Watts Up With That busts WaPo across the chops for turning this:
And it's not the first time they've duped their readers with that image. Kind of makes you wonder how many other ways they are misinforming people, doesn't it?
If this was a one-off it might be different, but climate change alarmism is riddled with gimmicks like this that are meant to manipulate us into agreement, not persuade us using real science and reason.
If climate change believers don't want to be seen as a bunch of con artists, they kind of need to stop acting like a bunch of con artists.
More: In the Eugene Robinson op-ed accompanied by that deceptive photo is another major bit of propaganda that is going around now and that's the resurrection of the claim of 97% consensus among scientists regarding human caused climate change.
Remember the last time? Here's my post on it from February last year. The figure of 97% then was based on a thoroughly rotten bit of selective data and statistical manipulations and it was complete bullshit. The same can be said for the latest "study." Here, from Christopher Monckton, are just some of the criticisms of the report:
- It did not discuss, still less refute, the principle that the scientific method is not in any way informed by argument from consensus, which thinkers from Aristotle via Alhazen to Huxley and Popper have rejected as logically fallacious.
- Its definition of the “consensus” it claimed to have found was imprecise: that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current anthropogenic global warming”.
- It did not put a quantitative value on the term “very likely”, and it did not define what it meant by “current” warming. There has been none for at least 18 years.
- It cited as authoritative the unscientifically-sampled surveys of “consensus” by Doran & Zimmerman (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010).
- It inaccurately represented the views of scientists whose abstracts it analysed.
- It disregarded two-thirds of the 12,000 abstracts it examined, on the unscientific ground that those abstracts had expressed no opinion on Man’s climatic influence.
- It declared that the one-third of all papers alleged to have endorsed the “consensus” really amounted to 97% of the sample, not 33%.
- It suggested that the “consensus” that most recent warming is manmade is equivalent to the distinct and far less widely-supported notion that urgent action to prevent future warming is essential to avert catastrophe. Obama fell for this, twittering that 97% found global warming not only real and manmade but also dangerous.
In another post there, four scientists weigh in on how their work was mischaracterized to get that 97% result and I have no doubt that there will be more, given the ludicrously unscientific process by which the papers were rated.
Assuming he really believes what he wrote, Eugene Robinson has just told the world that he has been conned and he doesn't even know it. The same goes for anybody you talk to who earnestly cites that phony 97% consensus. Most disturbing of all, the same applies to the President of the United States and he is basing policy on that.
Check that. The most disturbing thing is that the 97% "fact" will be difficult if not impossible to dislodge from the minds of the true believers. It has probably already become a literal article of faith to millions of people and their minds are closed, because much of climate alarmism these days resembles a religious belief more than science.
If we can't reverse that, if we can't bring truth and reason and real science back into the climate change discussion, we are well and truly screwed.