UPDATE 1/25: Mr. Hays has has provided a follow up letter, posted at the bottom of this article. – Anthony
This letter below, reprinted with permission, is from Ross Hays. Ross was a CNN meteorologist for many years. He works for NASA at the Columbia Balloon Facility.
In that capacity he has spent much time in Antarctica. He obviously can’t speak for his agency but can have an opinion which he shared with several people. It is printed below in entirety, exactly as he sent it to Eric Steig today, the lead author of the University of Washington paper highlighted in a press release yesterday that claims there is a warming in Antarctica. There were some of the pronouncements made in the media, particularly to the Associated Press by Dr. Michael Mann, that marry that paper with “global warming”, even though no such claim was made in the press release about the scientific paper itself.
I agree with Ross Hays. In my opinion, this press release and subsequent media interviews were done for media attention. The timing is suspicious, with the upcoming Al Gore’s address to congress, he can now say: “We’ve now learned Antarctica is warming”. A Google News search shows about 530 articles on the UW press release in various media.
I ask my readers that share this opinion to consider writing factual letters to the editor (in your own words) or make online comments if any of these media outlets are near you. – Anthony
letter dated 1/22/09
Eric,
Let me first say that this is my own opinion and does not represent the agency I work for. I feel your study is absolutely wrong.
There are very few stations in Antarctica to begin with and only a hand full with 50 years of data. Satellite data is just approaching thirty years of available information. In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder. In the late 1980s helicopters were used to take our personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station due to the annual receding of the Ross Ice Shelf, but in the past few years the thaw has been limited and vehicles can continue to make the transition and drive on the ice. One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station. In a synoptic perspective the cooler sea surface temperatures have kept the maritime storms farther offshore in the summer season and the colder more dense air has rolled from the South Pole to the ice shelf.
There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.
With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
Follow up letter, sent 1/24 and posted on 1/25 with permission:
Anthony,
A prerequisite to going to work for the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility was to pass an Antarctic physical. During the southern summer each year CSBF launches large (up to 40 million cubic feet) scientific balloons that orbit Antarctica for up to 42 days with scientific experiments. Most of the payloads are astrophysics, but scientific balloons discovered the ozone hole over Antarctica.
The meteorologist job is to do daily forecasts for our launch site at Williams Field near McMurodo Station on Ross Island. When campaigns are going on daily briefings are provided to personnel and a written summary is provided for daily situation reports sent to the Balloon Program Office at Goddard Space Center. We also monitor the stratospheric winds while the payloads are being readied to launch and to make sure the winds are in the correct direction and the balloon will stay over the continent. We also forecast payload termination and impact areas.
I have only done two tours on the Ice but have provided forecasts from Palestine, Texas on the years between after the balloon launches we take over forecasts for the payload and handle termination from our command center. I will be returning to the Ice in November.
My main problem with the study is the data sets. I know of only 4 stations for all of Antarctica that have fifty complete years of data. I am trying to find the exact number now. Most stations have been on and off in operation for a few seasons during field experiments. One of our retired meteorologists, Glenn Rosenberger was a US Navy meteorologist that did tours in Antarctica. He helped install the first automated weather stations on the continent: In conjunction with Stanford University, believe it was in 1978-1979 that 4 were put on the ice. One was on Minna Bluff, one on the Plateau, one on the slope of Eribus. They were powered by the RTG (radiological thermoelectric generators) and the I was the Radiological Officer for the command. There is just not enough data to support the results in my opinion.
The discussion about the warming in West Antarctica is also questionable to me since the majority of stations with several years of data are on the Antarctic Peninsula, which is surround by warmer maritime air, and doesn’t give a good balance over the interior.
I hope this gives you some idea about me.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
John Philip, you don’t think the questions in that survey were just a teensy-weensy bit loaded in a brainless “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of way?
