Another day, another fatuous ‘fact’ check from Reuters. This time the news agency accuses the Daily Sceptic of “cherry-picking” Arctic sea ice extent data to provide a “misleading” story. Being accused of “cherry picking” by an outfit that funds a course for journalists that encourages them to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it isn’t as tasty as the year before due to climate change is beyond ridicule. Taking lectures on responsible journalism from a Net Zero-obsessed operation that has promoted a course speaker who has suggested “fines and imprisonments” for expressing scepticism about “well supported” science is laughable, if also a tad sinister.
One of the activists called to admonish the Daily Sceptic with a ‘straw man’ argument was Walt Meier, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, who said: “Comparing two specific years is not an indicator for or against long-term changes”. The Daily Sceptic did not do that. Interestingly, this would appear to be the same Walt Meier whose comments on ”mind blowing” low winter levels of Antarctica sea ice last year made headlines around the world. Meier claimed at the time that it was “outside anything we have seen”. Happily, the Daily Sceptic was able to remind Meier that he had been part of a team a decade ago that cracked open the secrets of early Nimbus weather satellites and found a similar sea ice low in 1966. At the time, Meier commented that the Nimbus data show there is variability in Antarctica sea ice “that’s larger than any we have seen” since 1979.
This latest fact check was similar to the failed attempt made recently by the BBC statistical programme More or Less. In both cases, exception was taken to our reporting that on January 8th this year, Arctic sea ice extent had soared to its highest level for 21 years. This was factually correct as both the BBC and Reuters confirm. Since the article went viral on social media, the attack focused on a claim of “cherry picking”, despite the article clearly placing the statistic in the context of long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. In the third paragraph it was noted: “We must be careful not to follow alarmists down their chosen political path of cherry picking and warning of climate collapse on the basis of individual events.”
The article featured the work of Danish scientist Allan Astrup Jensen who observed that the summer Arctic ice plateaued from 1979-97, fell for 10 years and then resumed a minimal downward trend from 2007. We also noted the work of climate journalist Tony Heller who used a four-year moving average, shown below, that revealed that the Arctic sea ice extent at its minimum level in September has been stable for over a decade.
None of this material appeared in the Reuters hit-job, although the criticism of the earlier BBC fact check was made available to the authors ahead of publication. What it did of course was cherry-pick the year 1979, when Arctic sea ice was at a probable 100-year high, and draw a line straight down to the present day. It is not in dispute that Arctic sea ice is currently at a lower level than the 1979 high point, which happened to coincide with the arrival of consistent satellite data. But Reuters used the testimony of an “expert in the modelling of the sea ice”, Miguel Maqueda of Newcastle University, to state: “There is no evidence nor reason to believe that the downward trend in winter sea ice extent in the Arctic is coming to an end.”
Despite the article fairly explaining the cyclical long-term trends in Arctic sea ice, a subject ignorned in most current mainstream media for political purposes, Reuters saw fit to headline its article: ‘Climate change sceptics use misleading Arctic ice data to make case.’
That, more or less to coin a phrase, sums up the blinkered approach that keeps climate catastrophists and their mainstream messengers focused on the fear-mongering prize. There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that Arctic sea ice is cyclical and the recent trend points to recovery and a possible upturn. After all, you don’t need a climate model to work that one out, just look at the data. Not to point this out is, how shall we put this, ‘misleading’. Those less charitable might prefer a considerable harsher verdict.
As we have seen in past editions, Reuters is up to its neck in Green Blob attacks on independent climate journalism. So-called ‘fact checks’ from operations like Reuters are frequently used by malevolent players attempting to destroy the possibility of competitors receiving online advertising revenue. In effect they are a form of trade protection warfare.
The mango nonsense, meanwhile, is promoted in the six-month study sabbatical offered to journalists around the world by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. Immersion in the correct political narrative surrounding climate collapse, the ludicrous idea of ‘settled’ science and the need for extreme Net Zero measures, whatever the cost, is the order of the day. The obvious aim is to insert fear mongering stories into all sections of the media. Current attendees include BBC ‘disinformation’ reporter Marco Silva. The course is run by the Reuters Institute and funded by the Thompson Reuters Foundation. Direct funding has been provided by the Laudes Foundation and the European Climate Foundation. The latter operation is heavily supported by past Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn.
Reuters is also one of the partners of Covering Climate Now (CC Now), a billionaire-backed offshoot of the Columbia Journalism Review. This operation claims to feed over 500 media operations with free, pre-written climate catastrophising stories.
Guaranteed, no doubt, to be spared a ‘fact check’.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.