Revkin Demonstrates Why NY Times Needs To Downsize

image

You know, you expect a certain degree of illiteracy among the average warmista.  They’re typically not very bright people and ill-informed.  But, for heaven’s sake!  Someone who writes for a living?

Andy Revkin recently wrote an article which, once again, displays the tenuous grasp the lunatic warmista has on understanding past, present, and future tense of the English language.

While global temperatures are the highest they’ve been since formal records began in the 19th century, warming has largely stalled since 1998.

  Climate change occurs in fits and starts, and there’s plenty of research finding that pauses are normal, but if the current pause persists through 2015 or beyond, questions will build.

I really don’t understand how writers can write without a grasp of the use of past, present, and future tenses.

The English language provides many avenues to describe past, present, and future events.  How does one write about science without proper use of language.  It’s rather important when dealing with empirical evidence and projections.

“Questions will build?”

As opposed to the questioning of the alleged science that is already occurring?

See how I did that, Andy?  “Occurring”  That is the present tense.  It means that something is happening right now.

“Will”  “Will”(in this case) is an auxiliary verb.  It describes some event in the future.  For instance,  “I will be there tomorrow“.  “She will see you at dinner.”  Andy, and the rest of the warmista, do you see the difference?  Of course, you don’t.  But, the sentences are about future events.

Does Andy believe there hasn’t been “questions” regarding the warmista’s prognostications?  We’ve heard dire predictions about global warming for nearly 3 decades now.  None have come to fruition.

Lest we think this phenomena is confined only to Andy, we can turn to fellow warmista econut science writer of the Guardian, Leo Hickman.

Andy does us a favor and quotes Leo for us……..

imageLeo Hickman has helpfully rounded up an enormous range of views and voices on the Met Office move and has drawn this conclusion:

The rate of decadal rise in average global temperatures has clearly slowed over the past decade or so, compared to the previous couple of decades, but to say it has “stopped” altogether seems to be a misleading statistical sleight of hand.

No Leo, it isn’t a statistical sleight of hand, it is the proper way to form a sentence regarding the earth’s temperature.  Let’s look.

I’ll try to type very slow for you guys.  I’m going to present a graph.  This particular type of graph includes a time line.  It will also include an average of temperature readings.  The further to the left, the more distant in the past.  As one looks further to the right, the closer to the present one is on the graph.

Note:  according to this graph, we see what many accept as the earth’s temperature.

image

Here we see, if one wished to discuss the information presented on the graph, we could say, “the average global temperature was increasing”.  You see, we use the word “was” because it happened in the past.  But, if we are to describe what is occurring now, then we have to use the present tense.  In this instance, it is accurate to say, “but, today, it is no longer warming.”  Or, we could even be really clever and use the past tense to describe what isn’t happening now.  We could say, “but, the warming stopped 15 years ago”.

See how that’s done?  No, of course you don’t.

Additional information about the questions…….

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.   —–  NOAA’s STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2008

Leo, it was the precious pretend scientists, paid to be alarmists, who came up with the 15 yr. length of time.  Now, you want to pretend someone is engaged in a “statistical sleight of hand“? But, if you want to call someone out about such behavior, look no further than Andy’s bud whom he referenced.

In 2011, a team led by Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab found that a 17-year span would be long enough “to separate human-caused global warming from the ‘noise’ of purely natural climate fluctuations.”

It was 15 years in 2008, but as we got closer to the 15 year mark, someone had to move the goalposts!  So, Ben gave them a two year extension in 2011.

Does any of the nutters ever wonder why a 15 year cessation in the warming, calling into question current prognostications of doom isn’t heralded as good news?  Some of the nutters are outright depressed about this.  They’re upset that we’re not all going to die!

Lastly, the graph above, regardless of the timeframe one views, already directly conflicts with alarmist current thought about our climate and temps.  The supposed warming seen in the HadCrut data was supposed to have been amplified by the RSS data, but as we see, it isn’t.

my thanks to Climate Depot

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Revkin Demonstrates Why NY Times Needs To Downsize

  1. Bruce says:

    It has started.

    I have a model which suggests that ‘climate change’ will be harmful to the environmental desks of lefty newspapers. Maybe I should write a press release and send it into the NYT.

    • suyts says:

      Heh, how bad is it for the lunatics when even the NY times can’t maintain the climate alarmism desk?

      • Latitude says:

        I think pretty bad……from what I gathered they are disbanding the desk….but dispersing the staff all over
        That means there’s going to be a bit of global warming in everything

  2. copernicus34 says:

    even astronomers are getting upset, look at the drivel on this post
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html

    he is the most passionate of the new genre of ‘climate astronomers’

    • suyts says:

      These people are fascinatingly stupid. Was last year a La Nina year? No? What volcanoes cooled the planet in the last 16 years? Oh, none. Worse, is the lie they’re telling. Human contribution = temps- (volcanoes+ENSO) ?? LMAO!!!! If one looks at past major volcano eruptions, we see that it is impossible to quantify the cooling effect of such, or even if there really is a cooling effect. Volcanoes

      • copernicus34 says:

        that dude is coming unglued; i think its generally coming from the frustration to the climate quacks not being listened to; and they are apparently his buddies, so he goes after the ‘right wing lunatics’. read that blog, he posts climate denier rants every week or so, and you can tell they generate a crapload of webhits as a result. it is undenaibly hilarious to see these guys get summarily unhinged when questioned.

      • suyts says:

        It is funny. I’ll put that on my list of things to do! I was disappointed earlier. John Ransom had a post about global warming, and I thought I’d find some warmists to torture with facts, but it was a very lame response from the warmists. It’s like no one cares anymore. :)

        http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/01/14/so-fake-its-real-global-warming-is-reality-tv-for-the-media-elite-n1488454/page/full/

        • copernicus34 says:

          it would be funny it it weren’t so dangerous. i get into this subject every few years or so, full bore, dive in and sponge as much information as i can about it. maybe i’m wrong, but it seems like scientists now, in the ever increasing pressure to be right, throw scientific methodology to the wind. it’s ironic; that particular blogger (where i provided the link) advocates skepticism at every level of science, except climate change or global warming or whatever name change they want to entertain for the masses. i’ve hit home on a few points, not the least of which where i mock the fact that apparently these ignoramuses feel there is nothing else to learn about the climate; everything there is to know, is known. in every other aspect of science, we always here about the scientists being surprised by this discovery or that…not climate science, we got that!!!!

        • suyts says:

          Yes, the arrogance is probably the biggest cause for their errors.

  3. HankH says:

    I think all these warmistas suffer from a form of visual spatial disorder – every linear trend line they see on a temperature chart looks like it is going up even if its flat or going down.

  4. philjourdan says:

    “but to say it has “stopped” altogether seems to be a misleading statistical sleight of hand.”

    I think we saw with our very own Tony that they HAVE to lie. There is no reality where the truth promotes their case. So they try to make it seem like the opposition is picking nits, when in fact, the opposition is merely pointing out the boulders.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s