Mainstream Media Fails to Fact Check a Climate-Change Story…Once Again

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Someday, probably not too soon, the mainstream media will come to realize something important. They need to perform a few simple fact checks on climate change-related claims in their articles. When readily available data falsify a claim made in the story, the entire article is undermined and it falls into the great abyss called propaganda.

That brings us to the recent Reuters article China says climate change threatens major projects. The opening paragraph reads (my boldface):

Climate change threatens some of China’s most important infrastructure projects, China’s top meteorologist warned in a state newspaper, adding the country’s rate of warming was higher than the global average.

I’ll let you comment on the claims that weather events, “floods, typhoons, droughts and heatwaves,” were threatening “China’s most important infrastructure projects”, like “the Three Gorges Dam and a high-altitude railway to Tibet”.

My interest is the claim that China’s “rate of warming was higher than the global average.” It’s regurgitated later in the article:

China’s rate of warming was “at an obviously higher rate” than the global average, with the north of the country warming faster than the south and winters faster than the summer, Zheng said.

That claim is very easy to verify…or falsify.

In addition to providing global and hemispheric data, Berkeley Earth has also subdivided their land surface air temperature data by country. The China data are here. And we can run a few checks against the global data (source here). The Berkeley Earth surface temperature data for China runs continuously from July 1837 to August 2013, so we’ll compare them first over that full term. See Figure 1. The warming rates are the same.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Curiously, if we look at the China and global land surface temperatures starting in the oft-used 1979, Figure 2, we once again find the same warming rates.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Then again, when we look at the data since 2001, Figure 3, the global data show a very slight warming rate, while surface temperatures in China show a cooling, not warming, trend.

Figure 3

Figure 3

It only takes a few minutes to spot check claims about global and regional warming rates. Now, there’s no reason to cross check anything else. The credibility of the entire article is gone.

On the other hand, it could well be that when Zheng is reported to have said, “China’s rate of warming was ‘at an obviously higher rate’ than the global average,” he was referring to global land+ocean surface temperatures. In that case, the statement would of course be correct, but it would be awfully misleading. He’d then be comparing two different metrics. It is well known that land surface temperatures mimic and exaggerate the warming of the ocean surfaces, leading to higher warming rates on land surfaces than those of the oceans.

[sarc on.] I can’t imagine (1) a government official anywhere attempting to mislead the public and (2) the mainstream media giving them free rein to do so on a climate-related topic. [sarc off.]

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 5, 2015 9:07 am

“[sarc on.] I can’t imagine (1) a government official anywhere attempting to mislead the public and (2) the mainstream media giving them free rein to do so on a climate-related topic. [sarc off.]”
That’s the only positive feedback loop I know of that has gone past the “tipping point”

May 5, 2015 9:16 am

Read your local paper – anywhere. Note that most non local stories carry the “Reuters” or “AP” tag. So the same message goes out everywhere and local papers do not have resources to check the big brother stories. It’s pretty simple. In Canada for example, the Thompson family, Rogers, Bell, Shaw and the Communist Broadcasting Corporation/sarc control most of the media. No one has time to fact check especially when it would be against the editorial policy anyway. (The Thompson family holding company owns 57% of Reuters.) http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-thomson/
Thank goodness for blogs.

Mike M.
May 5, 2015 10:20 am

This is not the fault of the reporter. Zheng’s statement was true, as any “simple fact check” would reveal. It is also misleading, as anyone with a detailed knowledge of the subject would realize. But you can not expect that from a reporter. The most you can reasonably expect is that the reporter to check with another expert. If he did so, it is likely that the second expert would have gone along with the deception.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
May 5, 2015 1:03 pm

Brad Rich is spot on with ‘downstream media’. I’ll start using it.
It reminds me of awarded book ‘Shipping news’ by Annie Proulx in 1993. Her fiction borders documentary in our new millennium. One of my favorite passages in Lasse Hallström’s movie based on it is Pete Postlethwaite teaching Kevin Spacey how to write weather related news:
No. No. It’s not some clouds in the horizon. Imminent Storm Threatens the Village!

26south
May 5, 2015 2:42 pm

What do the reference dates mean on these graphs? Ie, 1951 to 1980. The average temperature during this period?

Ian Macdonald
May 5, 2015 2:57 pm

I’m often inclined to compare this kind of thing with the treatment of Pons and Fleischmann, who were basically kicked-out of mainstream science for making nothing more than a controversial claim. A claim which was later shown to have been correct, at least in principle.
Now, if mainstream science is so draconic when it comes to anything with the slightest whiff of unorthodoxy about it, how come these climate scientists get to do the full and unabridged snake-oil sales pitch without the slightest repercussions? If the same standards were applied, this whole climate change theory would have been shunted into the same pigeonhole as perpetual motion machines one day after Climategate, and the perpetrators henceforth ignored completely no matter what they said.

Just Steve
May 5, 2015 3:58 pm

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/punditfact-a-case-study-in-fact-free-hackery/
You really don’t want MSM fact checkers close to anything they don’t like or understand.

rah
May 5, 2015 9:45 pm

Fact checkers are in fact a very good indication of the state of journalism. They were invented simply because the credibility of journalists and the various news organs they work for has been gauged by a significant portion of the population to be generally poor.
The fact is that if journalists were doing their jobs there would be no need for “fact checkers”. And that now, as people have caught on to their scam, the credibility of the “fact checkers” is as questionable as that of the journalists and news organs they were invented to lend credence to.

rtj1211
May 5, 2015 11:09 pm

So China, having refused to limit its carbon emissions for 20 yers, is suddenly trying to sing ‘global warming songs’.
Says to me that there must be financial reasons for them to start singing a new song.
It’ certainly won’t be principles, it will be money.
Who in China wants to make big bucks from ‘global warming’??

Patrick
May 6, 2015 12:48 pm
David R
May 7, 2015 12:02 am

Just wonder why Bob’s elected to use the adjusted BEST data, when both the adjusted and raw GHCN data are available for 416 stations in China: https://tools.ceit.uq.edu.au/temperature/index.html
In the adjusted GHCN data, since 1979 the trend globally is 0.227C/dec, versus 0.300 for China. In the raw GHCN data, the global trend is 0.216 C/dec versus 0.245 C/dec in China.
Is the adjusted BEST data preferable to the unadjusted GHCN data for China? If so, is this also the case globally?

johann wundersamer
May 7, 2015 6:56 am

it’s us people who order and pay:
The MSM writes what the MSPeople want to buy.
The polititians promise / grant what the people vote for.
The ‘elites’ SERVE the MSP with a narrative the distracts from everydays gray. And transports elevated self esteem.
Needs time for /the majority/ of us to shift.
Regards – Hans

Mervyn
May 9, 2015 10:00 pm

The climate system of earth is a most unpredictable, complex and chaotic system. Yet it has proven to be a system that miraculously maintains equilibrium and stability, which allows life to exist on earth. Just because of a small increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide, and just because of a very slow rate of increase in global temperature since the Little Ice Age, the United Nations wants the world to believe in coming climate catastrophes and doomsday scenarios, that quite frankly will never happen.
Today’s climate is not unprecedented. Today’s weather patters are not unprecedented. Only propagandists will tell you otherwise. They are the alarmists who make meaningless pathetic statements like “Climate change is real”.