Flawed climate change data (again)?
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
The New York Times article that came out a couple weeks ago stating that 2016 was the hottest year on record provided very few data points. Come to find out the data they used showed 0.04 degrees of warming. The margin of error was 0.1. This is a prime example of global warming alarmism.
I have no doubt the world is warming and I have no doubt that humans have caused some of it. To what degree is up for debate
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html?_r=0
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/27/new-york-times-our-readers-are-too-dumb-to-understand-numbers/
I have no doubt the world is warming and I have no doubt that humans have caused some of it. To what degree is up for debate
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html?_r=0
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/27/new-york-times-our-readers-are-too-dumb-to-understand-numbers/
Shhhh. The consensus says we will all be wiped out within 20 years due to CO2. Fire up the rockets! The only way to survive is flee to Mars.
The Christian's have Revelation, the Muslims have Jihad, and the Atheists have apocalyptic climates. We all have to die of something.
Climate change is definitely occurring, it is a natural occurrence that has existed for billions of years. The Man Made Climate Change religion is a cabal that exists to make some people rich (the green energy company investors) and to pacify the anti capitalist people who have one goal in life and that is to make sure every country in the world becomes a third world crap hole.
The fact that there are several things that occur naturally that can affect the climate way more than anything that man can do. I am way way way more worried about the uptick that is going on in volcanic activity around the globe as well as the crazy stuff that is going on with the sun than I am whether we burn coal or drive combustible engine cars. Those are things that can significantly alter the climate and kill millions of people of wipe out our electrical grids that would cause panics like we have never seen.
It really isn't surprising that they have to use data manipulation to "prove" their consensus.
The last reason that I do not worry about man made climate change is due to the fact that their is no panic in any of the people who champion the cause or Democrats who make speeches about it but follow up with no action.! Al Gore the champion of the climate wars for the left has massive mansions that run tons of electricity. He jets across the globe on private jets and travels in a SUV army when he's driving places. All of these things produce massive amounts of the things he is against. If man made global warming was a giant threat to humanity like we are lead to believe why wouldn't Al Gore completely change his life style. Never travel, do meetings and speeches by net meeting. Go only to events he can reach by bicycle. Completely do away with your carbon footprint and tell everybody else you need to follow me in doing this because the planet is in danger.
Left wing politicians offer zero solutions except raising taxes and putting out more EPA regulations. If we were heading to a world wide global disaster why wouldn't this be front and center the most daunting focus of anybody that is in office that believes the man made climate change story. I mean if the world is going to end as we know it, we are going to have states disappear off the earth. Why in the world does this not take front and center above everything else. Isis who cares we are about to unleash cataclysmic storms that will destroy the earth who cares about terrorism. Jobs and the economy, if as survivors of man made climate change apocalypse why should a president be concerned with jobs. There won't be any businesses we will either be dead or have nothing resembling a thriving work force in anything.
There are many things I worry about. The economy, China, Russia, terrorism would be the top 4. Man made climate change is number 500 on a list of 100 things I worry about.
The fact that there are several things that occur naturally that can affect the climate way more than anything that man can do. I am way way way more worried about the uptick that is going on in volcanic activity around the globe as well as the crazy stuff that is going on with the sun than I am whether we burn coal or drive combustible engine cars. Those are things that can significantly alter the climate and kill millions of people of wipe out our electrical grids that would cause panics like we have never seen.
It really isn't surprising that they have to use data manipulation to "prove" their consensus.
The last reason that I do not worry about man made climate change is due to the fact that their is no panic in any of the people who champion the cause or Democrats who make speeches about it but follow up with no action.! Al Gore the champion of the climate wars for the left has massive mansions that run tons of electricity. He jets across the globe on private jets and travels in a SUV army when he's driving places. All of these things produce massive amounts of the things he is against. If man made global warming was a giant threat to humanity like we are lead to believe why wouldn't Al Gore completely change his life style. Never travel, do meetings and speeches by net meeting. Go only to events he can reach by bicycle. Completely do away with your carbon footprint and tell everybody else you need to follow me in doing this because the planet is in danger.
