Another 'Couldifmite' Weasel Word Global Warming Story From Reuters

  • Bookmark and Share

Could. If. Might.

Take a look at almost any global warming alarmism story and you are likely to see a plethora of those speculative weasel words. It happens so frequently that your humble correspondent, in his previous global warming story about the "Modoki," labeled a new term incorporating those words: "Couldifmite." 

It was my recommendation that a mineral rock be given the name of Couldifmite. Any MSM reporter in the vicinity of of Couldifmite will be subjected to the uncontrollable urge to overload his global warming stories with "could," "if," and "might" along with the related speculative weasel words of "may" and "should." Okay, there probably won't be a rock that would be given that name but it could happen if some geologist out there might have a good sense of humor. See, even I can play the Couldifmite game.

However, Gerard Wynn of Reuters isn't joking. He goes full scale Couldifmite in this latest global warming story. Even the intro to his story is chock full of Couldifmite:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Global temperatures could rise 4 degrees by 2050s

Rainfall may fall by a fifth in many regions

This is only the Couldifmite warmup for the body of the story and Wynn does not disappoint:

LONDON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Global temperatures may be 4 degrees Celsius hotter by the mid-2050s if current greenhouse gas emissions trends continue, said a study published on Monday.

...Leaders of the main greenhouse gas-emitting countries recognised in July a scientific view that temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, to avoid more dangerous changes to the world's climate.

...Temperature rises are compared with pre-industrial levels. The world warmed 0.7 degrees last century, scientists say.

Really? So how accurate were measuring instruments at the start of the 20th century to make that assertion? Plus there were still areas of the earth unexplored. Roald Amundsen did not reach the South Pole until 1911 so how were temperature measurements there even made before then? Same is true of the North Pole prior to 1909 yet we are assured that the world warmed 0.7 degrees last century. Not 0.6 or 0.8 degrees but 0.7 degrees state the scientists based on crude measurements at the early part of the century and incorporating large parts of the globe that were not even accessible back then.

A global average increase of 4 degrees masked higher regional increases, including more than 15 degrees warmer temperatures in parts of the Arctic, and up to 10 degrees higher in western and southern Africa, Monday's study found.

Whoa! Stop the music! At the beginning of this article we are told that global average temperature could rise by 4 degrees celsius. Suddenly "could" is dropped and we are presented with this speculative forecast as an absolute fact as if it already happened. Sorry, 2050 is still over 40 years away.

It appears that Gerard Wynn needs another dose of those Couldifmite rays to keep his global warming speculation story in order.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Frankly my dear, it's

Frankly my dear, it's getting boring listening to the latest drummed up lie on the global warming hoax.

Eureka!

So P.J., are you saying that the real cause of global warming/climate change is a recently discovered ore called couldifmite? If so, then one could reasonably speculate that this find is likely more evidence supporting the theory of alien intervention on planet Earth. Have you contacted George Noory about this?  ;)

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

six degrees you science luddites!

Some weenie is now raving that we're goint to suffer a six degree Celsius rise. Maybe. Could be. Should be.

"Our PlayStation Climatology model says so. We just optimized the software and now we are sure the world is ending unless you give us all the money and then you go live in a cave."

This is getting like many other leftard memes. If the current numbers are causing attacks of yawning then add a couple zeros and try again until someone notices.

wiz --- I think you can

wiz --- I think you can call that:

Six Degrees of Desperation

Liberal nutjobs shouting 'racist conspiracy' to anyone criticising Barack Obama are all WACKY... RACERS

cute

cute JB

;-))

The only thing I will give

The only thing I will give James Hansen credit for is that he has been surprisingly honest about the highly subjective nature of measuring a global average temperature and the usefulness of that metric.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

 Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location. 

Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.  

 

I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. - Hunter S. Thompson

I see couldifmite as a kink

I see couldifmite as a kink of kryptonite for journalists, bloggers, pundits, commentators and their readers. Whereas kryptonite renders S physically weak, couldifmite makes you intellectually feeble.

Proximity to couldifmite robs the writer of his ability to use logic and enables him/her to write sentences and arguments without using hard facts or the ability to show a clear progression of thought. I don't think all journalists are stupid, ignorant or arrogant but couldifmite will make you soft in the brain instantly.

The presence of couldifmite means that you no longer know what you're talking about or you don't want your readers to know what you're talking about. These processes need not be conscious.

Couldifmite allows you to use inconsistencies and contradictions, confuse cause with effect and quote unsourced and unsourceable numbers, facts and quasi-facts without anyone noticing.

 Oh, you can make of lot of money too.

That is freakin' genius

That is freakin' genius ^^^. 

-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com

They are modelling future

They are modelling future change.

Under what possible circumstances would it be appropriate for them to say "will" instead of "may?" 

It seems unfair to mock them for using "weasel words" when you would also be the first to mock them for sounding overly certain if they didn't turn out to be exactly right.

Science just can't win, can it?

Since they are so definate

Since they are so definate about everything else why aren't they definate here?

 

Especially with the world

Especially with the world economy at stake.  There's too much waffling and porous reasoning in their statements.  Cooling is actually warming?  It undermines their whole premise.

 

"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error.  To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson

Scientists aren't definite

Scientists aren't definite about everything else, not when they are modelling and predicting, and not even when they have studied something exhaustedly.

"X might happen" means to a layperson "I'm not really sure.  I'm kind of a pansy and can't make my mind up about things.  Feel free to ignore me."

"X might happen" means to a scientist "X is going to happen.  I've studied every angle I can, and X pops up every time.  Of course, I could have forgotten an angle, and even my most robust models are only significant to a .05 chance of an alpha error.  Maybe my power is a little low, but I'm confident as I can be.  I haven't said a single word I can't back up, so if you have a problem with X, bring it.  My bases are covered, and I think X is going to happen.  If I didn't, I wouldn't bother writing this paper."

If warmers were using the

If warmers were using the .95 significance level. I for one would have a lot more respect for them. However as has ben pointed out to us by warmers who have instructed us on proper science. IPCC defines "very likely" as something like .65. Little more than a coin toss. They even provided a whole new category (More likely than not) at the .51 significance level.

In proper science one would also expect that they provide the data, test methods and statistics for verification. Something very lacking in warmer science.

As Michael Mann told NAS, "I'm not a statistian." That's rather apparent.

Of course if the experts were providing data, methods etc they would not be telling us they loss the data, and people wouldn't be pointing divergence from their data and raw data.

HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. (Charles Gibson of the dead media.)

Under what possible

Under what possible circumstances would it be appropriate for them to say "will" instead of "may?"

Hmmm so using their analogy I dont say I may win the lottery, I say I will win the lottery and it happenes.  Great then I will win the lottery today.