Try this article for context (and the previous blog it links to):
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/22/weblogs-by-my-coauthors-of-our-rejected-eos-forum-article/
Wouldn’t the opinions of authors actually cited by IPCC regarding the conclusions drawn from their field have been equally informed and interesting?
R John stated:
“Visible light that comes from an incandescent light bulb in your home puts out 10^6 more energy than your cell phone. Do you get “baked” sitting under the light from this when you are reading a book?”
Try sticking that light bulb against your ear for about an hour!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You HAVE heard about the inverse square law haven’t you??
Nikck said:
“I think that the focus here should be on the sampling method rather than the broader discipline of quantitative analysis.”
It has to be on both. Will you allow people to make things up in ANY field??
NO!!
If the cooling of the 70’s over Antarctica is going to be blamed on the ozone hole, then the shrinkage globally of the upper atmosphere lately is going to be letting a lot of heat out of the planet, and deep cooling will be the result.
You can’t have it both ways.
But you sure can fool a lot of politicians who are eager to be spoon fed.
I listened to the interview with the “recent warming in Antartica has been reverse-modeled to make up for lack of stations” author who indicated in no uncertain terms that the ozone hole over Eastern Antarctica was to blame for the cooling there. You can find that on NPR (National Public Radio) with the interviewer reacting a bit skeptically.
John Philip (17:14:25) :
“The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”
And, from what I read here and at other sites, you’d get about the same number here. The issue is whether that “role” is significant AND whether it is damaging or beneficial. These misleading strawman statements only serve to diminish anything else you have to say (right or wrong).
Now, are you defenders through with your obfuscation attack or do we have to keep listening to more unrelated comments?
Anyone who thinks this paper has any merits whatsoever has lost perspective. So, let me repeat myself. If a cherry picked starting date is REQUIRED to produce the papers conclusions then the paper is WORTHLESS. The fact that Dr. Mann put his name on the paper tells me he has lost perspective. It reeks of desperation and panic.
The ozone hole is actually right above Antarctica, so it’s not totally surprising.
If you’d like, check out my new blog:
http://theriverjordan.net/why-im-not-a-people-pleaser
Jordan.
Is this odd to anyone else? During the radio interview linked to above, Eric Steig replied to one question about the visible ice expansion in the Antartic, explaining that contrary to popularly held beliefs, the expansion is due to wind.
One or two questions later, he is blaming alleged increased temperature for the loss of ice and ice calving.
As I now understand it from Eric Steig, temperature does not cause ice, it’s the wind. But it’s the temperature that removes and softens the ice, not the wind.
And then while I am Googling to find information about the apparent contradiction I find this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/03/winds-are-dominant-cause-of-greenland-and-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-losses/
An “inconvenient” truth about global warming is as follows:
Conventional thinking on recent ice ages, based on as they say “fossil
evidence”, says that continent size ice sheets advance and retreat on
40,000- and 100,000-year time scales. Imagine, some 18,000 years ago an
ice sheet over a mile thick covered Manhattan Island. To visualize that
imagine that four Empire State Buildings stacked one on top of the other
would still be covered in ice. There are boulders the size of 15 story building partially buried in Manhattan’s Central Park that were dragged from Canada and deposited there by the advancing ice.
So much water was held in ice that it is estimated that global sea levels dropped by over 350 feet! To visualize that, stand on any beach along the eastern coast of the US. On a clear day look out towards the sea as
far as the horizon – that is about 28 miles. During that last glacial period you would need to travel out another 40 miles out to see that same horizon! That last glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago. World temperatures then increased so much that by 6000 years ago, lions roamed as far north as Northern Europe and parts of Wisconsin and Minnesota resembled the dry hot savanna of today’s east Africa.
As far as I know, loins today make their home in Africa not Europe, and
Wisconsin is home to the holy Mecca of the National Football League,
also know as “the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field”. Since the worse
ecological damage humans could do 10,000 years ago (start a forest fire)
could not heat the planet, the real inconvenient truth about climate
change is that it will happen regardless of what anyone (or everyone)
does. Climate change is as inevitable as old age. A wise man plans for
the coming of his old age, rather than believing he can avoid it by
buying into the latest cure-all from a quick talking snake-oil sales man.
