![]() ![]() ![]() This is quite clear in Rose’s writing, as he rails against the supposed high costs of those policies from ‘green cons.’įake science journalists in biased media outlets keep writing false and misleading pieces about climate change. Undermining and delaying climate policies is one such agenda promoted by the Mail on Sunday and other conservative media outlets. The intent of propaganda is to mislead people in order to advance a particular agenda. Propaganda disregards facts in favor of promoting an agenda But that’s precisely the point, and the problem. I doubt Rose will revisit his article and now declare that global warming has been massively accurately estimated. Hi we updated your graph - hope it helps make your next article OK for Wikipedia :) #fixedit /g1PZZBiHQ2- Richard Betts February 9, 2017 The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated … The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data.īetts, Edwards, McNeall, and Hawkins updated Rose’s graph with the latest temperature data. The measured data fell within the model range, but toward the lower end. This past week, climate scientists Richard Betts, Tamsin Edwards, Doug McNeall, and Ed Hawkins revisited another Rose article from 2013 called ‘ The Great Green Con.” In it, he showed a graph of climate model temperature projections against observations. The scientists described Rose’s article as “incredibly misleading,” “flawed to perfection,” “deceptive,” and “completely bogus.” One expressed dismay that they couldn’t rate its credibility worse than “very low.” When it comes to getting science wrong, David Rose goes to 11. This past November, Rose tried to blame the record-shattering hot global temperatures of 2016 on El Niño in a piece that the climate scientists at Climate Feedback gave a “very low” scientific credibility score of -1.9. But David Rose isn’t interested in the physical mechanisms, he’s just interested in giving his readers the impression that something about this global warming stuff just doesn’t seem right. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. In 2014, as Arctic sea ice continued its death spiral, along with disappearing glaciers and ice sheets around the world in a year that would soon become the hottest on record, Rose tried to distract his readers by focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. The same Lamar Smith who said that listening to Donald Trump “might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth.”Īrctic sea ice annual minimum volume data. Important people – the best people – like in Rose’s case, Lamar Smith. Both attack the readership of those have debunked them, like the “ failing New York Times” or Ars Technica.īoth claim that other people agree with them. Both brag about the size of their hands, or rally audiences, or Facebook shares (they’re yuge). Rose’s reaction to the critiques of his first piece are quite reminiscent of Donald Trump’s responses to being called out for spreading misinformation. The few quasi-scientific points in Rose’s new piece are patently false. It’s another pedantic critique trying desperately to make a mountain out of less than a molehill. In his follow-up piece, Rose’s “ smoking gun” is that NOAA published its updated ocean temperature data 5 months later than it could have, to coincide with the 2015 global temperature data paper that incorporated it. So after a week full of rebuking and debunking from climate science experts and real science journalists, and after Rose’s own source walked back his criticisms and explicitly said there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious,” how did Rose respond? Like any good propagandist, he doubled down. It was a giant nothingburger, or as NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt called it, “ a NOAA-thing burger.” nnXCUrzrQB- Zeke Hausfather February 8, 2017ĭavid Rose’s sensationalist story claiming that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data” was entirely without scientific merit. Just a quick reminder to folks that the NOAA "adjustments" have relatively little impact on our understanding of recent warming. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |