“I Will Gladly Present You The Data Next Tuesday, If You Accept My Conclusion Today”

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

When you read a science report claiming that 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect that you will get numbers. And you would be wrong.

“Note to the New York Times: ‘trouncing’ and ‘blown past’ are phrases appropriate to sports reporting, not science reporting. Except that no sports reporter would dare write an article in which he never bothers to give you the score of the big game. . . . It’s almost like they’re hiding something. And that is indeed what we find.”

Summary: Increase is one-hundredth of a degree but the Margin of Error is a tenth of a degree. So it’s all bullshit. No, worry, these are “alternative facts” but since it’s the Left doing it, that makes it alright.

Joe Doakes

Narrative Uber Alles.

Posted

January 31, 2017

Global WarmingCoolingChange, Narrative For Sale!

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

11 responses to ““I Will Gladly Present You The Data Next Tuesday, If You Accept My Conclusion Today””

bosshoss429

January 31, 2017

This is great JD!

What’s even better are the comments. There were some libidiot trolls that got schooled by a couple of scientists that agreed with the author.

On the other hand, I found it interesting that those libs are reading The Federalist. Not that it will do much good.
The Big Stink

January 31, 2017

There are facts and there are reporters and never the twain shall meet.
justplainangry

January 31, 2017

Using rinkydinkDFL as past example, I highly doubt libturds are capable of grasping the concept and significance of Increase is one-hundredth of a degree but the Margin of Error is a tenth of a degree.
J. Ewing

January 31, 2017

Note also, that was the result from fudged numbers on top of a record El Nino. Satellite temperatures have almost returned to where the 19-year “pause” would have them, now that La Nina has arrived. December saw the greatest drop in global temps since the satellite record began.

One more thing. Let us assume they are right and that the world truly is warming by 1/100 degree per year. In 100 years that is 1 degree! Is that a catastrophe? What if “we” didn’t cause it, are we still supposed to fix it?
Alt-Good Swiftee

January 31, 2017

I interpret that data to show a mean decrease of .1 degree; the Earth is cooling. My interpretation is every bit as accurate as theirs.
Alt-Good Swiftee

January 31, 2017

I interpret that data to show a mean decrease of .01 degree
Mammuthus Primigenius

January 31, 2017

Statement: “Global mean temp is entirely driven by atmospheric CO2.”
Question: “Atmospheric CO2 is 500 PPM. What is global mean temp?”
Answer: “There is no way of knowing.”
justplainangry

January 31, 2017

Silly Wooly One. Correlation does not equal a causation.
Prince of Darkness_666

January 31, 2017

All the truth that’s fit to print should be the NYT new tagline.
J. Ewing

January 31, 2017

I think they already have that one. The new one should be “All the news that fits the narrative.” And maybe “even if we have to make it up.”
bikebubba

January 31, 2017

The real shame is that the preferred “solution” for all this is to give control of our energy supplies and economy to the government, as if government control of the same hasn’t given us Shanghai and Beijing smog, and a set of environmental disasters in the former Warsaw Pact that make Love Canal look like pristine wilderness. For that matter, government control of transit in the U.S. gives us a fleet of buses that burn a gallon of diesel fuel for every 25 passenger-miles traveled, about the same as a Powerstroke F250 for each commuter.

If these scientists can’t understand enough economics to comprehend the “tragedy of the commons”, suffice it to say that I’m going to have to doubt their abilities in climatology as well.