Left wing politicians offer zero solutions except raising taxes and putting out more EPA regulations. If we were heading to a world wide global disaster why wouldn't this be front and center the most daunting focus of anybody that is in office that believes the man made climate change story. I mean if the world is going to end as we know it, we are going to have states disappear off the earth. Why in the world does this not take front and center above everything else. Isis who cares we are about to unleash cataclysmic storms that will destroy the earth who cares about terrorism. Jobs and the economy, if as survivors of man made climate change apocalypse why should a president be concerned with jobs. There won't be any businesses we will either be dead or have nothing resembling a thriving work force in anything.
There are many things I worry about. The economy, China, Russia, terrorism would be the top 4. Man made climate change is number 500 on a list of 100 things I worry about.
David Rose penned an attack described by expert as “so wrong it’s hard to know where to start”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...il&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-5cd63f623b-303423917
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...il&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-5cd63f623b-303423917
From the article...
The author of the recent attack piece, David Rose in the UK, has a history of denying the well-established science of climate change. He has a long history of making incorrect climate change statements. In the attack, Mr. Rose claims that scientists used misleading data in a recent (2015) paper that studied the rate of temperature change across the globe. He reportedly obtained information from someone who works at NOAA to imply that internal review procedures were not followed as the paper was prepared for publication. What Mr. Rose omitted however, is incredibly telling and he does a disservice to his readers.
First, he neglects to mention that the work from the 2015 paper authored by Dr. Thomas Karl and others at NOAA has already been independently verified by other researchers.
The second thing Rose neglects to mention is that his story’s source was never involved any part of the work. According to a colleague of the authors Peter Thorne, this source:
never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.
Mr. Rose further neglects to mention that Dr. Karl was not involved in the development of the critical sea surface temperature data that was used in the study. That information was already published before the Karl paper appeared.
The attack piece also claims that the scientists discarded high-quality temperature measurements in favor of low quality data. This claim is demonstrably false, as described here and here.
The lengths to which Mr. Rose goes in his attack are disheartening and dishonest. He includes a graph that appears to show two temperature results that disagree. When they are replotted correctly, as temperature anomalies with correct baselines, the discrepancy disappears. This finding shows that the NOAA results from 2015 actually agree extremely well with data from other institutions.
Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin)
Hilarious screw up by @DavidRoseUK and #FailOnSunday
1st picture is 'evidence' of misconduct, 2nd shows diff when baselines are correct. pic.twitter.com/R5VsqqlNHr
February 5, 2017
But it gets even worse for Rose. Temperature measurement expert Zeke Hausfather, who was the lead author on a study that verified the temperature data, wrote a very quick response to his article. He provided this comparison, which includes data from five different scientific groups. They are all in strong agreement.
Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief)
NEW | Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise | Guest post by @hausfath https://t.co/e7gGNGxIKc pic.twitter.com/BruRecUo34
February 5, 2017
So Mr. Rose and the climate-change denialists will have to work a bit harder next time. The real story here is that the denial industry has lost the battle on the science. There are no reputable scientists who discount the enormous human influence on our Earth’s climate. Because they have lost that battle, they are manufacturing doubt about the science. They are making misleading claims and attacking scientists with intimidating tactics. This is a playbook that has been used for years. It should alarm everyone that excellent researchers like Dr. Thomas Karl from NOAA can be attacked for just telling us what the data says.
The author of the recent attack piece, David Rose in the UK, has a history of denying the well-established science of climate change. He has a long history of making incorrect climate change statements. In the attack, Mr. Rose claims that scientists used misleading data in a recent (2015) paper that studied the rate of temperature change across the globe. He reportedly obtained information from someone who works at NOAA to imply that internal review procedures were not followed as the paper was prepared for publication. What Mr. Rose omitted however, is incredibly telling and he does a disservice to his readers.
First, he neglects to mention that the work from the 2015 paper authored by Dr. Thomas Karl and others at NOAA has already been independently verified by other researchers.
