Joel O’Bryan writes in WUWT Tips and Notes
The LA Times has the follwing lead story on it webpage:
“Climate change reflected in altered Missouri River flow, report says”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missouri-river-20140817-story.html
Quoting from the LA Times, “Climate shifts may be causing the disparate changes in the Missouri River Basin, the USGS report says. The scientists noted that higher stream flow in the Dakotas had occurred even as water use increased. In addition, they said, lower stream flow in some areas could be related in part to groundwater pumping.”
Parker Norton, PhD Candidate, was the lead author of the report. His USGS dissertation report is quite large (32MB) but downloadable as a PDF at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5053/
Parker Norton makes the following statement in the report:
“This study did not examine forcing factors that may explain the observed streamflow trends, such as climate change, climate variability, land- and water-use changes, or groundwater pumping; however, possible causes are described in the context of the need for further research.” (Page 9, under Introduction, Purpose and Scope)
I find nowhere in Parker Norton’s report any mention of the term “climate shift” as claimed by the LA Times reporter.
The only instance of the term Climate Change is the above noted on in his intro. He does use the term “climate” a total of 8 times in the body of his report (not counting the references). A review of each of the context of that “climate” term usage finds no attribution of the water shed affects to Climate change and certainly not human-induced climate change.
Conclusion: The LA Times reporter confabulated a false narrative of climate change impact from a scientific report in which no such claim was made.
Climate Change media bias clearly at work on the public opinion. I give the LA Times reporter MAYA SRIKRISHNAN Four Pinocchios on this article — Pants on Fire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One of the true believers that left a comment on the L.A. Times article, called our planet “the shinning jewel of the solar system called the Milky Way.” That’s the level of intelligence we are up against folks. Total ignorance thanks to the media.
News for headline readers only…..unfortunately they are likely the majority
I suspect if we analyzed every Main Stream Media (MSM) article that discusses “global warming/climate change” in some manner we would find a marked distortion between what the journalist says and what the scientist or science paper reports.
Remember, the media is the message, not the facts or the truth.
“
What did a Milky Way do to deserve a shinning? Darn tasty chocolate bar.
Although it’s not as classy as a Galaxy.
Is this trolling?
Having encountered some journalism majors in the ten years I taught at the university level, I have come to appreciate the fact that journalists fabricate a lot of what they write.
Maybe there was a mention of climate change in the university’s press release, or in an interview of the author (?).
The more climate changes, the more it stays the same.
It’s important for the religious believers in Global Warming to keep singing the hymnals of doom. It’s a way for them to reach out to their fellow parishioners and communicate their faith in “the cause”. It’s a curious and sad thing to observe. In many cases, desperate people with all kinds of substance abuse problems and/or depression are easy pickings for the evangelicals of “the cause”.
A person who sees the world through the eyes of their personal depression and doom will find a sense of comfort in the thought that the world is doomed also (by the power and glory of “the cause”. All hail “the cause” and may it come to power over the earth. Blessed be “the cause”)
sorry, couldn’t resist this heretical moment for which I will surely burn in a deniers HELL.
Frankly, I’d say that Saturn would be a better candidate for ‘shining jewel of the Solar System’ than earth. It’s MUCH prettier to look at.
rogerknights says:
August 18, 2014 at 6:35 am
Maybe there was a mention of climate change in the university’s press release, or in an interview of the author (?).
===============
I think there was a mention of ‘climate’ by one of the co-authors in an interview, but it hardly assigns blame to ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Climate Shifts’.
“What is apparent is that the climate is changing and that it is being reflected in the stream flow conditions,” said Mark Anderson, director of the USGS Water Science Center in South Dakota and another of the report’s authors.
Well, sure, the climate is changing, then again, isn’t it always?
While the press may misrepresent science, it is not necessarily intentional. Quite often it is because they do not understand the science or the scientist has not communicated in simple terms. In one instance that I was involved with, the reporter grossly misrepresented what was stated in an interview. After a complaint to the newspaper, the editor refused to issue a correction to the story claiming that it was mostly correct in his opinion.
