READER COMMENTS ON
"Eric Bolling of Fox 'News' Calls The BRAD BLOG a 'D-Bag' After We Call Him Out on His Phony, Long-Ago Debunked Global Warming 'Facts'"
(18 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 10/1/2013 @ 8:40 am PT...
Hey Brad, Eric may be a troll but I suspect he's well paid for his disinformation.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Cary Aye
said on 10/1/2013 @ 10:43 am PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 10/1/2013 @ 11:11 am PT...
The d-bag book (dictionary) defines "bolling" as:
A tree from which the branches have been cut
(dictionary).
Eric the Bolling is evidently not as smart as a fifth grader.
He tweeted:
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year
Volume (quantity) of ice is expressed as cubic miles, not square miles.
For those Eric the Limbless Tree fans who want to know how fifth graders calculate the amount of ice (How Fifth Graders Calculate Ice Volume).
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 10/1/2013 @ 1:18 pm PT...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Laughingcat
said on 10/1/2013 @ 4:06 pm PT...
Thanks, Dredd, for keeping the spotlight on the fact that the issue with Arctic ice is volume, not surface area. And they are still deflecting from the more important issue of Greenland and Antarctic melt, which actually DOES increase ocean volume and thus sea levels for those near oceans and rivers. The quantity of Arctic ice is irrelevant to the real threat of ocean rise. The immanent collapse of the western Antarctic ice shelves is not.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Alex
said on 10/1/2013 @ 5:31 pm PT...
I guess if Bolling's football team had been getting trounced for three quarters and was losing 45 to 3, he would claim his team was winning after they scored one touchdown late in the 4th quarter. (Climate is not just one event or one season's records, it more like the trends over several years/decades/centuries.) If he wants to glorify his team for getting one touchdown and believe they won the game then he will be quite surprised when the NFL disagrees with him.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 10/1/2013 @ 6:29 pm PT...
Dredd #3
Didn't know you were a student of Euclid.
Did Bolling use the word "volume?"
Do you know what the word "covered" means?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Don Daniels
said on 10/1/2013 @ 8:26 pm PT...
This was taken yesterday of the Beaufort Sea near Pt.Barrow. I'm an airline pilot wo has been flying these routes for many years, and I have never seen this much open water in the Arctic. The panel shows our position and the photo was taken looking NW from that point. Altitude was 34,000'.
20130930_181044.jpg
20130930_181021.jpg
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 10/2/2013 @ 9:36 am PT...
Don Daniels @8,
What is the rest of the URL on your jpegs?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 10/2/2013 @ 9:48 am PT...
LaughingCat @5,
You are welcome.
Davey Crocket @7,
You exclaimed:
"Didn't know you were a student of Euclid."
No one alive today is a student of Euclid, but the geometry that was here before him is still here with us even though he is not.
You asked:
Did Bolling use the word "volume?"
He used "square miles" which is a term derived from measurements bereft of depth or height, and therefore cannot refer to volume, or quantity.
You also asked:
Do you know what the word "covered" means?
Yes, it describes a limbless tree (a bolling) with a brown bag over it, blocking out enlightenment.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 10/2/2013 @ 8:06 pm PT...
Another swing and miss from our pal Davey.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Shared Humanity
said on 10/3/2013 @ 5:35 am PT...
Very few AGA deniers actually believe what they say. They are simply tools for industry. If you want to be informed, go to this site....
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Posts occur frequently and links to actual research abound. I have been visiting this site for over 2 years and know more about AGW then I would have though possible. It is frightening.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
wagonjak
said on 10/3/2013 @ 7:41 am PT...
I am unable to read more than one line of Bolling's remark to you, and nothing below.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 10/3/2013 @ 6:05 pm PT...
Wagonjak -
Try refreshing the page. Sometimes Storify seems to go hinky. Looks like it's working fine at the moment, anyway.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 10/4/2013 @ 11:24 am PT...
Dred @10
You are such a dimwit.
I will give you one link to read for your edification. There are a zillion more if you care to look. It is common for the Artic ice extent to be described in "square units"
http://nsidc.org/cryosph...uickfacts/icesheets.html
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 10/4/2013 @ 12:29 pm PT...
Davey Crocket violated our rules @ 15:
Dred @10
You are such a dimwit.
"Davey", personal attacks against other commenters (as opposed to bloggers like Ernie or myself) are strictly forbidden by the very few rules we have for commenting here at The BRAD BLOG. I appreciate that sometimes that rule is broken, as I don't really have time to police the joint like it's kindergarden. But I would ask you, as well as all others, to mind that rule, so I don't need to moderate your comments and/or ban you in the future for repeated violations.
Feel free to disagree as much as you like with anybody, hopefully offering evidence to support your argument along the way. But knock off the personal attacks, please.
Hopefully you've noticed that we don't even require registration for commenting here, as most similar sites now do. I'd still like to avoid that, if possible. So, thank you in advance for helping to keep The BRAD BLOG comments as open a forum as possible for all, to whatever extent is possible.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 10/5/2013 @ 8:00 am PT...
Brad #16
Please accept my deepest apology for this infraction. What I should have said is this:
"Dredd, you are woefully misinformed."
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 10/8/2013 @ 12:10 pm PT...
Davey #17,
Dred @10
You are such a dimwit.
I will give you one link to read for your edification. There are a zillion more if you care to look. It is common for the Artic ice extent to be described in "square units"
Square units do not describe the quantity of ice, only cubic units describe the quantity.
A one inch square of ice can cover a square foot of extent over a body of water, depending on its "thickness" i.e. how thinly it is sliced (height or depth), but that does not tell you the quantity or amount of the ice.
A cubic inch of ice that is one inch square on all sides, however, can tell you the quantity of the ice.
extent = l x w (square units)
volume = l x w x h (cubic units)
That is why NASA put a satellite up to measure the thickness of the ice.
A "thousand square miles of ice extent" can describe far less quantity of ice than "500 cubic miles of ice volume."
Here is the clincher for you: it is impossible to know how much ice there is when the description is in square units (sq. mi./ sq. km./ sq. ft./ sq. in./ etc.)
How much ice has melted or not melted away, therefore, can not be expressed in terms of extent.
That is expressed as, for example, "yesterday there was 5 cubic feet of ice, but today there are only 3 cubic feet of ice" tells you that 2 cubic feet have melted away.
The extent of the remaining 3 cubic feet can cover 5,10,15, or 50 square feet depending on the thickness it is sliced into.
The extent, square feet it could cover, could be vast if it was one only one molecule thick.
But the volume at 5,10,15,50 or a vast amount of square feet would remain the same.
Thanx for apologizing to Brad.