How George Will Lies (about global warming) With Statistics

[pokerfan]

Lies, damned lies and whack job cons...

Will’s latest column makes a claim that’s true in a literal sense, but when examined more closely is nothing less than journalistic malpractice.

[President Obama] says that “the threat of climate change” is apparent in “raging fires,” “crippling drought” and “more powerful storms.” Are fires raging now more than ever? (There were a third fewer U.S. wildfires in 2012 than in 2006.)

There’s a reason for Will’s seemingly arbitrary choice, of course; when you look at the data from the National Interagency Fire Center over a longer timeframe, a very different picture emerges. David Appell graphed the data back to 1960, exposing the deception behind this denier’s claim:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41526_How_Conservative_Columnist_George_Will_Lies_With_Statistics#rss

[dballance]

1. So Would an Apropos Analogy Be:

Well for the 10 years prior to 2000 I used to have 4 quart jars of crap spread out over several states. Since 2000 I've only averaged 2 gallon jugs of crap over those states. So since the quantity is 2 instead of 4 things are much better - right?

That seems to be the way they're thinking. Number of wildfires doesn't necessarily equate to volume of damage caused by them.

[Takket]

2. flawed

That line of reasoning is derived from the flawed assumption that global warming is directly linked to the number of wildfires. Climate change is about long term warming leading to extremity of conditions.

[randome]

3. How about because shit's already been burned!

That plus prevention efforts. Drought and fires are related, dumbass! If there is a drought, the POTENTIAL for more wildfires is there. That doesn't mean one is going to break out every five minutes.