Posted: January 20, 2013 by tallbloke in alarmism, Incompetence, media

Harold Ambler nails it again.

Talking About the Weather

Sunday, January 20, 11:43 a.m. EST, update: Andy Revkin kindly took the time to make sure the right set of eyes fell on a third letter I wrote, and the Times has fixed the piece and issued a formal correction. To Andy I offer my sincere thanks. With my book focusing in part on a century-long habit of promulgating climate fear at the Times it is gratifying to have the paper catch an accurate glimpse of its own reflection in the blogosphere mirror, if even for a moment. By the way, a screencap of the original article with the mistake is below (beneath that the original blog post can be found).

When I found a rather major error in a New York Timesarticle about climate change, I took the trouble to write the editors. I did so via two channels. One of the two ways was sending a letter to the…

View original post 430 more words

  1. Scute says:

    Tallbloke, I left this comment on Harold’s site:

    Harold, they must’ve read your blog post- they’ve changed it and put a correction notice at the bottom of the article. So it was worth the effort in the end! Well done.


    [Reply] Nice one. Pity I just this minute tweeted Revkin…

  2. Roger Andrews says:

    Why don’t you send a copy of the letter to Andy Revkin? He works for the NYT, and you might even get a response.

  3. tallbloke says:

    That comment seems to have been removed, Who was it from?
    I was madde aware of Per Strandberg’s analysis several days ago here at the talkshop (in suggestions I think) but decided against publishing, although it is interesting. It’s just been given the Willis treatment over there.

  4. J Martin says:

    There is no comment 1204110 ??

    What did it say ?

    [Reply] I’m not entirely sure I want to know what it said until I know who made it. 🙂

  5. J Martin says:

    Given that Per Strandberg is talking about planets and the moon and the ecliptic plane I’m surprised that the post was ever posted on WUWT.

    @A C Osborn. Keep Rog. happy and tell us who made the comment. Then if Rog. approves stop keeping me in suspense and tell us what you remember of the missing comment.

  6. tallbloke says:

    I’m in the middle of an discussion on William Connolley’s site a the moment and decided to check his previous comments here. I’d forgotten what a classic this thread is:

  7. J Martin says:

    Landscheidt did some work on Enso.

    Perhaps that’s why the comment on WUWT got deleted.

  8. oldbrew says:

    TB says 7:31pm

    My recent comment linked to Per Strandberg.

    NB I didn’t post on WUWT.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Oldbrew: right, thanks. I decided not to post it because there’s a lot of thinking around length of day still going on in my head. Plus the luni-solar tide plot wasn’t entirely convincing for me. I’d like to get the data from Per and combine it with a model Tim C did recently and my ‘3 el ninos per solar cycle’ rule of thumb. That might improve the match and make it battle ready.

  10. oldbrew says:

    The ‘missing’ comment at WUWT worked for me. It just says ‘Tallbloke will be interested in this.’ – from AC Osborn.

    Per is on Twitter if that’s any help.

    [Reply] Thanks again. Mystery solved, I can see it now too. It was not yet approved when I first checked, but Willis gets auto-approved (God help us), so his later comment number made me think ACO’s linked comment had been nixed.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Sorry, didn’t give the link for Per S.