More Bad Science from the MSM

OK at this point I have to say the media are pretty much liars. Lying through "over-representation of factual presentation" is really no different than stating things that are categorically untrue. Take this example:

Moreover, the conclusion that alarmed the team was that compared to its importance for air traffic (25%), the night flights accounted between 60% and 80% of the negative effects for climate. Winter flights were reported to have contributed with more than half to the annual warming, despite of the fact that their proportion is estimated at 22%.

Whoah, those are big numbers. 60-80% of the effect versus only 25% of flights? Let's ban night flights now!

What is mentioned nowhere in the article is that the *total* estimated contribution of contrails to human-caused global warming is under 4%. That makes the contribution from night flights to total human-caused global warming somewhere between 2-3%. We're going to cancel or reschedule 25% of flights for a possible 2-3% reduction in anthropogenic global warming? Even if we're talking 6C by the end of the century, that's at most under a 0.2C reduction in temperature! Over the rest of the century!

I think that may qualify this article as a crime against humanity. The scientists who are allowing their material to be abused this way ought to be ashamed of themselves. People who read newspapers that print this utter bullshit may want to consider finding other sources of bullshit.

Update: Tim Lambert points out in the comments that the article mentions that jet exhaust is responsible for around 2% of total carbon dioxide emissions. Since the difference in contribution between daytime and nighttime flights is due to contrails, not CO2, this number is actually meaningless in the context of the study. The meaningful number is the total contribution to global warming of all flights, since the 60-80% range refers to contribution to global warming, not CO2. This number was quoted in the study and in other, more informed articles about the study as 3.5%, and this is the number I was referring to.

This assumption by global warming alarmists that people who disagree with them simply don't understand climate science is a serious handicap to their cause, IMO.

Update 2: You know, the fact that anyone in the MSM thinks this study is somehow news or would even remotely suggest that even a single flight be rescheduled for potential gains this small shows the intense lack of understanding of statistics, science, and economics that underscores just about all alarmism in the MSM, global warming alarmism doubly so. It's unfortunate for the global warming alarmists that it's so hard to actually extract the meat of their argument from among the fallacies that the MSM digs up to make a story, and that the Gores of the world capitalize on to prove their point.

Share this

To set the record straight,

To set the record straight, contrails lower temperature! PBS covered this a while back in a special about global dimming. The researcher they interviewed compared data about water evaporation during most days and compared them to the day of and following 9/11--the only recent time with zero flights. He found that the presence of contrails slowed the evaporation of water while the lack of contrails sped it along, if my memory can be relied upon.

In sum you want MORE flights to decrease any rise in temperature. And if you really want to put a dent into temperatures, you want to pull what destroyed the world in The Matrix--blanket the sky with smoke.

You beat me to it, contrails

You beat me to it, contrails lower temperature. This was common knowledge back when Global Cooling was the justification for shutting down civilization.

Inconvenient Tidbits I have

Inconvenient Tidbits
I have no idea whether or not the climate is warming or not. Given that scientists were absolutely convinced that it was cooling only twenty years ago I?m pretty sure that they don?t really know either.

You say: Lying through

You say:

Lying through “over-representation of factual presentation” is really no different than stating things that are categorically untrue.

Do you think that lying by taking quotes out of context is also no different than stating things that are categorically untrue?

Sorry, but your claim that

Sorry, but your claim that you weren't attacking Gore is not credible. The quote was from Gore as you knew when you used it, and you specifically used the word "lying" to refer to it. And the fact that even when you see the quote in context you still misrepresent its meaning, removes any doubt on the question.

As for the point in your post, you are just wrong. The article states:

By its accounting, the International Air Transport Assn. says that air traffic accounts for just 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Jet exhaust, however, injected at high altitude can have two or three times the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone, researchers have concluded.

But you claimed that the article did not mention the total contribution of contrails.

Tim, First of all, I wasn't

Tim,

First of all, I wasn't talking about Gore or attempting to impeach him on the basis of the quote. Your attacking my use of the quote when I wasn't talking about Gore would seem to indicate you don't have anything to say about the actual argument I'm making.

However, I will go ahead and respond to you anyway because even your attack on my use of the quote from Gore is flawed. Even in context that quote doesn't sound anything like Gore was trying to say that one needs to focus on the danger before focusing on solutions. He was saying people need to be convinced of the danger, and that the Amerian people were complacent. The more context you add, particularly if you are not cherry-picking the context like a spin doctor as you have in your post, the more it sounds like Gore is saying the American people are too complacent or stupid to be convinced by balanced presentations that try to present everything that's known.

Be fair, they did warn the

Be fair, they did warn the readers that they were talking tosh. They alluded to Global Warming.

Tim, the number they failed

Tim, the number they failed to mention has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It's the 3.5% number which represents the estimated total contribution to global warming from contrails and was mentioned in the study and in other articles about the same thing. The difference in daytime and nighttime contributions has nothing to do with carbon dioxide but with the contrails themselves.

Is 2% of greenhous gas

Is 2% of greenhous gas emissions really all that insignificant?

Again, labyrus, this article

Again, labyrus, this article has nothing to do with CO2. And yes, compared to the cost of rescheduling even a significant fraction of night flights, 2% of global warming is *utterly* insignificant.

I'm sorry, apparently

I'm sorry, apparently quoting two sentences was too much for you handle. Here's the second sentence again:

Jet exhaust, however, injected at high altitude can have two or three times the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone, researchers have concluded.

This is talking about the effect of contrails, not the CO2 emitted by jets.