James Delingpole may brag of his inablity to read science for himself ( see video at the end of this piece) but he cannnot evade the consequences of failing to check his facts, witness his latest Breitbart lede (no emphasis added):
DELINGPOLE: NOAA Scandal Gives Trump The Perfect Excuse To Drain The Climate Swamp
Wherein he tells us all about what's in what he hasn't read:
Really - or has Delingpole disinformed his readers yet again?"In October 2015, we followed up with a story headlined: NOAA Attempts To Hide The Pause In Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover Up Since Climategate.This reported on how NOAA had refused to give up its documents in response to a subpoena by Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who also smelt a rat – and just needed some raw data to prove it.Now, NOAA insider John Bates has provided the smoking gun to Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose.In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation…
The Associated Press reports Rose's latest bogus bombshell in The Mail has been repudiated by his primary source:
AP FEBRUARY 16
"Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press ... that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Reading a scientifically literate dissection of Rose's article, like this one by a Scotish physicist, one discovers the whipper-in of Breitbart's mounted climate science constabulary is not alone in his dyslexia- Rose can't read numbers either:
David Rose’s article also includes the figure above which purports to show that the NOAA data was adjusted to show higher temperatures. Well, this is immediately odd in that the issue is really the trend (i.e., how fast is it changing), not the actual temperature values. Also, the difference is almost entirely because NOAA presents their temperature anomalies relative to a 1901-2000 baseline, while HadCRUT4 presents theirs relative to a 1961-1990 baseline.
If you shift them to have the same baseline, the discrepancy goes away :
The immediate conclusion one might draw is that [Rose's] figure is intentionally misleading, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that David Rose simply does not understand the concept of a temperature anomaly, despite having written many articles about them.
Not that that's ever stopped Delingpole-- having yet again failed to grasp even bog-standard science, he gallops on to another breathlessly wrong conclusion :
President Trump has said that there is a massive swamp that needs draining. But his efforts are being resisted at every turn by all those lying scientists, bent politicians, rent-seeking businessmen, and Soros-funded activist groups who insist: “What swamp? What crocodiles? What leeches? Nothing to see here!”...
Here at Breitbart we smelt a rat from the moment NOAA released its dodgy, “Pause-busting” study two years ago.
In terms of the climate propaganda wars, on the other hand, it is huge: this is a blow from which the Alarmist establishment may never recover... This will be a particularly delicious irony for all those honest sceptics who, over the last few decades, have been branded “anti-science” for questioning the global warming “consensus.”
Michael Crichton once said: “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Which, given how plainly the climate trend speaks, comes under the heading of horsefeathers, making Spinmeister Jim's take on 'consensus' this blog's lawful prey:
Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't... by LukeScientiae
