Democrats have gone completely off the rails when it comes to climate change. Even if some of us believe the climate is changing (it’s been changing for millions of years in various directions) that’s not enough for the left. Democrats are only content if you support destroying entire industries, bankrupting companies, raising taxes, wasting taxpayer money, and putting climate change deniers in jail. That’s a position that’s far too radical for most people especially when you consider the fact that there is plenty of evidence suggesting the data we’ve been force fed by the left isn’t all accurate.
Here’s the latest example courtesy of the great Michael Bastasch.
From The Daily Caller:
The scientists behind a headline-grabbing global warming study did something that seems all too rare these days — they admitted to making mistakes and thanked the researcher, a global warming skeptic, who pointed them out.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” study co-author Ralph Keeling told The San Diego Union-Tribune on Tuesday.
Their study, published in October, used a new method of measuring ocean heat uptake and found the oceans had absorbed 60 more heat than previously thought. Many news outlets relayed the findings, but independent scientist Nic Lewis quickly found problems with the study.
Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, owned up to the mistake and thanked Lewis for finding it. Keeling and his co-authors submitted a correction to the journal Nature.
How many people are going to hear about the mistake as opposed to the amount of people who heard about the initial story? It’s like when CNN reporters leave a fake tweet up for 3 days and then quietly retract it. Most people only see the viral tweet.
This is just the latest example in a long list of examples where the math has been wrong or the models have been wrong.
The left is lying about the most popular climate change statistic. Don’t you think they’d be willing to lie about the others to accomplish a goal that they view as good vs. evil? Of course.