Not that they’ll listen, of course.
Over at Reason, Ronald Bailey has a nicely balanced, fair and calm piece explaining why The New York Times’ recent “Heat Waves in the Age of Climate Change: Longer, More Frequent and More Dangerous” is not exactly true, like much climate change advocacy.
As evidence, the Times cites the U.S. Global Change Research Program, reporting that “since the 1960s the average number of heat waves—defined as two or more consecutive days where daily lows exceeded historical July and August temperatures—in 50 major American cities has tripled.” That is indeed what the numbers show. But it seems odd to highlight the trend in daily low temperatures rather than daily high temperatures.
As it happens, chapter six of 2017’s Fourth National Climate Assessmentreports that heat waves measured as high daily temperatures are becoming less common in the contiguous U.S., not more frequent.
What is so consistently infuriating in almost all mainstream media discussions of climate change is that they intentionally understate the continuing uncertainty in representing scientific estimates and extrapolations as unchallengable conclusions. “The panel’s latest report notes that there is “medium confidence” that “the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century” around the world,” the Reason article explains. “Medium confidence means there is about a 50 percent chance of the finding being correct.”
You know: that means consensus among climate scientists, making those questioning the models that have yet to prove accurate the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
From the article:
Heat wave trends aside, the Fourth National Climate Assessment reports that “the annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2°F” if you compare the period of 1986–2016 to that of 1901–1960.
Got it. That’s a fact. The current heat wave, however, has nothing to do with that fact, unless your real objective is to panic the gullible and scientifically ignorant, or, in the words of Saikat Chakrabarti, the chief of staff of Representative Ocasio-Cortez, to use still speculative science as a justification to “change the entire economy,” along with the liberties necessary to sacrifice in order to do so.