The second thing Rose neglects to mention is that his story’s source was never involved any part of the work. According to a colleague of the authors Peter Thorne, this source:
never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.
Mr. Rose further neglects to mention that Dr. Karl was not involved in the development of the critical sea surface temperature data that was used in the study. That information was already published before the Karl paper appeared.
The attack piece also claims that the scientists discarded high-quality temperature measurements in favor of low quality data. This claim is demonstrably false, as described here and here.
The lengths to which Mr. Rose goes in his attack are disheartening and dishonest. He includes a graph that appears to show two temperature results that disagree. When they are replotted correctly, as temperature anomalies with correct baselines, the discrepancy disappears. This finding shows that the NOAA results from 2015 actually agree extremely well with data from other institutions.
Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin)
Hilarious screw up by @DavidRoseUK and #FailOnSunday
1st picture is 'evidence' of misconduct, 2nd shows diff when baselines are correct. pic.twitter.com/R5VsqqlNHr
February 5, 2017
But it gets even worse for Rose. Temperature measurement expert Zeke Hausfather, who was the lead author on a study that verified the temperature data, wrote a very quick response to his article. He provided this comparison, which includes data from five different scientific groups. They are all in strong agreement.
Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief)
NEW | Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise | Guest post by @hausfath https://t.co/e7gGNGxIKc pic.twitter.com/BruRecUo34
February 5, 2017
So Mr. Rose and the climate-change denialists will have to work a bit harder next time. The real story here is that the denial industry has lost the battle on the science. There are no reputable scientists who discount the enormous human influence on our Earth’s climate. Because they have lost that battle, they are manufacturing doubt about the science. They are making misleading claims and attacking scientists with intimidating tactics. This is a playbook that has been used for years. It should alarm everyone that excellent researchers like Dr. Thomas Karl from NOAA can be attacked for just telling us what the data says.
When are people going to see Rose for what he is...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-blame-human-caused-global-warming-on-el-nino
From the article...
Sadly, we live in a post-truth world dominated by fake news in which people increasingly seek information that confirms their ideological beliefs, rather than information that’s factually accurate from reliable sources. Because people have become incredibly polarized on the subject of climate change, those with a conservative worldview who prefer maintaining the status quo to the steps we need to take to prevent a climate catastrophe often seek out climate science-denying stories.
Into that environment step conservative columnists David Rose at the Mail on Sunday, parroted by Ross Clark in The Spectator and James Delingpole for Breitbart, all trying to blame the current record-shattering hot global temperatures entirely on El Niño. Perhaps saddest of all, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee tweeted the Breitbart piece, to which Senator Bernie Sanders appropriately responded:
Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders)
Where'd you get your PhD? Trump University? https://t.co/P5Ez5fVEwD
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-blame-human-caused-global-warming-on-el-nino
From the article...
Sadly, we live in a post-truth world dominated by fake news in which people increasingly seek information that confirms their ideological beliefs, rather than information that’s factually accurate from reliable sources. Because people have become incredibly polarized on the subject of climate change, those with a conservative worldview who prefer maintaining the status quo to the steps we need to take to prevent a climate catastrophe often seek out climate science-denying stories.
Into that environment step conservative columnists David Rose at the Mail on Sunday, parroted by Ross Clark in The Spectator and James Delingpole for Breitbart, all trying to blame the current record-shattering hot global temperatures entirely on El Niño. Perhaps saddest of all, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee tweeted the Breitbart piece, to which Senator Bernie Sanders appropriately responded:
Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders)
Where'd you get your PhD? Trump University? https://t.co/P5Ez5fVEwD
December 1, 2016
An über cherry-picked argument
The conservative columnists made their case by claiming that, with the recent strong El Niño event ending, temperatures are “plummeting,” thus blaming the record heat on El Niño. There are several fatal flaws in their case.
First, the “plummet” they cite is not in global temperatures on the surface where we live, and where temperatures are easiest to measure accurately, but rather in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower atmosphere above the portions of Earth’s surface covered by land masses. Second, although the satellite data extend as far back as 1979, and the global surface temperature data to 1880, they cherry pick the data by only showing the portion since 1997. Third, the argument is based entirely upon one relatively cool month (October 2016) that was only cool in that particularly cherry-picked data set.