Unfortunately, the USGS press release was less circumspect than the report. See http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3944#.U_IHz7ySzCk
“The only instance of the term Climate Change is the above noted on in his intro. He does use the term “climate” a total of 8 times in the body of his report (not counting the references). A review of each of the context of that “climate” term usage finds no attribution of the water shed affects to Climate change and certainly not human-induced climate change.”
Maya found the word ‘climate’ and launched into “climate change (aka, poetic) license” from there. What do you expect from today’s reporters? For decades, postmodern English professors have taught them that truth is what serves the interests of the writer.
The key passage: “……the need for further research.”
If it is the MSM, you can guarantee that it is made up or wrong. 97% of the time.
“Conclusion: The LA Times reporter confabulated a false narrative of climate change impact from a scientific report in which no such claim was made.”
This is par for the course with the MSM. What I find disconcerting is that NONE of the mainstream climate scientists who proclaim to be all about the “science” ever respond to this type of misrepresentation and try to correct it.
By the way, if you’re like me and have no faith in the veracity or objectivity of our MSM, just remove them from your life. Delete links to their sites and apps that use their sites. Don’t purchase their “news” products (papers, magazines, etc.) or watch their shows on TV. And encourage your friends and family to do the same – eventually their sponsors will begin to notice. Look at CNN, for example. They are in freefall as only airports and some sports bars are tuned to their shows anymore.
Has anyone got a comparison in size between the Milky Way and the “shinning jewel” in easily comprehensible terms, such as, for example, London buses?
‘I find nowhere in Parker Norton’s report any mention of the term “climate shift” as claimed by the LA Times reporter.’
Obviously their PHD supervisor has baldly let them down when it comes to advice on does and does not advance your career in climate science. And here is clue its certainly not good science.
Still they time yet to shoe-horn the ‘correct references’ into this work , so all is not lost yet.
I ran across an excellent sentence in another (unrelated) article this AM:
“This isn’t reporting, it’s servicing the prejudices of readers who’d rather not think that hard.”
The problem is that the media companies globally are all quite aware (because the NGOs brag about what they spend on wining and dining them) of what the UNESCO vision is on climate change and how the books published and articles written and stories broadcast should all fit with the desired memes. They also fit with the view of K-12 education globally (known as Common Core or Next Generation Learning in the US and 21st Century Skills elsewhere) that is now to be primarily about using the classroom to create common shared understandings. Those shared understandings need not have anything to do with scientific reality. Their purpose and reason for existence is to drive a widespread perception in the need for transformative political, social, and economic change.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/sculpting-the-inner-eyes-that-guide-what-real-eyes-perceive-from-daily-experiences/ is just full of cites to the specific language of what global education is to now mean everywhere and what it is designed to do.
I am very glad this blog is devoted to proof and hard science. It is a huge mistake to continue to believe that is what is guiding K-12 classrooms anywhere anymore, public or private. If that crucial fact does not get broader recognition, hard science will only matter to the consequences of all these public policy shifts.
The LA Times reporter also pulled this stunt:
Well, both North Dakota and Montana are places where it is DRY, and thus both should be getting DRIER according to Matt Rice. LA Times confabulates support for their false narrative from a statement that refutes that narrative.
Of course, the LA Times reporter also claims that Montana farmers grow “malted barley”. Demonstrates the level of understanding these asshats have.
I would just like to post an observation here. Last year, major flood in Colorado spilled massive amounts of water into Nebraska that was as dry as burnt toast. Before those floodwaters made it to the Missouri river, yeah, the people here in Nebraska started pumping water out of the Platte so much it made little difference downstream. (The flooding was averted.) Although not pleasant for those in Colorado, Hey, thanks for the water.
Mark twain comes to mind again, his comment as to how the Mississippi River shortens itself by a few 100 feet very year.
Or of course the benefit of science, how one can gain so much speculation from so few facts.
I think we have a new reviewer prospect for Lewandosky/Cook in this reporter.
>>”Quoting from the LA Times, “Climate shifts may be causing the disparate changes in the Missouri River Basin, the USGS report says.”<<
Whenever I hear such an assertion on any subject, my crap-bias detector goes off.
Let's try a slight rephrasing: ". . . Climate shifts may or may not be causing the disparate changes in the Missouri River Basin . . ."
This is just as accurate a statement as what the LA Times wrote, but leads the reader to a rather different conclusion.
Bias? What bias?