Richard M (19:53:18) :
John Philip (17:14:25) :
““The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”
And, from what I read here and at other sites, you’d get about the same number here. The issue is whether that “role” is significant AND whether it is damaging or beneficial. These misleading strawman statements only serve to diminish anything else you have to say (right or wrong).
Now, are you defenders through with your obfuscation attack or do we have to keep listening to more unrelated comments?
Anyone who thinks this paper has any merits whatsoever has lost perspective. So, let me repeat myself. If a cherry picked starting date is REQUIRED to produce the papers conclusions then the paper is WORTHLESS. The fact that Dr. Mann put his name on the paper tells me he has lost perspective. It reeks of desperation and panic.”
Well said Richard M.
Antarctica: Still a Cool Place If You Don’t Mind The Cold. By Meteorologist Art Horn
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/VOSTOK.pdf
Recently I had a chance to question Mr. Mann at a talk he was giving in southwestern Connecticut. I asked him if he could explain how global average temperature had only gone up two out of the last seven decades even though eighty percent of all the carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere has been since 1940? His response was that he disagreed with my figure of 80 percent since 1940, he said most of the carbon dioxide had been emitted in the last 15 years. He also was unaware that the global average temperature has only risen two of the last seven decades. He said that statement was simply not true. I can only guess he’s been looking at failed computer model forecasts and a broken hockey stick, not real data. It was quite stunning to hear his ignorance about the trend in temperature for the last seven decades.
Pork loins? Loin cloths?
Anthony, I don’t want you mad at me but, this is my field: A.S. in communication electronics. please google or wikipedia first LOL 🙂
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml
http://www.coveragemaps.com/gsmposter.htm
IMT-compliant 2100MHz band for 3G services (new, used mostly in big citys like Detroit )
” Also, since water molecules are sensitive to a particular band of microwave frequency, typically 2.45 gigahertz, which makes them resonate and thus “heat up” from the transference of energy from the microwaves.” (2.4gig is 2,400MHZ)
Your wattage is Way way off, the towers has 300 channels at 1-2 watts per channel with a tower as close to 10 miles apart this makes for some heating. 600 watts per sq mile 24/7 365…. that is only GSM we also have cdma, tdma, PCS and worst yet micro wave translators! these are thousands of watts. every TV station has at least two and usually more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_frequency#Television
# 2300–2310 MHz: Amateur radio (ham – 13 cm band, lower segment)
# 2310–2360 MHz: Satellite radio (Sirius and XM)
# 2390–2450 MHz: Amateur radio (ham – 13 cm band, upper segment)
# 2400–2483.5 MHz: ISM, IEEE 802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g Wireless LAN, IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth
# 2450 MHz: Microwave oven
one more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency
“In particular, signals in the 57–64 GHz region are subject to a resonance of the oxygen molecule” This heats oxygen! lol not that far from sat links up/down.
Tim
REPLY The wattage I wrote about was for the the handeld cellular devices, of which there millions. Low power 50 to 100 milliwatts. Even with the higher power transmitter towers and others you have cited, I don’t see much of a power signal compared to solar radiation. I just don’t think the amount of radio power we are dissipating into the atmosphere comes even close. – Anthony
the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air
anticyclone that develops over the South Pole
reversed wind?
All we can say is that there is more heat in H2O and UHF transmitters than all of the CO2 in the air…. a must to think about.
Why just write to media outlets? Please – write to you local political represntative as well. Congressman, Member of Parliament, Senator – they all count the potential impact on votes. If you are cranky about poor journalism, let them know! If you are cranky about man made global warming being advertised as a done deal, let them know that too.
There are quite a few websites with posts blasting this particular article. Jennifer Marohasy at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/modellers-remove-evidence-of-cooling-and-editor-removes-comment-by-climate-sceptic/
is another one.
