Oh, noes! I’ve been blocked on the Twitters by Eric Bolling, the pretend journalist, pundit, propagandist or whatever he calls himself, of The Five on Fox “News”!
Never mind that I’ve never followed him there, so I’ll probably survive having been “blocked” by him, but it seems thin-skinned li’l Eric doesn’t like it too much when folks point out the wildly inaccurate “facts” he presents to viewers on his afternoon Fox “News” show.
The Twitter exchange between the very handsome Bolling and me is posted below. In full. It’s brief. I correct his long-ago debunked falsehood about Arctic ice, he calls me a name and links to a long-ago debunked article in a British tabloid to support his long-ago debunked nonsense, I call him a name and link him to actual facts, he calls me a “d-bag”, announces he’ll be blocking me, and then offers me and my “miserable life” a warm farewell. It’s fun.
For the record, the exchange started after he misinformed his viewers on his The Five show Monday, in an effort to pretend climate change isn’t happening, that “Arctic sea ice is approaching a record high level this year!” But it isn’t. Not by a long shot. In fact, the Arctic sea ice minimum extent is at its 6th lowest level ever recorded this year, as those know-nothing, d-bag, loser “scientists” at NASA noted last week, based on satellite imagery.
We (and a whole bunch of actual scientists) completely debunked demolished Bolling’s canard about this year’s Arctic sea ice minimum a few weeks ago, after a British tabloid first put it forward, falsely declaring that the increase in sea ice this year over last year’s all-time low, meant that the globe is now “COOLING!”
As NASA explains, that’s not even close to true…
The same article also notes that “The remaining Arctic sea ice cover is much thinner on average than it was years ago. Satellite imagery, submarine sonar measurements, and data collected from NASA’s Operation IceBridge, an airborne survey of polar ice, indicate that the Arctic sea ice thickness is as much as 50 percent thinner than it was in previous decades.”
But Bolling and Fox “News” have never let facts get in the way of some good fossil fuel-industry propaganda. Greg Gutfeld, one of Bolling’s similarly fact-free co-hosts on The Five, used the same Arctic ice canard on the show a few weeks ago to trumpet: “Global warming, yes, it’s finally dead!” (Video here.)
Inaccurately citing the increase in this year’s sea ice over last year’s all-time record low, Gutfeld went on to declare (also inaccurately): “That means all predictions, computer forecasts have been wrong! Thank you.” The same nonsense was wildly repeated and linked and tweeted, etc. by the incurious dupes, stooges, pawns, chumps, rubes and suckers of the Climate Change Denial Industry, including Rush Limbaugh who lied to his millions of listeners that “the Arctic ice sheet is at a record size for this time of year. They told us the ice was melting in the Arctic Ice Sheet. It’s not. There’s a record amount of ice, in the modern era, for this time of year.”
And the thanks I got for trying to help Bolling out by tweeting to him that he was wrong, and that, in fact, Arctic ice was “at its 6th lowest recorded rate ever”? He sent me the link to that long-ago debunked Mail on Sunday article, called me a “twitter troll”, a “d-bag”, an “angry little man” and blocked me because, it seems, I called him “hateful names”. (He later told someone else on Twitter who was critical of him for blocking me, that he doesn’t “block for opinion,” but “for name calling/personal attacks.”
You be the judge of how “hateful” I was. Admittedly, using the word “dolt” is pretty rough stuff for a sensitive fella like Eric.
My brief Twitter exchange yesterday with the fact-challenged, Fox “News” dolt Eric Bolling follows in full below…
Hey Brad, Eric may be a troll but I suspect he’s well paid for his disinformation.
Laffin
The d-bag book (dictionary) defines “bolling” as:
(dictionary).
Eric the Bolling is evidently not as smart as a fifth grader.
He tweeted:
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).
Here’s a great rebuttal to the climate zombies in under three minutes–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck
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.
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.
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?
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
Don Daniels @8,
What is the rest of the URL on your jpegs?
LaughingCat @5,
You are welcome.
Davey Crocket @7,
You exclaimed:
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:
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:
Yes, it describes a limbless tree (a bolling) with a brown bag over it, blocking out enlightenment.
Another swing and miss from our pal Davey.
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.
I am unable to read more than one line of Bolling’s remark to you, and nothing below.
Wagonjak –
Try refreshing the page. Sometimes Storify seems to go hinky. Looks like it’s working fine at the moment, anyway.
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/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Davey Crocket violated our rules @ 15:
“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.
Brad #16
Please accept my deepest apology for this infraction. What I should have said is this:
“Dredd, you are woefully misinformed.”
Davey #17,
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.