Slashdot Mirror
Weather Channel To Breitbart: Stop Citing Us To Spread Climate Skepticism (weather.com)
Breitbart.com published an article last week that erroneously claims global warming is coming to an end, claiming "global land temperatures have plummeted by 1 degree Celsius since the middle of the year -- the biggest and steepest fall on record." The Weather Channel finds this report especially upsetting as it's not only inaccurate but it features a video from weather.com at the top of the article. The Weather Channel reports: Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article -- a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case -- includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet's climate and will keep doing so. Along with its presence on the high-profile Breitbart site, the article drew even more attention after a link to it was retweeted by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Breitbart article heavily references a piece that first appeared on U.K. Daily Mail's site. The Weather Channel went on to refute the Breitbart article's hypothesis: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Nino event. Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet -- about 70 percent -- is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth's lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.
We've just seen the hottest November on satellite record. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...
Saying that is so doesn't make it so. There's overwhelming empirical evidence that the Earth has been warming since middle of the twentieth century, particularly from around 1970 onward. This is shown both in the surface instrumental record and in the satellite record.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I do not refer to the IPCC assessment reports. I pulled raw data into mysql and did it myself.
Same as Richard Muller did at the behest of the Koch Brothers (though mine was less sophisticated).
We all get the same result.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
I don't want to give my real name for reasons that would be obvious, but I am Stephen Hawking and I just gave it to your mom in the butt.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When neoconservatives spread outright fabrications and lies about obamacare, nobody took the time to correct them.
You mean like it would be astronomically expensive? That rates would go up, that you'd never keep your doctor? That health plans would disappear? That yes Virginia, death panels really do exist? Oh...those lies. That turned out to be facts, but the media wouldn't report on them.
Om, nomnomnom...
They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research
Knock yourself out. However unadjusted data is pretty useless for drawing conclusions from.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Jeff Sessions (the attorney general nominee) is a career political hack. Even Republicans refused to confirm him to the federal bench. I'm confused, is Trump draining or trying to fill up the swamp?
You can lead an ass to knowledge but you cannot make him learn.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
This unmitigated drivel is modded 'Insighful'? The evidence is stacked to the rafters, and available to anyone who cares to look. China is working hard to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
It's getting warmer, and we caused it. You think it's a scam? Come up with some evidence, instead of frothing at the mouth.
Electors not following the voters' will would set a very ugly precedent. Or, did this happen before? Was a winning president ever rejected by electors?
Not following the voters' will is the entire purpose of the electoral college. They have disagreed with the popular vote five times in history. The last time was this last time. Before that, the last time gave us a Dubya presidency. Tell us again what the EC should do, please.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Story explaining how Clinton took BRIBES from Russia to sell them a large chunck of US uranium.
Lets repeat that, Clinton took BRIBES FROM RUSSIA to approve the sale of Uranium to them.
Please give me an example of how a politician can be more corrupt than that. I'm not sure how it could be possible.
This is just a single example of her taking $600 million in bribes from companies/foreign countries for state department favors.
So, if we've been witnessing a drop in observed temperatures, perhaps TPTB are actually doing something about it.
The quote was that we have been observing a global drop in land temperatures since the middle of the year. There is far more land in the northern hemisphere than the southern which means seasonal effects will not balance out. So rather than evidence of geoengineering I'd just take this as a sign that winter is coming.
again you post completely wrong information.
They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research
Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
Also, BS on the copyright claim.
They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,
Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.
Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...
Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,
Wrong.
See above.
while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.
Wrong.
see above.
In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.
That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.
China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.
And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.
It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.
This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.
They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.
No, that's what you're doing.
Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.
Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.
This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."
Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes
Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.