What's new

Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

  • Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 848

Guest
Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans
Published Dec 6 2016 02:16 PM EST
weather.com


Cherry-picked information recently used to deny climate change is debunked by meteorologist Kait Parker.
Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in an article published last week.

Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. 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.

Here’s where both articles went wrong:

CLAIM: "Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record."

TRUTH: 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 Niño 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.

CLAIM: "It can be argued that without the El Niño (and the so-called "Pacific Blob") 2014-2016 would not have been record warm years." (David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted by Breitbart)

TRUTH: NOAA data show that the 2014-16 El Niño did not even begin until October 2014. It was a borderline event until mid-2015, barely above the El Niño threshold. El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015. However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest, according to climate scientist Zeke Hausfather (Berkeley Earth).


Global surface temperature trends for the period 1966-2015 analyzed for El Niño years (red boxes), La Niña years (blue boxes), and neutral years (black boxes), along with volcanic years (gold triangles). The three trend lines show that global temperature has been rising at a fairly consistent rate of about 0.15 - 0.17°C (0.27 - 0.31°F) once La Niña and El Niño departures are factored out. (Berkeley Earth)
CLAIM: "Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. Myles Allen of Oxford University says that by the time of the next big United Nations climate conference, global temperatures are likely to be no warmer than the Paris COP in 2015. This would be a strange thing to happen if, as some climate scientists have claimed, recent years would have been a record even without the El Niño." (David Rose, U.K. Daily Mail, quoted by Breitbart)

TRUTH: There is nothing unusual about a drop in global surface temperatures when going from El Niño to La Nina. These ups and downs occur on top of the long-term warming trend that remains when the El Niño and La Niña signals are removed. If there were no long-term trend, then we would see global record lows occurring during the strongest La Niña events. However, the last year to see global temperatures hit a record low was 1911, and the most recent year that fell below the 20th-century average was 1976.

For an even deeper dive on the science, we recommend the blog by our experts.

Finally, to our friends at Breitbart: The next time you write a climate change article and need fact checking help, please call. We're here for you. I'm sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong.

MORE ON WEATHER.COM: NASA Documents Worldwide Ice Loss

NASA Change: Arapaho Glacier, Colorado (1898)

Clearly not a hoax by the Chinese
 
We? There in Utah? No. Dumbass.

Your insults an Obama worship are cute but check this.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ts-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

Science czar lol so glad Trump beat these liberal alarmists to a pulp.
 
Costal lines have never flooded before. Temperatures have never fluctuated in cycles. Global warming caused this cause the liberal New York Times said so. Now close your eyes an believe in left wing Puritanism. It is all true.

Or we could just believe scientists.......
 

Hahahahahahah!!!


Oh man. This is ****ing rich.

It is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of the province of Alberta-- a group with the strong vested interest in the furthering of Albertan oil sands development. I know this because I ****ing live here. This is the same sort of stuff the tobacco industry would always do


--

Log, do you see how it's hard to take you intellectually seriously when you take conclusions from a poll of researchers of one organization in one province, and you use this to characterize all of academia?


This is why no one takes your climate change views seriously. An utterly Goebbelsian link to share.
 
Let's pull an excerpt from the study that the link that Log shared referenced to-- here, I'll pull the excerpt where they describe their research design:

How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?

To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods.
Research context: an instrumental case
The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. Frames are always socio-historical constructions and, thus, time and location play an important role.


Wow-- really sounds like they're trying to do a wide poll to characterize the lack of climate alarmism across the profession of climate scientists worldwide *rolls eyes*
 
Hahaha what percent of the alarmists are professor PhD's getting grants from Obama to verify climate alarmism? I bet yo take the money away it is more like 5 % not 37.

You do know [MENTION=54]Beantown[/MENTION] sells solar panels for a living an has a vested interest in warming alarmism?

Take climate change out of the picture....


Do you really want dirty air and water? Have you ever tried to breathe in SLC during the winter? Do you like seeing smog at our national parks? Are you proponent of child asthma and cancer?

I don't give **** if you don't believe in climate change. But it's pure ******** that you don't think we should be moving to clean up the very substances that all animal and plant life need to survive. Air and water.
 
Last edited:
Take climate change out of the picture....


Do you really want dirty air and water? Have you ever tried to breathe in SLC during the winter? Do you like seeing smog at our national parks? Are a proponent of child asthma and cancer?

I don't give **** if you don't believe in climate change. But it's pure ******** that you don't think we should be moving to clean up the very substances that all animal and plant life need to survive. Air and water.

I agree that we should be moving that way. Through methodical improvements and innovations across the board. I'm not for just a mad rush approach that cripples industries.

Yes push for it but slow and steady.

I feel that if the message was more along the lines of "we can improve here, here and here" instead of "disaster" than more people would listen.

But I'm probably pipe dreaming.
 
I agree that we should be moving that way. Through methodical improvements and innovations across the board. I'm not for just a mad rush approach that cripples industries.

Yes push for it but slow and steady.

I feel that if the message was more along the lines of "we can improve here, here and here" instead of "disaster" than more people would listen.

But I'm probably pipe dreaming.

But we are already seeing "disaster". 80% of US coasts are now man made. Florida is literally running out of beach and sand because of rising water. California is in the worst drought on record. Even New England is in the worst drought on record. Texas just saw the worst flooding on record.

Weather is getting more and more extreme each year. Beaches are eroding. Droughts and floods are at all time highs. You can't just simply ignore this.
 
Log can at least spend more effort into feeding his delusions. What's with this "I'll type 'climate change is not real' into Google, and paste whichever results pop up" approach?

Embarrassing.
 
Top