The Blatant Dishonesty of World Net Daily

World Net Daily Lies About Information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center

Check out this article from the so-called Christian news website World Net Daily. They quote from a news release put out by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.  Read it carefully’

To the dismay of Al Gore and global-warming alarmists, ice covering the Arctic has increased dramatically after years of declining, reaching levels not seen this time of year for nearly a decade, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.

“Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles),” the National Snow and Ice Data Center stated in a recently published report. “This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979.”

Now let’s look at the news release itself put out by the NSIDC;

Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979.

Early in March, Arctic sea ice appeared to reach a maximum extent. However, after a short decline, the ice continued to grow. By the end of March, total extent approached 1979 to 2000 average levels for this time of year. The late-season growth was driven mainly by cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering and Barents Seas. Meanwhile, temperatures over the central Arctic Ocean remained above normal and the winter ice cover remained young and thin compared to earlier years.

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March, but 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in March 2006.

Ice extent was above normal in the Bering Sea and Baltic Sea, but remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Baffin Bay, and the Canadian Maritime Provinces seaboard. Extent in other regions was near average.

Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on March 29, 1999. The maximum extent was 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low maximum extent, which occurred in 2006.

The average ice extent for March 2010 was 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) higher than the record low for March, observed in 2006. The linear rate of decline for March over the 1978 to 2010 period is 2.6% per decade.

And take a look at this graph that is in the report:

Did you catch all of that?  According to the NSIDC, it took longer this year for sea ice to reach its maximum than any year since 1979 when they started keeping records.  Temperatures over the Arctic Ocean remained above normal, the ice is thinner than normal, the ice extent was below normal over most of the Atlantic Ocean portion of the Arctic and the ice sheet extent over the period from 1979 to 2010 has seen an average decrease of 2.6% per decade as shown by the graph above. 

This is simply blatant lying on WND’s part.  And this is coming from an organization that claims to be Christian oriented.  Apparently they forgot that truthfulness was supposed to be a christian virtue.


6 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by James on April 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    If you start this graph from 1979 onward (Is that 1978 data point of 16.5 million on the graph made up? Seeing they started measurements in 1979 that 1978 starting data point on the graph looks estimated, if not fake to me) or if you add the estimated data from 1900-1978 on that graph the mean slope becomes rather flat except for the 2006 dip from which it appears the ice is recovering from. That rapid dip as seen in 2006 and to a lesser extent 1995 can be explained by natural solar spot cycles and they correlate nicely. You’ve actually fallen victim to someone truncating or fudging data to make a downward slope appear more drastic than it really is.


    • Just simply looking at a graph and thinking that a data point might be made up doesn’t cut it. Scientists have already taken into account the solar spot cycles and have concluded they are not significant enough to contribute to the warming that is going on. As for truncating the data, the fact of the matter is World Net Daily is the one misrepresenting what the report is saying. The reason that the trend line goes back to 1978 is that is the year they started keeping records on the extent of the ice sheet. Addigt estimated data into an actual data set can be problematic in itself and should not be relied on heavily. As for me, I will choose to trust modern science and the vast majority of scientists that have concluded that warming is indeed happening rather than trusting in vast conspiracies, oil companies and republican strategists.


    • I have another thought on this James. We could sit here and argue about data, and studies, and scientists until we are blue in the face. I know I don’t have the scientific expertise to analyze the research method and the data that is in all of these studies from warmers and skeptics and I would be willing to bet you don’t either. The point of my original post was to point out the World Net Daily was misrepresenting the report from the NSIDC, making it sound like they were refuting global warming when in reality they were confirming it. Putting aside the question of whether the NSIDC report is accurate or not, the simple fact of the matter is that a Christian news organization deliberately distorted their report. That is dishonest and makes it harder for me to trust the skeptics on this issue.


  2. Posted by James on April 21, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    You bet wrong, I am a scientist and the data in that NSIDC graph just looks fishy to me. The graph is clearly titled March 1979 to 2010, yet there is a data point for 1978. Could be a typo, could be something else, I don’t know. But for a graph from a peer reviewed paper, something smells. Most lay people look at that mean line and go “oh, it’s sloping downward 2.6% that’s bad” I look at the data points, see some that don’t make sense and question the validity of that data that seems out of place, just as any scientist worth his weight would do (that’s the essential idea behind the scientific method BTW-always question the data over and over and over again). I’m not on one side or the other in the “humans causing global warming debate” but I see falsehoods and distortions in each sides arguments and hate the fact that politics (and money) gets involved to the point of people distorting their data or bastardizing the scientific method to support their cause. Scientists that become offended at their data being questioned are probably not true scientists. But, your inherent distrust of your political opponents should not interfere with your ability to question if someone is telling you the truth or not, just because you like the message or not. It seems to me you fell for that rouse once before with religion and now you may have swung too far the other way to compensate. Stay skeptical my friend, to both sides of an issue, as it will serve you well in finding the truth.


    • Normally that would have been a safe bet. What field do you work in? Anyway, I stand by my previous post. World Net Daily was not telling the truth in their article, regardless of whether or not the graph in the report is accurate or not. If the aim of the article was to point out the potential problems with the graph then it would have been an honest article and something I could respect. But they deliberatley misrepresented the intent of the report. Since I don’t have the expertise to analyze the specifics in a scientific report I am left with deciding who to trust in this issue. By doing what World Net Daily did, especially as a Christian organization that claims to uphold a higher standard of integrity, I find it harder to trust the skeptics. I have decided to trust mainstream science in this issue. Sure, they may get things wrong from time to time, and they do, and I’m sure there are some on the AGW side the have deliberately misrepresented the skpetics . But for me, I just can’t bring myself to adopt the kind of paranoid fear of all things science and government needed to embrace the skeptic position. I just got done reading What’s The Worst That Could Happen by Greg Craven. I agree with his approach to the subject. Either side could be wrong in this issue. I could be wrong, the skeptics could be wrong. I think we are all taking a bet with global warming. The science behind it is based on estimates and probabilities. Nothing is certain. But there is too much at stake to simply declare AGW false science and leave it at that.


  3. Posted by James on April 22, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    I am a Medical Technologist, I work with trending statistics (usually lab results) every day. I agree that christian article is way off base. That doesn’t automatically make the other side of the argument correct. Christians are usually not good skeptics as they believe in faith and being skeptical uses logic which they choose to ignore. George Carlin has a great monologue about Christians and God. I’m not saying AGW a false science, I’m just questioning things that seem out of place and the motives behind using a data set a certain way in a poliical argument. Every time someone points out a flaw, the instant response is “but all the leading scientists say this” and I’m saying “No, they are not.” and if they all saying this then something is very wrong. Do you know that there are physicists hard at work proving Einstein wrong? They are probably mostly idiots, but then should that idiot Einstein have ever challenged Newton? Questioning the establishment is how science proceeds. Shoving results down the public throat, especially for political gain, now that’s the worst thing you can do for the advancement of science.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: