If global-warming bedwetters have such an ironclad case, why do they so often fudge on the facts?
Case in point: MSNBC action hero Ed Schultz, braying mouthpiece for The Ed Show, yesterday making a dubious claim while doing his part to malign GOP Sen. Ted Cruz on the day he launched his bid for the presidency.
Here's an example of why Cruz can't be taken seriously, Schultz proclaimed --
SCHULTZ: Now, oddly enough, Cruz loves to say things like 'the whole world is on fire' and 'the world is melting down' and then he says this about the global climate --
CRUZ (appearing on Late Night with Seth Meyers last week): I just came back from New Hampshire where there's snow and ice everywhere and my view actually is simple -- debates on this should follow science and should follow data. And many of the alarmists on global warming, they got a problem 'cause the science doesn't back 'em up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there's been zero warming, none whatsoever.
SCHULTZ: Well, let's follow the data. Here's one thing Ted Cruz can't deny -- 2014 was the warmest year in the history of our planet. Cruz is simply ignoring science and facts.
This from a man who ignores an inconvenient fact from the very source he cites -- the National Climatic Data Center. Just as Schultz claimed that last year was the warmest "in the history of our planet," a graphic was shown of a NOAA report headlined, "2014 Earth's warmest year on record."
Here's what the first line in the report states -- "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880. ..." (emphasis added)
I'll stick my neck way, way out and assert that the "history of our planet" began considerably earlier than 1880. One could even make the case that most -- nay, nearly all -- of history (human, climate and otherwise) took place before the late 19th century. The years since are a wink of the eye by comparison.
It's not just that Schultz does the very thing for which he condemns Cruz, he's also wrong in suggesting the science here is solid. As was widely reported back in January when the '2014 was warmest' claim was first made, it's not.
In fact, scientists involved in the research reluctantly admitted that there was little more than a one in three chance that they were accurate -- and even if they were, the temperature increase came to a mere 0.02 degrees Celsius, well within the margin of error. It made for enlightening reading, at least for those still possessed of that once highly touted virtue of skepticism, when reported by Britain's Daily Mail --
The NASA climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed '2014 was the warmest year on record.'
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS's analysis -- based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide -- is subject to a margin of error. NASA admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the NASA press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged 'record' amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous 'warmest year', of just two-hundredths of a degree -- or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C -- several times as much.
Don't hold your breath waiting for see Cruz debate this or anything else with Schultz on The Ed Show. Schultz wouldn't take the risk of inviting him, because he knows Cruz wouldn't break a sweat running circles around him. Cruz, on the other hand, would be wasting his time anyway because only a sliver of Schultz's shrinking audience of angry left-wingers would ever vote for him.