Mr. Hays, by his own admission, seems have spent exactly ONE summer season in Antarctica.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/01/anthony-watts-knows-how-to-pick-em.htm#links
Another perspective:
In a 2007 survey of international earth scientists in academia and government research (primarily meteorologists, geologists and climatologists in various disciplines) 90% and 82% agreed, respectively, on the following two agreed on the following two questions:
1. have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
see article on this study here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
(As an aside, it is important to note here that the term “global warming” is only partially accurate. The term “climate change” is a more accurate term for the various climate-related phonomena being reported by scientists around the globe, as this term best encompasses everything from droughts, to the frequency and severity of storms, to erratic weather patterns, to rising ocean temperatures, etc. as they appear *over long periods of time* affecting the entire planet — from Saharan Africa, to Antartica, to the eastern coast of the U.S., to eastern Europe…. )
Regarding the above-mentioned survey, the analysis found that climatologists showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Why the discrepancy?
Are we to believe that climatologists are stupid? Or that this profession has a vandetta against the fossil fuel industry? Or that they’re a bunch of tree-hugging hippies who like to run around crying, “The sky is falling!”? Or that they, perhaps, have stock in the solar panel industry?
One explanation is that meteorologists are concerned with shorter-term weather prediction (minutes, hours, days and weeks), while climatologists are concerned with longer time frames (month to month, season to season, year to year, decade to decade, century to century). Not to belittle meteorologists (my son-in-law is one), but comparing climatologists to meteorologists is much like comparing economists to stockbrokers, bankers or accountants.
It’s the little picture vs. the big picture: weather prediction vs. climate prediction. While there is much overlap between meteorology and climatology, there are distince differences in their fields of study and the methodologies inherent to each.
Meteorologists predict short-term weather by studying the dynamic and physical processes of the atmosphere. Climatologists predict long-term climate by these same processes, but in addition, they study these atmospheric processes AS THEY RELATE to the climate system (oceans, cryosphere, terrestrial biosphere). The actual science and the issues inherent to the studies and the methods used are immensely more complex than I or anyone could state in a few sentences. The bottom line is that, in the realm of science, it is the climatologists (not meteorologists) who are, as a rule, doing the actual work of studying LONG-term weather and climate patterns.
Conclusions about climate change cannot be drawn from one or even several seasons. This is why I can only groan when I read the antecdotal observation of individuals (“Geez! It’s cold as heck in our neck of the woods! I think global warming is a bunch of hooey!”) and certain scientists (“December 2006 was the coldest winter ever!”) who clearly lack either the knowledge or willingness to study, analyze and consider the validity of the models, methodology and conclusions from LONG-term climatology research before declaring their opinions.
In this vein, it bears mention that, according to his own blog, Ross Hays’ letter “from a meterologist on the ground in Antartica,” was written after he spent ONE southern summer in Antartica. Before this, he worked at CNN for 19 years. He found this job with NASA after networking with JobSeekers, a faith-based group, which helped him with his communication skills and with developing a positive atitude in the aspect of faith.
Returning to my analogy of stock traders/accountants/bankers vs. economists…. For the past 6 years, economists have been warning of the very economic collapse we are experiencing. They didn’t use a crystal ball, but instead took into account various factors, not the least of which were the deregulation of Wall Street and the removal of long-standing safeguards to the financial and banking industries. Their warnings only grew more dire with each year, even as Americans appeared to be riding the crest unprecedented and seemingly endless prosperity. In contrast, stockbrokers, bankers and accountants (and our leaders) spent the past 6 years extolling rosy predictions for our economic future. I liken Hays “letter from a meteorologist” to a Forbes article from 2006, in which they discussed the “robust” health Circuit City stock. Yesterday, they were the nation’s second largest electronics retailer. Today, they are liquidating. Again, the economists saw this coming from miles away.
