Like fish in a barrel.
Here is the Washington Post article (Web | PDF) by the Capital Weather Gang’s Matthew Cappucci about a new study in Geophysical Research Letters.
Note the certainty of the headline (above) and opening paragraphs (below), including the certain attribution to “humans”, a synonym for manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.
Now compare that certainty with the last paragraph of the study’s analysis, especially the highlighted portion.
Note the incongruity… Cappucci’s false presentation of certainty vs. the study authors’ clear admission of uncertainty.
Unfortunately, Cappucci seems to be a committed climate propagandist working at a propaganda outfit committed to the climate hoax. Since our last clash, he blocked me on Twitter.
The WaPo masthead reads “Democrats Dies in Darkness”… especially when you leave the inconvenient truths buried in the paywalled study.
As The American Thinker is clearly the last refuge of the scientific method, outside of the Tucker Carlson show, the WaPo should throw in the towel and cut its stockholder’s losses by turning Tech coverage over to Steve and Michael Fumento.
Stupid twit. Obviously a product of his generation’s education system.
in conjunction with what Terry said, so far not one institution or person has ever demonstrated the ability to change the planet’s climate other than simple exercises like cloud seeding. Everything in the climate hoax is supposition and wishcasting IMAO.
The WaPo’s article begins by assuming a fact not in evidence. This that the scientific method was used in reaching the conclusions of the study being referenced. For the scientific method to have been used, the events of the future for Earth’s climate system would have to be of the “concrete” variety but in modern climatology these events are of the “abstract” variety. The effect from this anomaly is for the runs of a modern climate model to convey no information gain about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system to a public official, e.g. Climate Czar John Kerry, precluding regulation of this system by this official. By implying that this official can regulate this system, The WaPo fabricates information not present. The WaPo could have avoided this misrepresentation by admitting at the outset that the scientific method was not used in reaching the conclusions of the study but this admission is nowhere to be found.