Fox denies record global heat is due to global warming - the anatomy of a bad argument
Lies, damned lies, and statistics" — Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli
The people who put men on the moon have an opinion on global warming. According to NASA:
"Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here."
Some people think that NASA is lying about the moon landings. I suspect there is an overlap between those conspiracy theorists and Flat Earth proponents. And no doubt among those ranks are many climate change deniers. Luckily for them, Fox News is ready with some sophistry to bolster their science denial.
The cable channel, already in a nearly $1 billion hole for election denial, gives space to Justin Haskins to present his case against global warming. He does not do well. Haskins underpins his specious argument with data that, for the sake of argument, I will accept as facts. However, he abuses those facts with abandon.
Facts are tricky things. They are like bricks. Stacked correctly, with an eye to gravity, they can be put one on the other, cemented together, and formed into a solid structure. Or the same bricks can be tossed into a random pile, benefitting no one. Haskins does the latter.
His biography alone is a warning light. Haskins is the Director of Socialism Research at the Heartland Institute. ‘Research’, in this case, is a euphemism for ‘I have made up my mind, and no facts will change it' — which is why he works at the Heartland Institute. An organization that declares its “mission since its founding in 1984 is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”
Not the “best solutions” — but solutions that comport with their core philosophy that nothing, including a global catastrophe, can justify a government looking out for the interests of the citizens if that care puts profits at risk.
Haskins is also a member of the Philadelphia Society — another in a long list of conservative groups dedicated to the principle that making money is a divine right, no matter who gets hurt.
However, I will treat Haskins fairly and solely judge his argument as he presents it in an essay titled “It's not climate change that's causing heat waves this summer but no one wants to explain why”.
Haskins starts with a list of various media outlets, including WaPo and Axios, which claim that record temperatures are the product of climate change. However, if you click on the links he provides, they all direct the reader to searches of Fox News — not the articles themselves, So even the rare thoughtful Fox viewer cannot see what Haskins is talking about.
Next, Haskins does what good dissemblers often do, he admits to just enough facts to appear reasonable before he starts outright lying.
"Although certain parts of the U.S. have undoubtedly experienced strong heat waves this summer, there’s no reason to believe these weather events are evidence that the world is hurtling toward a climate change catastrophe. In fact, the best available evidence suggests that heat waves recorded a century ago were more problematic than anything we’re seeing today."
He uses the straw man fallacy by saying that “weather events” are not evidence of climate change. That is true — the weather is not climate. However, no meteorologist claims that a few weather events are proof of anything. They base their conclusions on far more than a few atmospheric temperature spikes.
Then, having dismissed weather data as predictive of anything, he cynically uses weather data (heat waves) “recorded a century ago” to make his argument. This duplicity is evidence that suggests Haskins is drawing an invalid conclusion. “Problematic” is also a problem. I do not know the scientific definition of the word — and Haskins does not offer one.
He goes on:
“According to data from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency, the annual heat wave index for the contiguous 48 states was substantially higher in the 1930s than at any point in recent years. In some years in the 1930s, it was four times greater or even more.”
The first black mark is his use of “annual heat wave index”. Why not just say “temperatures” in the 1930s were substantially higher? Because he cannot — due to the fact they were not, especially when you consider the global climate. The 1930s Dust Bowl was a regional anomaly on a planet that was cooler then than now. And when talking about Global Warming, we must consider global temperatures.
Note: in a further blow to Haskins's argument, the US is 1.5% degrees warmer today than in the 1930s.
Haskins then uses National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data for ‘proof’.
“According to NOAA, huge swaths of the U.S. have experienced a significant decrease in abnormally hot days recorded since 1948, especially in the Midwest and northern and eastern Texas.
Although it’s true that some parts of the U.S. have seen the number of hotter-than-usual days increase over the past 70 years — including in California and the New York metropolitan area, both of which happen to be areas where a large number of media outlets are located — most weather stations have shown no meaningful changes or even declines.”
This is a classic example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Where media outlets are headquartered has no bearing on the accepted science of climate change. It is a loaded play to enhance audience hostility — and no doubt effective.
So let us turn to the science. If Haskins is going to use NOAA as a source, I will too. This is what they have to say about the data:
"Though we often think about human-induced climate change as something that will happen in the future, it is an ongoing process. Ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world are being impacted today.
Global temperatures rose about 1.98°F (1.1°C) from 1901 to 2020, but climate change refers to more than an increase in temperature. It also includes sea level rise, changes in weather patterns like drought and flooding, and much more. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate."
Ask anyone at NOAA, and they will tell you that Haskins has as much grasp of science as someone with an MA in Government from Regent University typically has. And as such he has had to cherry-pick the data.
Haskins goes on:
"If the available data so clearly reveal that there is no heat-wave crisis, why are media outlets suggesting the opposite is true? The answer is sloppy, irresponsible media reporting, combined with cherry-picked data."
You knew that projection was on the menu. Who is misrepresenting the data? Who is being sloppy and irresponsible? Who is cherry-picking? Every accusation is a confession.
Haskins then offers an example of a newspaper making an incorrect temperature prediction and inflates this singular event into conclusive proof there is no global warming.
"For example, the Telegraph, one of the largest papers in the U.K., published an article on July 18 in which the author claimed, "The European Space Agency said thermometers could tip 48C in Sardinia and Sicily, while the temperatures in Rome and Madrid could both reach the mid to high-40Cs. In drought-stricken Spain, temperatures were set to reach highs of 44C in Catalonia."
(Note: For American readers, 48C is 118F)
I suspect that professional meteorologists will be the first to tell you that trying to predict the temperature at one location on any given day is not an exact science. After all, the weather is not climate. Also, “could” is not “will.” I could hit the bullseye on a dart board, not that I often will.
Haskins ends as he began — badly.
“The ugly truth behind climate alarmism is that much of it is driven by a radical ideological agenda that is seeking to transform the global economy and American society, not by science. The best way to fight back against it is to use cold, hard facts. And those facts plainly show that there is no reason to panic about our ever-changing climate.”
Again Haskins projects. Who has the “radical ideological agenda?" Scientists whose mission is the truth, or people whose livelihood depends on toeing their employer’s line. Climate deniers claim scientists promote climate change to keep their grant money flowing. But if scientists were in it for profit, they could make a fortune spouting Heartland’s climate lies. Those corporate pirates would shower significant cash on any scientist promoting their profit-driven fantasies.
Instead, 97% of climate scientists looked at the “cold, hard facts” and drew the only rational conclusion. There is reason to panic over our ever-increasing temperatures.