Hot, hot, hot? Not, not, not! Another flawed global warming study
Like “scientists” manipulating data to fit preordained conclusions, The New York Times and other mainstream media hyped a new study's climate-clucking claims while ignoring its methodology's fatal flaws.
“Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years” read The Times' headline. The Times asserted that the study “confirms” warming during “the past century, believed to be a consequence of human activity, exceeded any warming episode during (the last 1,500 years).”
Yet the study, published in Science, purports to reconstruct 11,300 years' worth of temperatures, based on mostly marine fossils from 73 sites — which raises huge red flags.
Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com tweeted: “A study based on ‘reconstructed data' from 73 data sites, pretended to cover space-time of 196 million sq. mi. and 11,300 yrs” — and added in a blog post that it says “fossilized ocean shells are thermometers. Right-o.”
The Global Warming Policy Foundation's David Whitehouse said the headline could have been “Earth cooler today than 28 percent of the past 11,300 years.”
And Western Washington University's Don J. Easterbrook noted the study omits raw data and relies on marine data that reflect ocean — not atmospheric — temperatures, putting it “totally at odds with ... Greenland ice-core data.”
If there's one valid conclusion here, it's that the media hype about this study is as worthless and misleading as the study itself.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Sunday pops
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- An NLRB ambush