And speaking of liquid, temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen 2.5° C since the 1940s. Over the last 100 years the global sea level has risen by between 10 and 25 cm (between 4 to 10 inches). This may not sound like much to me or you, but to scientists who understand the relationship between the Ross Ice Shelf and the rest of the planet, it is cause for concern.
The reassurances of a former CNN meteorologist who spent a summer in Antartica, perusing random figures and drawing global conclusions from the temperature of “year x” or “decade y” reassure me of nothing except that this man has an opinion based on insufficient data. His opinion is, nonetheless, music to the ears of those determined, for whatever reasons, to deny the existence of climate change.
bigcitylib and canarypapers make the same ad hominem attack against the author.
As explained in the post @16:54:59, these ad hom attacks are a tactic intended to distract from the fact that the empirical evidence that Hays documented shows significant Antarctic cooling.
When the facts don’t support you, attack the messenger, right? How many seasons have you critics spent in Antarctica? Have either of you ever even been south of the Equator? South of Miami Beach? South of the Mason-Dixon line??
Ross Hays is real doing climate work, while you take ad hominem pot shots from the sidelines. Who do you suppose is more credible? Someone on the ground in Antarctica, or someone tapping a keyboard about ‘faith-based’ jobs?
A reconstruction based on ‘satellite’ data that starts in 1982 does not fare well when compared with the actual physical evidence. See this study:
Twentieth century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models. Andrew Monaghan, David Bromwich, and David Schneider. Geophysical Research Letters, April 5, 2008
That shows that based on physical evidence there was only .2C warming for the century. Still looks like cherry picking made up information.
The esteemed Prof. Freeman Dyson puts things in perspective:
Since the greatest effect of CO2 is found in the Polar regions, and since that change is minuscule, it is not surprising that armchair scientists are tweaking their always-inaccurate computer models in an effort show as much Antarctic warming as possible. But despite all the model adjustments, the actual rate of Antarctic temperature change is extremely small, and well within normal, natural fluctuations.
That fact drives another nail into the coffin of AGW.
Smokey (16:54:59) :
Yes, but it’s an ad-hom question, intended to divert from the real issue. The question wasn’t a polite, “Mr. Hays, have you been to Antarctica more than once? It isn’t clear in your letter.” But, No-o-o. Hays must be lying, right? So let’s all chatter about putative lying liars and the lies they tell, and get distracted from the real issue. Such distraction is a tactic.
No, it was not an ad hominem question. It was a straightforward question asking how to understand the contradiction between two statements, and there was nothing impolite about it at all. It is entirely clear from the letter that Hays states experience of summer seasons plural, so your proposed alternative question would make no sense. I have made no statement that Mr Hays is a liar, nor any other statement in respect of his motivation. As for “the real issue”, clarifying factual matters is a real issue, it seems to me.
Why the ornery nit-picking of Hays’ statement? Obviously, to distract from the real issue: the empirical evidence that Antarctic is getting colder.
This comment of yours, on the other hand, is self-evidently ad hominem, in that it imputes a cynical motive to me. It is also non-sensical, in that I have made perfectly clear in my post 07:55:08 above that it seems to me Steig’s paper would be wholly consistent with current cooling in the Antarctic, so far from distracting from that possibility, I have actually drawn attention to it!
April E. Coggins (17:13:01) :
I’m with Smokey on this one. I’m wondering if Simon expects each scientist to personally experience the temperature data for it to be considered reliable? Or is it okay to read other scientists recorded data and make some opinions from that?
Yes, of course, without question that is perfectly ok. However, in that case one would not refer to personal experience of those conditions. Ross Hays makes a statement of summer seasons getting colder as a judgment of personal experience. I think it is therefore relevant to ask what that experience amounts to and whether it really puts him in a position to make judgments of the seasonal trend on the basis of it. I would have no query at all with him referencing any trend in the recorded data.
niteowl (13:53:14) :
Thank you for the link to the newsletter. I agree with your conclusion from this account that Ross Hays’ first trip to the Antarctic would have been 2005/6. I do not understand the apparent inconsistencies in statements, so it is a pity that Mr Hays is not here to clarify.
