“Ambler’s piece is so lame it is worthy of NewsBlusters or The Examiner, particularly as it affects the same tone of self-righteous arrogance as only the truly ignorant can manage. It is pure Denierism unsullied by any stain of accuracy or logic.” — quoted from greenfyre.stumble on his blog
greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/ambler-huffs-and-puffs-but-mostly-he-jus… [wordpress.com] .
See also:
getenergysmartnow.com/2009/01/05/huffpost-scores-a-10-on-the-inhofe-scale/ [getenergysmartnow.com]
In the last paragraph, Mr. Ambler says, “your [Al Gore] contention that the Arctic basin will be ‘ice free’ in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make.”
How can a contention about something to happen five years in the future be demonstrably false now?
desmogblog.com/harold-ambler-huffington-post-global-warming-misinformation [desmogblog.com]
by desmogblog.stumble/
The question for me is: who the heck is Harold Ambler?
And what makes Ambler such an authority on climate science to so confidently make the bold claim that global warming is a lie?
By the looks of his various bios smattered around the internet it appears that Ambler’s background in the area of climate science is non-existent, he is the author of an upcoming book on a rowing team at Brown University and a musician.
dailykos.com/story/2009/1/4/18222/94498 [dailykos.com]
This piece reminds me of conversations I have with my sister who is a very intelligent, educated, articulate… creationist. When I state scientific facts related to the creation of the universe and evolution- her response is to either 1) state that scientists need to do a better job of communicating to the public- unless she fully understands a concept, she is not going to believe it; or 2) point out gaps in the scientific understanding as proof that the scientist is 100% wrong.
#1- Yes, all scientists need to communicate with the public better. But the lay person needs to understand that science is complicated; generally very complicated. And the skills that make us good scientists often compete with communicating to a non-scientific audience. And even if we are communicating well, complicated concepts need to be simplified- example of this. Should it be called “historically aberrant heat and mass transfer fluctuations correlating with modified delta functions of atmospheric trace gasses and the role of the human primate population and technology”?