ABC News Misleads on The Subject of Global Warming

[Uncle Joe]

I bolded the most important aspect of this story, but if someone were to see ABC's heading of this story without reading the entire column, this will create doubt on the critical subject of global warming. Furthermore, should you click on the link and read the entire column, you will see that ABC gave the last word to a global warming skeptic in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The way they treat this story leads me to believe, these guys are nitpicking at the United States data while treating the information on the Earth heating up as a whole as if it were another planet and the U.S. wouldn't be affected.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/CSM/story?id=3523859&page=1

"Whoops! Hottest Years Were in 1930s

The controversy began "when Steve McIntyre of the blog Climateaudit.org e-mailed NASA scientists pointing out an unusual jump in temperature data from 1999 to 2000," reports The Los Angeles Times.

"When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been
incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the United States occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.

<snip>

Still, McIntyre called his finding "a micro-change," and others agree. For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York."

[Buzz Clik]

1. Two important points come from MyIntyre's persistence:

1. The record was corrected, and we have a more accurate picture of trends. Particularly, we can no longer claim that 1998 is the warmest year in the last thousand years -- as some were previously stating.

2. Hopefully, this will temper some of the strong claims suggesting we are seeing serious changes in temperature right now. Just a few years ago, the projections were that we wouldn't see a significant upswing in temperature for at least a decade or two. The errant temperatures gave undue, early momentum to those claims with the inherent danger that a natural decline in temperatures would give the skeptics some stones to throw.

[Uncle Joe]

2. And what of this?

"A main target of criticism over the data shift is James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute at NASA and a frequently quoted expert on climate change. On his Web site, Hansen explained the reasons for the change, and he played down its importance.

"How big an error did this flaw cause? ... The effect on U.S. average temperature is about 0.15°C beginning in 2000. Does this change have any affect ... on the global warming issue? Certainly not. ... What we have here is a case of ... contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill."

Meanwhile, evidence of global warming continues to mount. Citing a new study by researchers at the University of East Anglia, The Guardian newspaper reports that "some tipping points for climate change could be closer than previously thought."

"In drawing together research on tipping points, where damage due to climate change occurs irreversibly and at an increasing rate, the researchers concluded that the risks were much greater than those predicted by the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Maybe I'm too sensitive, however the main problem I have with ABC's incomplete title, is in large part a result of the years of the corporate media's unbalanced reporting in contrast to the peer reviewed science on this subject. They cast doubt when there was none.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if they had titled it "Whoops! Hottest Years in The United States were in the 1930s"

This just seems to me as more of the same obfuscation that has been going on with the corporate media for too way long. Too many of them would rather put their faith in the Rush Limbaugh types instead of the people actually trained in science.

[Buzz Clik]

3. A little of this, a little of that:

"How big an error did this flaw cause? ... The effect on U.S. average temperature is about 0.15°C beginning in 2000. Does this change have any affect ... on the global warming issue? Certainly not. ... What we have here is a case of ... contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill."

Absolutely no doubt about it. Before we had an opportunity to assess the impact, McIntyre fans had put the information out in bite-sized info nuggets that made it seem that the global warming concept had been put on its ear.

In drawing together research on tipping points, where damage due to climate change occurs irreversibly and at an increasing rate, the researchers concluded that the risks were much greater than those predicted by the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

This is where I start having some reservations about Hansen's enthusiasm in his negative interpretations. For nearly ten years, I was a big time Hansen devotee, and he was trumpeting for us to watch out for the decade from 2010 to 2020 as to when the significant increases in temperature would occur due to human influence. Seemingly without explanation, he has moved his window of concern to 20 years earlier. It makes me nervous.

Maybe I'm too sensitive, however the main problem I have with ABC's incomplete title, is in large part a result of the years of the corporate media's unbalanced reporting in contrast to the peer reviewed science on this subject. They cast doubt when there was none.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if they had titled it "Whoops! Hottest Years in The United States were in the 1930s"

Yeah, I'm with you there. Newseek likewise had a very deceptive cover -- almost tabloid style silliness.

This just seems to me as more of the same obfuscation that has been going on with the corporate media for too way long. Too many of them would rather put their faith in the Rush Limbaugh types instead of the people actually trained in science.

Those with thickened brows gravitate to Limbaugh because he not only does not require them to think, he prefers that they do not.

[pansypoo53219]

4. mickey mouse gnews?

from disney?
who'da thunk it.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I must confess to believing they would come around to reporting reality

with out spin, no doubt my head was in the clouds, however I'm committed to calling them on it when they don't.

[autorank]

6. K*R They are disgusting. Great Great Post!!! K*R

What, John Stossel writing the "news" now.

We've had cooling periods because there is SO much pollution. The sad part is, if we clean up, that band of smut reflecting the full intensity of the Sun would disappear and we'd face some serious heat. This is a complicated problem and I'm not surprised ABC is screwing up. Are they just stupid or deliveratly evil (and I rarely use that word).?

Great post.