Given his role as a radio commentator, one should expect exaggeration, and Politifact should have investigated his claims not as whether they were true or false, but rather if there was a grain of truth that he was exaggerating and how much exaggeration there is.
I have zero confidence in the prominent newspapers when it comes to climate change coverage. Despite the fact that the climate is complex and there is variation, their coverage is fifty times stronger of the "up" variations than the "down" variations and they clearly exaggerate climate change.
For example, any time the average temperature increases even the tiniest amount, they provide the same 'sky is falling' coverage as when it goes up substantially. Recently, all the surface measurement entities said the same thing--the average global temperature for 2018 was lower than 2017, however, not a single press story mentioned that. Instead all coverage was that 2018 was one of the hottest years on record. And they would not say there was a two-year downward trend since 2016.
I'm not arguing that the trend will continue, and I'm not arguing that there hasn't been a trend upward, according to that data, since 2000. A reasonable person can admit both. I don't understand why the media, though, can't acknowledge that the temperature has declined since 2016. They could easily quote a scientist saying it's likely a temporary decline because of El Nino in 2016, but they'd rather just omit the inconvenient truth from their stories because they can't handle or they believe their readers can't handle any amount of nuance or complexity.
Turning back to Rush Limbaugh's comments, he said
"Climate change is nothing but a bunch of computer models that attempt to tell us what's going to happen in 50 years or 30. Notice the predictions are never for next year or the next 10 years. They're always for way, way, way, way out there, when none of us are going to be around or alive to know whether or not they were true."Politifact's rebuttal is three-fold--climate change is happening now, predictions from the past have been borne out, and near-term projections have usually been correct.
Climate Change is Happening Now
Most data bears out that it's hotter now than it was ten or twenty years ago or more. However, the statement by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth that "The Earth is now hotter than it has ever been." Is factually inaccurate. As it was hotter two years ago than it is now. His point was probably the point that I made, not the narrow inference I made, but good science and good journalism (and good fact checking) should distinguish in the interest of clarity and accuracy. There is really no reason to let a general and technically incorrect statement like that stand on it's own. (As an aside, I doubt that the fact-checker even understands that the statement is not 100% accurate).
Predictions from the Past have Been Borne out
This is where Rush is on his firmest footing. The Politifact article uses one expert who conducted an analysis for a website, then cites a single model which overpredicted the temperature increase by 20%. They also refer to this analysis which shows that the models have been off by varying degrees but claim that they're basically right. After reviewing the models and evidence, the models do not consistently over-estimate like I originally believed, but they also don't seem especially accurate. The difference here might be the reporting, an interesting investigation may be to look at how these are reported. I suspect that the media tend to emphasize the highest estimates and that's what gives the impression that the models are always over-estimating.
Near-Term Projections Are Usually Correct
What terrible evidence. I should hope that they're usually correct. I can get pretty close to a good prediction just by saying the temperature will be exactly the same. There is no difficulty in guessing small changes, and furthermore they are pointless. What is important is the long-term projections. This defense should not be included.
No comments:
Post a Comment