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……..
Leo 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.
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