NYT Notices McIntyre

Published: August 28, 2007, 11:21 am

More than two weeks after the McIntyre-NASA temperature correction story broke, this Sunday the NYT finally covered the issue with a brief, dismissive article buried near the back of the paper. This after almost immediate coverage from the LAT, Washington Post, London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and most other global newpapers. A few questions for the author and his editors: 1) The article uses the term “statistically meaningless” three times in reference to the correction. Yet the correction reduced the trend of temperature increase from 1930 to 2006 by 42% (from 0.21 degrees C to 0.12) - NASA had overstated the trend by a factor of 1.75x. If the correction is statistically meaningless, isn’t the trend itself similarly irrelevant? Also, if NASA had issued a correction that increased the trend by 1.75x, showing that warming was happening faster than previously thought, would the NYT have waited 2 weeks to report it, and would it be similarly intoning on a

[ Full article ]

Blog link

Comments