Why does the press hate America?
Why does the press hate America?
People wonder why journalism is dead.
When you admit your diagnosis, unintentionally.
Bubbles bursting everywhere!
This should have been their headline.
It’s CNN again..
Over the last couple weeks, I have been researching for a long post about Climate Change. As I have continued this research, it is apparent that the science is corrupted to support the Human Induced Climate Change narrative and how those on the left have help to corrupt scientists into advocacy.
As the media posts articles, the first thing I always do is read the supporting evidence. I think its important that when you read something from any media outlet that provides supporting documentation, you read it to see if, in fact, it supports the conclusions.
So when you’re reading articles from the various press sources, especially those that lean left, the first thing you should recognize is every article assumes the following:
The first two are undisputed. The third one is an unsupported conclusion. The fourth is based on computer models, that include assumptions about the second and third. The last one is a logical leap based on the second, third and fourth.
Of course, a lot of the environmental advocacy comes from the support of the left, of which, a number of the media outlets are influenced. In this case, I’m focused entirely on outlets from the left, because these outlets are always quoted by my many leftist friends.
So today, I read this article from Vox titled, Arctic sea ice hit a record low this winter. Here’s why you should worry. In it, I took notice of this section:
2) Humans are mostly to blame for the Arctic melt
In 2012, a study in Environmental Research Letters concluded that between 70 and 95 percent of the Arctic melt since 1979 has been caused by human activity.
That includes a couple different things: Global warming has drastically heated up the Arctic, with the region warming about twice as fast as the rest of the world. (Here’s a great explanation of why.) On top of that, soot and other pollutants from factories and power plants in Europe and Asia travel up to the Arctic. When those dark particles settle onto snow and ice, they absorb sunlight and start sizzling.
Natural variability also plays a role. In 2012, for example, a large storm in August helped break up the slushy sea ice and cause it to melt even more rapidly. That was one reason why we saw a record low minimum in 2012 but then a slight rebound the following years. Still, scientists say, the long-term downward trend is the important factor here, not the year-to-year blips.
In this section, the first paragraph makes reference to this study. Unfortunately, the study doesn’t even make those claims. The study itself is a comparison of several computer model runs that compares observed data over the affected time period to those within the computer to determine the linkages between the September Sea Ice Extent (SIE) and the Atlantic Oscillation (AO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). It makes no mention of anthropogenic causes of the sea ice extent.
The second paragraph makes an unsupported assertion of soot, and goes to a broken link that exists nowhere. What Vox wants you to believe is that pollution is causing soot on the ice to warm faster. And yet, most soot rarely makes it to arctic, but what does make it, has been declining over the last couple of decades. Mostly, however, the arctic is white, and that temperature increases are more due to changing weather patterns.
The final paraphrase attempts, weakly, to add some support of other causes. Here is the problem: The climate has been warming since the late 17th Century as it has emerged out of the Little Ice Age, something that was statistically removed from the infamous Hockey Stick graph that was used to promote the IPCC contention of dangerous man made climate change.
Whether or not humans are responsible for the current climate is still hotly debated in scientific circles, despite the narrative of scientific consensus. Reporters who make articles, like this one from Vox, fall back on the premise that its the scientists themselves who are advancing the theme. If that is the case, perhaps they need to question the scientists and their advocacy. Anyone who is a reputable scientist will tell you that discourse in science is important to advance research to find the real truth.
Besides, if you find a climate scientist that use the phrase “computer models”, you should probably just ignore them.