An admirable level of ‘Cherry-picking’
September 17, 2019
To the Editor:
The writer of the Sept. 6 “What Warming” letter has taken cherry-picking to an admirable level. He has interpreted a NOAA press release reporting surface temperatures from 114 reporting stations (that's about two per state) which was a publication of raw data and conflated it with one of the conservative Real Clear Media’s 15 brands — Real Clear Energy website’s opinion pieces. Note: Real Clear Energy is a Right biased website which often publishes factual information but uses loaded words that lean right and its factual reporting uses multiple sources that may be trustworthy, but should be carefully researched for accuracy, due to its use of sources who have failed fact checks.
To determine if a claim, data or information is factual I go to the “Skeptics Stack Exchange” website, which is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. What I found is that “the USCRN report is not sufficient to provide evidence of any discernible trend. Chart plots of monthly data points make it difficult to parse just by looking at it. The report does not include any numerical analysis of the data set, or description of what the chart is showing. But, even looking at the monthly data one can see that more points are above 0 than below, and the magnitude of the anomaly is generally greater in the positive direction than the negative (indicative of a warming trend). This is made even clearer by looking at the annual plot. For all but four years, the anomaly is positive, and the magnitude for positive years is far greater than the negative years. With the annual data the trend is more obvious, but by adding a trend line to the monthly data, one can see that there is a definite warming trend.”
Additionally, the USCRN data set, which James Taylor at the website Real Clear Energy, cites in support of his argument, is basically the same as the supposedly unreliable USHCN data which it replaces (the annual data going back 20 years, including both USCRN and USHCN data sets) Note: this is explained a bit more in the “Watt’s up with That” article that seems to be the original source of all of the misinformation.
As Mr. Miller wrote: “It is unlikely that most mainstream media outlets, invested heavily in promoting the manmade global warming theory, will share these facts with the public.” No, the reason the mainstream media are not likely to share these spurious “facts” is for the reason that they are more opinion then fact.