Mr Hays is doing interesting, important and doubtless challenging work, and I wish him well in his new career. He is entitled to his view as to whether the Antarctic is warming or cooling, although I do not personally think he is entitled to impute questionable motives to others, as he does in his final paragraph. Regardless, I think it entirely reasonable to question the extent of his direct experience, which he presents as a basis for his judgment. It is evident that the matter of his direct experience is considered to be significant, as the title of the original post here shows. It is not ad hominem to question what that experience actually is, nor is it ad hominem to point out conflicting statemenst regarding it. Stating otherwise suggests an understanding of ‘ad hominem’ that I certainly don’t recognise.
It occurs to me that some posters here think it is important to question the factual basis of the work of Hansen or Mann, for example (and that some are evidently prepared to suggest that these scientists are fraudsters), but not to have questioned basic factual matters in a statement from someone whose position accords with theirs. Well, so be it.
Well, it wasn’t me who introduced opinion surveys into the thread, and canarypapers has covered most of what I wished to add. So I’ll be brief and confine myself to answering questions directed at me, then sign off this one.
The survey methodology is described here
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Do I think the questions were designed to elicit a particular result? No I do not, they were framed and vetted by a reputable company and rigourous steps taken to ensure fair one-person-one-vote voting.
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities
More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees .. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change
The key questions were what do you think has been the trend in global mean temperatures since 1880 and …Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
To this last question, 82% answered yes overall, and this figure rose to 97.4% amongst the climate science specialists, leading the author to conclude that It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes
Bye for now..
JP
REPLY: John, while I’m not going to get into it here, since it is way OT, I think you’ll find that survey seriously flawed. Yet the same people who denounce the Oregon petition don’t say a peep about it. I’ll have a thread on it in the future, so hold commentary for now. – Anthony
I’d like to add another perspective to this enlightening discussion. Let us assume, as has been hypothesized, that there is an intended correlation between the timing of this news release, with its revisionist news about Antarctic temperatures, and upcoming Public testimony by Gore et al. We can easily grasp that the paradox of “Global” warming with Antarctic cooling presents a PR problem for AGW. But there is an additional factor that I believe may be influencing the “science” here.
Consider that Svensmark’s theorem elegantly explains the above paradox. According to Svensmark, an increase in solar magnetosphere activity will produce the paradox. Over most of the globe, an increase in solar magnetic activity will produce warming by decreasing cloud cover. Over Antartica, however, the same decrease in cloud cover will produce a decrease in temperature. This is because clouds have a higher albedo than ocean and most continental masses, but a lower albedo than the highly reflective Antartic surface.
At the risk of appearing deeply cynical, I would submit that one reason this gossip is being leaked to the media at this very moment is to blunt the potential PR impact of Svensmark’s elegant and highly credible formulation.
Smokey (04:42:17) :
“bigcitylib and canarypapers make the same ad hominem attack against the author.”
I also noted these posters said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the article in question. These are more obfuscation attacks. Just once I’d like to hear one of these attackers say something about the actual paper.
Richard M (07:17:44) :
Smokey (04:42:17) :
“bigcitylib and canarypapers make the same ad hominem attack against the author.”
I also noted these posters said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the article in question. These are more obfuscation attacks. Just once I’d like to hear one of these attackers say something about the actual paper.
If you are including me as what you call an “attacker”, then I refer you to my post above at 07:55:08, where I reference the Steig et al paper extensively.
REPLY: Simon I think you read too much into it. The best policy is to ignore the excretive commentary of “bigcitylib”. This person has shown himself to be so inflammatory and so fixated on juvenile pursuits (look for posts on “boobs” and “bigfoot”) that I would say that he is the only blogger I know that is an active “troll” for his own blog. Let’s all leave him out of the discussion, as he is picoscopically irrelevant. – Anthony