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.
Then there’s the stupidity of the caption writer…
Of course when your entire knowledge of corn is that it typically either comes out of a can or in the form of frosted flakes, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to distinguish an ear of corn from an entire plant.
The media mis-represents almost everything everyday. Our news media may be worse than the USSR’s in the 70s.
Bobby Davis says:
August 18, 2014 at 6:10 am
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.
I think we are prone to assigning to much credit to “the media.” The members of the media are generally products of an education system that also creates their readers. In other words, the reporters are unlikely to be significantly brighter than their readers. Also, the confoundment of the solar system and the galaxy is, as stated, in a “comment.” So, we can’t necessarily attribute it to the editors or reporters ignorance so much as to their training to be “sensitive.” One of my children is just now discovering that high school seems to have short-changed her severely. Since the results of my attempts to alert her to this and to rectify it somewhat during their high school years were met with anger and accusations of cruelty and insensitivity, all I can do now is nod sympathetically – and smile. The good part is that the kid is now working hard to acquire things that are no longer offered in high school.
I’d write a letter to the LA Times editor complaining about this except they banned free speech, I mean letters from climate skeptics….
To be entirely fair in regards to reporters in general, incompetence probably leads bias by a fair margin. After those two there’s not much left to rely on.
As someone once said, He’s never know a completely acculturate article on subjects he knows well
How do we reconcile the latest LA Times mistake of blaming the hypothetical climate change on something that hasn’t been shown to even be linked with climate change, with this…
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008-story.html
Expat says:
August 18, 2014 at 10:58 am
Reporters also tend to be lazy.
to be fair – the USGS report was only one “expert” cited in the news article – and yes – she mis-representated of the report – altho i’m curious about the quote from the lead author – it doesn’t seem to be in the report – so did she communicate with him directly – and did he embellish on the report
i wonder at the term “everyday science” in this post’s heading – the USGS report is hardly everyday science – in fact – the entire heading is a generalization – the LA Times article was an “example of misrepresenting an expert witness” – let’s let the alarmists be the sloppy ones – okay?
JJ says:
August 18, 2014 at 8:25 am
Of course, the LA Times reporter also claims that Montana farmers grow “malted barley”. Demonstrates the level of understanding these asshats have.
—————————————————————————–
Single or double?
JEyon wrote, “i wonder at the term “everyday science” in this post’s heading – the USGS report is hardly everyday science – in fact – the entire heading is a generalization – the LA Times article was an “example of misrepresenting an expert witness” – let’s let the alarmists be the sloppy ones”
I would agree with you if the subject at hand were some hard physics concepts that is arcane to even an educated but non-expert reader. An example would be say the science behind CGR cloud nucleation and the subsequent effects on earth’s albedo and UWLWIR. A topic like that, though certainly critical in climate science circles, is not everyday science. There are countless examples that are not “everyday science.”
However the ever shifting geology and hydrology of a major river with all its hundreds of small tributaries is quite real “everyday science” to the tens of thousands of stakeholders whose lives and livlihoods are controlled by the “everyday” happenings in the Missouri River watershed and the water it provides. Any of the thousands of ranchers and farmers, many whose families have lived on the land for generations, understand firsthand much about their local hydrology, such as where it floods, how much rain it takes to overun banks, or why the river in their area is frequently like an “angry tempermental wife” that you have to learn to live with for both her bounty and her fits. Every one of those stakeholders & land holders interact at some point with their local soil conservation offices and agriculture extension agents who do understand the everyday science of a major watershed.
The farmers who pump aquifers are keenly aware of the long terms effects of surface subsidence, soil salinity changes, and many other technical quirks that are vital to their livlihood.
By the same token, many sport recreation outfits have experienced river and fishing guides who understand their part of the watershed and its hydrology impacts on their business and their customers.
And it is precisely because these many thousnads of stakeholders along the Missouri River water understand the everyday science of the river that they are some of the most skeptical toward the idea that “climate change” and see it as just another excuse by an over-reaching government to control their livlihoods.
JMO
I think one of the reasons for such nonsense is that nearly all the “science reporting” in the mainstream press is done by people who don’t know the difference between astronomy and astrology. They went to public schools and colleges, and got degrees in things like feminist film criticism.
That’s not a completely random example. When PBS NewsHour needed to hire a “Reporter/Producer on Science and Climate Change,” they chose a pretty young girl who had a fresh degree in Film Studies, with an emphasis on Feminist Criticism. Her senior honors thesis at UNL was entitled, “Unzipping Gender: Gender Stereotypes, Identity, and Power.” I know that because googled her after she wrote, in 2012, that 90% of Greenland’s ice mass had thawed that summer.
What you have displayed here is an example of “churnalism” (do a Google/Bing search) which is what has replaced actual journalism these days …
The real problem with the Missouri is the Corps who maintain the river forgot why all those dams were built (to stop flooding) and started worrying about the Plover. So when they tried to duplicate the”natural flow” of course they ended up with flooding and washing away the plover nest. The trouble with Greenies is you can’t fix stupid.
So why isn’t the author, his supervisor and the university screaming about being misrepresented?
Oh I see…
“possible causes are described in the context of the need for further research”
They didn’t even have to make their own grant magnet. The press did it for them.
In Texas there’s a saying, “never let the facts get in the way of a good story“. It seems the LA Times practices this.
I would like this!!!…
john robertson says: August 18, 2014 at 8:47 am “Mark Twain comes to mind again, his comment as to how the Mississippi River shortens itself by a few 100 feet every year.
Or of course the benefit of science, how one can gain so much speculation from so few facts.
Thank you John, for a most illuminating reference to a similar process to the mechanics of “climate science” For those not already aware, the link is:
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-lifemississippi-17.htm