Russ Steele
I wrote a strongly worded post that called the Bee's Editors dishonest or stupid here. Stuart Leavenworth one of the editors wrote in an e-mail:
So why should I engage in a dialogue with someone who calls me stupid and doesn't even bother to check the facts?
Stuart is right, it is hard to have dialog with people who are calling you names. I am sorry that I used such strong language. A simple statement that the Bee had written a misleading editorial and then presented the facts would have been sufficient, but I went too far. I apologize for calling the Editors names. It will not happen again.
Now lets address another point in Stuart's e-mail. He believes that Joel Schwartz misstated what the Bee Editorial said, making "it seem that we misstated the IPCC report, even though it was drawn straight from the IPCC summary for policy makers."
I think this is the clue of where the Bee editors ran into a problem with Joel Schwartz and my concerns. The summary for policy makers was written by politicians with an agenda and the editors fell into their trap, the Bee editors did not look at what the scientists wrote. Joel even gave the page references for the facts in the scientific report, which in it self is flawed but that is the subject of another blog.
In my e-mail apology to Stuart I wrote:
There has been numerous critiques of the IPCCs reports by credible scientists. Part of a good editors job is to be skeptical, questioning and willing to dig for the truth. You need to look beyond the politics and get to the scientific facts. Look at the emerging evidence for sun driven natural cycles. NASA just released two reports that arctic warming is a natural cycle and that part of Greenland glacier melting is most likely due to a thin spot in the crust, that is allowing magma to melt key glaciers. There is growing evidence that the surface temperature record is contaminated. You will find that Al Gore's iconic global hockey stick is broken, it depends on cherry picked bristle cone pine and polar cedar data sets. And their is growing evidence that tree rings are not good proxies for temperature, over whelmed by the influence of moisture levels.
You are obviously an intelligent man, and I just cannot understand how you can allow yourself to be taken in by the CO2 argument. An argument that depends on computer models with tuning knobs that can put out any result desired by the scientist at the knobs. Computer models that cannot replicate the real world, please see recent posts on my blog. Please be more skeptical of global warming politics and focus on the underlying science. Here is an opportunity for a major newspaper to do and in depth expose of the UN's political manipulation of our economic future. I hope the Bee is up to the challenge.