The argument is easily debunked. While there was a strong El Niño event in 2015–2016, there was an equally strong event in 1997–1998. The two events had very similar short-term warming influences on global surface temperatures, but according to Nasa, 2016 will be about 0.35°C hotter than 1998. That difference is due to the long-term, human-caused global warming trend. In fact, according to Nasa, even October 2016 was hotter than every month on record prior to 1998. These “plummeting” post-El Niño temperatures are still as hot as the hottest month at the peak of the 1998 El Niño.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Monthly global surface temperatures, from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli.
In fact, just three days after the conservative columnists’ pieces came out, the November 2016 satellite data was published. It turned out to be the hottest November in the entire record. Oops.
Pushback from climate scientists and real science journalists
Advertisement
#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-button {background-image: initial !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-progress-holder:before {position: static;top: auto;height: 0;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-progress-control {top: 0 !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-volume-level:before {background-image: initial !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container[cnx-expand="false"] {z-index: 1011 !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-volume-bar:before {top: auto !important;}
Climate scientists have strongly pushed back against this misinformation. Climate scientist Adam Sobel told the Guardian, “they’re not serious articles” and “grossly misinterpret” the data. For Climate Feedback, seven scientists graded David Rose’s piece, and gave it a “very low” credibility score of -1.9 (the lowest possible score is -2.0). The scientists described Rose’s article as “incredibly misleading,” “flawed to perfection,” and “completely bogus.”
Real science journalists have also taken the biased conservative pieces to task (I define real science journalists as those whose primary goal is to accurately inform readers about science, as opposed to fake science journalists whose primary goal is to distort science in order to advance an agenda). For example, see the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Carbon Brief, and climate science bloggers.
Science, facts, and truth aren’t changed by ideology or opinion
Admitting that conservatives have pushed us into a post-truth world, Donald Trump supporter and CNN political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes said on The Diane Rehm Show:
People that say facts are facts, they’re not really facts … Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts. And so Mr. Trump’s Tweets amongst a certain crowd, a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some facts amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up.
On issues of belief, like politics, it’s true that differing opinions are roughly equally valid. While policy questions can be supported by evidence and data, ultimately they often come down to subjective individual preferences and opinions. In science, that’s not true. A scientific theory or argument is either supported by evidence and data, or it’s not. Opinions are not equally valid. We all live on the same planet, in the same universe, governed by the same laws of physics. Whether we lean toward liberal or conservative ideology, those physical laws don’t change.
Unfortunately, conservatives are increasingly likely to deny this reality. As Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus told Fox News:
as far as this issue on climate change … he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk
This is effectively the default position of the Republican Party, and it’s the only major political party in the world in denial about scientific reality. The party can take that position because the conservative media outlets that its voters consume misinform them with post-truth nonsense like this.
Unfortunately, when it comes to science, we don’t get to choose our own truths. Scientists and science journalists effectively held the post-truth crowd accountable on this story. They’ll have their work cut out for them in the coming years.
An über cherry-picked argument
The conservative columnists made their case by claiming that, with the recent strong El Niño event ending, temperatures are “plummeting,” thus blaming the record heat on El Niño. There are several fatal flaws in their case.
First, the “plummet” they cite is not in global temperatures on the surface where we live, and where temperatures are easiest to measure accurately, but rather in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower atmosphere above the portions of Earth’s surface covered by land masses. Second, although the satellite data extend as far back as 1979, and the global surface temperature data to 1880, they cherry pick the data by only showing the portion since 1997. Third, the argument is based entirely upon one relatively cool month (October 2016) that was only cool in that particularly cherry-picked data set.
The argument is easily debunked. While there was a strong El Niño event in 2015–2016, there was an equally strong event in 1997–1998. The two events had very similar short-term warming influences on global surface temperatures, but according to Nasa, 2016 will be about 0.35°C hotter than 1998. That difference is due to the long-term, human-caused global warming trend. In fact, according to Nasa, even October 2016 was hotter than every month on record prior to 1998. These “plummeting” post-El Niño temperatures are still as hot as the hottest month at the peak of the 1998 El Niño.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Monthly global surface temperatures, from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli.
