Conservatives screw up global warming story (again)

Any post that begins, “Far-right blogs were all atwitter the other day…” is bound to end up making conservatives look pretty bad. This is another one of those posts. This time, the topic is global warming.

The WaPo noted the bones of the “controversy” today.

NASA has slightly revised its record of average annual temperatures in the United States since 2000 — modifications that researchers say are insignificant but that some conservative commentators and bloggers have seized upon to assert that global warming has been hyped as a problem.

The revisions, which were first posted on the Web site of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stemmed from an error noticed by Canadian blogger and global warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre. James Hansen, director of the institute, said McIntyre brought the error to the institute’s attention, and the error was corrected.

Average annual temperatures are based on readings collected from many different sites. To compare these readings over time, scientists adjust them to take into account factors such as urbanization. Hansen said the mistake occurred because NASA scientists thought some readings they used in determining the average annual temperature after the year 2000 had been adjusted, when they had not been.

So, no big deal right? A computer glitch altered the overall global mean temperatures by one-one-thousandth of a degree. An amateur noticed the problem, NASA corrected it, and the agency gave the person who noticed full credit for the catch. The trends remain the same, and scientists’ understanding of climate change is entirely unaffected.

At which point conservative global-warming deniers praised scientists for making the minor correction and went about their business. No, I’m just kidding — after the minor data correction, the right threw a hissy fit and argued that this is proof that global warming is bogus.

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh used reports of the revisions to argue that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists with liberal agendas.

“We have proof of man-made global warming,” Limbaugh said on his show last Thursday. “The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data.”

Limbaugh’s clownery is actually mild compared to the reaction generated by several conservative blogs, which collectively lost their minds. One accused NASA of perpetrating a “deliberate fraud.” Several others called for Hansen to be fired from his position. Fox News — surprise, surprise — got in on the fun.

Brad Plumer summarized nicely just how foolish the right’s reaction to this meaningless story really is.

1998 went from being listed as 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 to being listed as 0.02 degrees cooler. That means 1934 is back to being the “official” hottest U.S. year on record, although it’s still a statistical tie. Some of the other U.S. years in this decade were also downgraded slightly. This all had virtually no bearing on the global temperature record, in which 2005 is still the hottest year and Al Gore’s claim that nine of the ten hottest years in history have occurred since 1995 is still operative. […]

Nothing’s really changed. All told, it’s a tempest that deserves a very tiny teapot.

I often wonder if conservatives ever get tired of being this wrong, this often. I suspect it must be demoralizing after a while.

“I often wonder if conservatives ever get tired of being this wrong, this often. I suspect it must be demoralizing after a while.”

Nah. They are paid too well to intentionally mislead or to be intentionally ignorant.

  • Truth doesn’t matter; all that does matter is attacking the other side. In a purely tribal mindset, there’s no possibility of acknowledging being wrong about anything, as this would be an admission of weakness.

    Wingnuttia neither notices nor cares if it is wrong. A minor data point showed up that they could exaggerate into showing that they are fractionally less wrong than they were before. They seized on this and are trying to use it as a club against their enemies. It’s what they do.

    Expecting a wingnut not to be wrong is like expecting shit not to stink.

  • What exactly does this so-called “liberal agenda” hope to accomplish by pushing global warming? Why is global warming such a hot-button issue with these guys? Are liberals planning on something and global warming is the linchpin of its success?

    More importantly, does acknowledging global warming prevent the following?

    1. Fear-mongering (oh, the irony…)
    2. Abuse of prescription medications like Oxycontin
    3. Endless War
    4. Talking out of your ass
    5. Talking with your head up your ass
    6. Sexual deviance, or accidental gayness
    7. Accidentally soliciting sex from male prostitutes in Florida park restrooms
    8. Sexually harassing young male interns in the halls of the Capitol building

    etc.

  • Demoralizing? Nah, they’ll just screech all the louder about it being false. Admission of erring is a sign of weakness as JimBob said. And besides, to feel demoralized don’t you neccessarily have to feel something akin to shame first? And heck, we all know that under the shame entry in Conservapedia, it’s only mentioned in relation to experiencing sexual enjoyment and pleasure. Or maybe in showing disrespect to a parent, or other adult leader of the pack.

  • I read an excellent post on this “controversy” the other day from the “Bad Astronomer,” Phil Plait. He does a thorough analysis of what the revised data tells us, and doesn’t tell us.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/10/is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-it-just-me/

    I have no idea why he calls himself a “bad” astronomer. He seems to be a very good astronomer. His website is informative, well-written, entertaining, and reality based.

    The global warming deniers are desperate and grasping at straws. Their reaction to this should be no surprise.

    By the way, it’s awfully hot today where I am. Has been all week. How about you? Of course one data point doesn’t prove much, but I’m just saying…

  • In all seriousness, the global warming issue is really one that is tailor-made for both sides to work together on (unless one is absolutely bought and sold 10 times over by big Oil and Coal, and that is only a small fraction of these nutjobs). All of our interests are served by working together on resolving the issues/problems raised by global warming, and such resolution could be designed to and would benefit the goals of the left, middle and right (again, with the exception of that small number of folks who are bought and sold by big Oil and Coal).

  • Time to dust off the Upton Sinclair chestnut that Al Gore quoted in An Inconvenient Truth:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

  • jimBOB said:

    In a purely tribal mindset, there’s no possibility of acknowledging being wrong about anything, as this would be an admission of weakness.

    I would go one step further. In a purely tribal mindset, right and wrong are meaningless concept. There is your tribe’s position, or what is perceived to be in your tribe’s interest, and then there is everything else that opposes, threatens, competes with, or simply fails to advance your tribe’s position. To quote that brilliant philosophical genius George Wittgenstein Bush, “you’re either with us or with the terra-ists.”

  • bubba: …with the exception of that small number of folks who are bought and sold by big Oil and Coal.

    Hey, don’t forget all of us who are bought and sold by the librul, homosexual, academic elitist agenda! Profit motive is nuthin compared to the thrill these folks get over turning children into gay, america-hatin’ abortionists!

  • Actually, it would seem to most who use the grey matter found between their ears, whether gay-loving or gay hating, america loving or america hating, or abortion loving or abortion hating, that trying to reverse the affects of global warming and its effects on humans in general everywhere in the world would be a good thing and that the methods used to do so, the money spent, the technology, business, industry and markets developed would benefit the policies of all such groups on either side. With the sole exception of oil and gas interests (although there is no reason why these interests could not in fact could be included in this process and stand to reap large sums of money from it, especially considering their infrastructure and human capital would be useful in the transition from carbon based energy to non-carbon based energy). But you sound like someone who has suffered significant brain damage from methane poisoning caused by having your head stuffed up your arse for most of your life, so you wouldn’t understand such things.

  • Comments are closed.