37:57.556-07:00Comments on Idiot Tracker: Andrew Revkin on methane -- Reassuring, but inaccurateTheTrackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-7849587240629296682011-12-18T08:33:20.060-08:002011-12-18T08:33:20.060-08:00Mr Revkin, thank you for stopping by. I've upd...Mr Revkin, thank you for stopping by. I've updated my post to reflect your clarification. My reply to your comment is here: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/12/open-letter-to-andrew-revkin.htmlTheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-28277797462382447122011-12-18T05:58:04.410-08:002011-12-18T05:58:04.410-08:00Andy -
"Some news mediap are happy to press ...Andy -<br /><br />"Some news mediap are happy to press the "front page thought" however tentative a result."<br /><br />In case you come back. I'm being told over at Climate Etc. that the recent Times article on the recent methane observations is a case of typical "MSM" AGW-cabal reporting.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/science/earth/warming-arctic-permafrost-fuels-climate-change-worries.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp<br /><br />Seeing as how you're interested in countering the "front page thought," perhaps you'd write about the Times article, or at least post a comment here as to how you judge the reporting?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-55665069741500484972011-12-17T08:56:43.901-08:002011-12-17T08:56:43.901-08:00I'm not a professional middleman. What I try t...I'm not a professional middleman. What I try to do is 1) question findings by seeking views from others publishing on important questions 2) put new observations (particularly ones that are unpublished and/or dramatic) in the context of what is established in the existing literature.<br /><br />Semiletov is finally in touch with me (he'd gone on vacation right after AGU) and you'll hear more on his work soon. He's very critical of Dmitrenko. This kind of back-and-forthing is the process of science in action. I try to avoid whiplash on the part of the public. Some news mediap are happy to press the "front page thought" however tentative a result.(Relevant book chapter: On Balance, Hype, Climate and the Media: http://nyti.ms/uYeZPX )<br /><br />You're wrong about the AGU /JGR links being to separate papers. Colin Schultz's piece is the journal's summary of the Dmitrenko paper. Schultz works for the AGU. It says that right in the text.<br /><br />As for the timeliness of the paper, I circle back to the initial point. Semiletov's latest observations are just that, observations. It'll be quite awhile before models have to be adjusted to account for one summer's bubbling.<br /><br />RealClimate.org has more on the basics: http://j.mp/cP9JedAndrew Revkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04409256871615098615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-57214443126557481332011-12-17T06:40:47.618-08:002011-12-17T06:40:47.618-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Revkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04409256871615098615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-62473462846476736472011-12-17T05:04:50.892-08:002011-12-17T05:04:50.892-08:00Revkin may now "wear the hat of a blogger&quo...Revkin may now "wear the hat of a blogger" but he has 'publishing' deadlines to meet in order to get a story out while the subject is fresh( 'hot' ) news.<br />But his sloppiness in this one may mean his (mental)comprehensions are slowing down.<br /><br />A real fence "straddler" in his article.<br /><br />Did you ever hear the one about the guy who took extra long steps to avoid wearing out the soles of his shoes and then stretched-n-split the crotch seam of his new trousers?Jack Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09078161384392505546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-60296918257158994322011-12-16T11:51:30.306-08:002011-12-16T11:51:30.306-08:00Thanks for this, Robert. I also had a look at Revk...Thanks for this, Robert. I also had a look at Revkin's piece, though not as thorough as you, after a commenter pointed to it in the discussion following this blog post.<br /><br />I've summarized my first glance problems with Revkin's piece in <a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/12/arctic-methane-russian-researchers-report.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b0162fdd3732e970d#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b0162fdd3732e970d" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>.<br /><br /><i>Andy Revkin now wears the hat of a blogger, but he sometimes seems to have brought with him into his new career the very attributes that brought about the decline of traditional journalism: he is sloppy, he cares more about appearing moderate and fair than reporting the facts accurately, and while tsk-tsking at the sensationalism of the Independent, he neglects to do the basic stuff like talking to the principal people involved and actually getting the facts about the subject of his article.</i><br /><br />Spot on. IMHO the sane middle ground is this:<br /><br />"I'm not too sure about anything with regard to this subject. I wouldn't go all-out 'apocalypse now' like some are doing, but I wouldn't go out 'apocalypse not' either."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com