In fact, just three days after the conservative columnists’ pieces came out, the November 2016 satellite data was published. It turned out to be the hottest November in the entire record. Oops.
Pushback from climate scientists and real science journalists
Advertisement
#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-button {background-image: initial !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-progress-holder:before {position: static;top: auto;height: 0;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-progress-control {top: 0 !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-volume-level:before {background-image: initial !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container[cnx-expand="false"] {z-index: 1011 !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-volume-bar:before {top: auto !important;}
Climate scientists have strongly pushed back against this misinformation. Climate scientist Adam Sobel told the Guardian, “they’re not serious articles” and “grossly misinterpret” the data. For Climate Feedback, seven scientists graded David Rose’s piece, and gave it a “very low” credibility score of -1.9 (the lowest possible score is -2.0). The scientists described Rose’s article as “incredibly misleading,” “flawed to perfection,” and “completely bogus.”
Real science journalists have also taken the biased conservative pieces to task (I define real science journalists as those whose primary goal is to accurately inform readers about science, as opposed to fake science journalists whose primary goal is to distort science in order to advance an agenda). For example, see the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Carbon Brief, and climate science bloggers.
Science, facts, and truth aren’t changed by ideology or opinion
Admitting that conservatives have pushed us into a post-truth world, Donald Trump supporter and CNN political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes said on The Diane Rehm Show:
People that say facts are facts, they’re not really facts … Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts. And so Mr. Trump’s Tweets amongst a certain crowd, a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some facts amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up.
On issues of belief, like politics, it’s true that differing opinions are roughly equally valid. While policy questions can be supported by evidence and data, ultimately they often come down to subjective individual preferences and opinions. In science, that’s not true. A scientific theory or argument is either supported by evidence and data, or it’s not. Opinions are not equally valid. We all live on the same planet, in the same universe, governed by the same laws of physics. Whether we lean toward liberal or conservative ideology, those physical laws don’t change.
Unfortunately, conservatives are increasingly likely to deny this reality. As Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus told Fox News:
as far as this issue on climate change … he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk
This is effectively the default position of the Republican Party, and it’s the only major political party in the world in denial about scientific reality. The party can take that position because the conservative media outlets that its voters consume misinform them with post-truth nonsense like this.
Unfortunately, when it comes to science, we don’t get to choose our own truths. Scientists and science journalists effectively held the post-truth crowd accountable on this story. They’ll have their work cut out for them in the coming years.
GK, quick question do you have any links to man made climate change that has been done by neutral parties? Not leftist or righty nuts? Just true scientists that are trying to study it and get a good unbiased view of it.
A few years ago a member of a Nobel Prize team on climate change left the community and criticized it on the way out, he even said his team fudged numbers to get their desired outcome. A professor left her job a couple months ago because of the same reasons. She said her colleges manipulate data because that's how they get grants, there's no money in proving climate change isn't real. Some French meteorologist did the same a year ago.
In the 80's we were headed toward an ice age, that turned into global warming, 20 years went by with no warming so the term The Pause was invented to define something that didn't happen. That's when global warming became climate change, because no theories were playing out to be true. According to An Inconvenient Truth 2016 was the year the world ends.
In the 80's we were headed toward an ice age, that turned into global warming, 20 years went by with no warming so the term The Pause was invented to define something that didn't happen. That's when global warming became climate change, because no theories were playing out to be true. According to An Inconvenient Truth 2016 was the year the world ends.
December 1, 2016
An über cherry-picked argument
The conservative columnists made their case by claiming that, with the recent strong El Niño event ending, temperatures are “plummeting,” thus blaming the record heat on El Niño. There are several fatal flaws in their case.
First, the “plummet” they cite is not in global temperatures on the surface where we live, and where temperatures are easiest to measure accurately, but rather in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower atmosphere above the portions of Earth’s surface covered by land masses. Second, although the satellite data extend as far back as 1979, and the global surface temperature data to 1880, they cherry pick the data by only showing the portion since 1997. Third, the argument is based entirely upon one relatively cool month (October 2016) that was only cool in that particularly cherry-picked data set.
The argument is easily debunked. While there was a strong El Niño event in 2015–2016, there was an equally strong event in 1997–1998. The two events had very similar short-term warming influences on global surface temperatures, but according to Nasa, 2016 will be about 0.35°C hotter than 1998. That difference is due to the long-term, human-caused global warming trend. In fact, according to Nasa, even October 2016 was hotter than every month on record prior to 1998. These “plummeting” post-El Niño temperatures are still as hot as the hottest month at the peak of the 1998 El Niño.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Monthly global surface temperatures, from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli.
In fact, just three days after the conservative columnists’ pieces came out, the November 2016 satellite data was published. It turned out to be the hottest November in the entire record. Oops.
Pushback from climate scientists and real science journalists
Advertisement
#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-button {background-image: initial !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-progress-holder:before {position: static;top: auto;height: 0;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-progress-control {top: 0 !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-volume-level:before {background-image: initial !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container[cnx-expand="false"] {z-index: 1011 !important;}#cnx-autoplay-container .vjs-volume-bar:before {top: auto !important;}
Climate scientists have strongly pushed back against this misinformation. Climate scientist Adam Sobel told the Guardian, “they’re not serious articles” and “grossly misinterpret” the data. For Climate Feedback, seven scientists graded David Rose’s piece, and gave it a “very low” credibility score of -1.9 (the lowest possible score is -2.0). The scientists described Rose’s article as “incredibly misleading,” “flawed to perfection,” and “completely bogus.”
Real science journalists have also taken the biased conservative pieces to task (I define real science journalists as those whose primary goal is to accurately inform readers about science, as opposed to fake science journalists whose primary goal is to distort science in order to advance an agenda). For example, see the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Carbon Brief, and climate science bloggers.
Science, facts, and truth aren’t changed by ideology or opinion
Admitting that conservatives have pushed us into a post-truth world, Donald Trump supporter and CNN political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes said on The Diane Rehm Show:
People that say facts are facts, they’re not really facts … Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts. And so Mr. Trump’s Tweets amongst a certain crowd, a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some facts amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up.
On issues of belief, like politics, it’s true that differing opinions are roughly equally valid. While policy questions can be supported by evidence and data, ultimately they often come down to subjective individual preferences and opinions. In science, that’s not true. A scientific theory or argument is either supported by evidence and data, or it’s not. Opinions are not equally valid. We all live on the same planet, in the same universe, governed by the same laws of physics. Whether we lean toward liberal or conservative ideology, those physical laws don’t change.
Unfortunately, conservatives are increasingly likely to deny this reality. As Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus told Fox News:
as far as this issue on climate change … he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk
This is effectively the default position of the Republican Party, and it’s the only major political party in the world in denial about scientific reality. The party can take that position because the conservative media outlets that its voters consume misinform them with post-truth nonsense like this.
Unfortunately, when it comes to science, we don’t get to choose our own truths. Scientists and science journalists effectively held the post-truth crowd accountable on this story. They’ll have their work cut out for them in the coming years.
Yep. Sounds "non ideological" to me.
You do realize that Rose got his information from a scientist at the NOAA who objected to the data?? Dr. John Bates........
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XwZCogZZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Bates must be a right wing zealot too. Time to move on.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XwZCogZZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Bates must be a right wing zealot too. Time to move on.
The Guardian and Mashable (a liberal newspaper and liberal entertainment blog) are about as credible as Rose. Just sayin' . . .
Just think of how much we could cut down on this if we cut EBT. We're feeding all these cows to shit all over the place. Causes lots of environmental problems.
Give 'em a couple boxes of saltines and tell them to ration it. Wish 'em luck. Watch the Earth repair itself.
Give 'em a couple boxes of saltines and tell them to ration it. Wish 'em luck. Watch the Earth repair itself.
