Time Mag claims temp at "the North Pole" hit +42 degrees, won't correct error
Time Magazine has been one of the major mainstream outlets pushing the notion that humans are causing "catastrophic global warming." And yesterday Time posted the following story on-line:
Wow! How much more proof does anyone need of "catastrophic global warming"? If the North Pole is at 40 degrees on the next to last day of December, it's surely proof that...
Wait...what? Y'say the first version of Time's story had a sliiightly different text? And that blogger Patterico discovered it and saved it? Well...how was the first version different? Here it is:
See the link that starts "42 degrees"? It was in Time's original story. And guess where it takes you?
To the current weather for a town called North Pole, Alaska.
Which indeed made it to 43 degrees Wednesday.
Of course to a Time reporter, North Pole Alaska must be really close to the real north pole, right? And sure enough, one click shows it's at 64.7 degrees north. Of course no one at Time bothered to do that, or knew what it meant.
It means the town is roughly 1500 miles from the geographic north pole. And this isn't an unusual temperature there.
But wait, isn't Time part of the Mainstream Media? And aren't the members of that "elite" group constantly telling us ordinary folks that we need to trust the... because they have "all these layers of fact-checkers and editors" n' shit. So how in the world did such a gross error make it through all those...oh, yeah, I see:
It supported the Narrative. So no fact-checking was necessary. Or done.
Okay, so maybe the story had a few trivial errors in it. But you nutty climate deniers shouldn't make a big deal out of it, cuz all the folks at Time all wonderful Democrat elites with the right thoughts.
And of course Time admitted the error and highlighted the correction and took down the original scare headline, right?
What? You say the only admission they made was to say "Correction appended," and to add this:
Wow, that's no admission of any error at all, let alone a correction. It's like they're standing by the original, false scare story.
Wait, wasn't the original claim a flat-out lie? Or do Time's editors still not understand the difference between the geographic north pole and the Alaskan town?
H/T Patterico
Did you see where Time said the temperature at the North Pole could hit 40 degrees, which is a whopping 50 degrees higher than average for this time of year!North Pole Set to Unfreeze as Temperature Soars
Storms in Iceland and Greenland pushing warm air northwards
Stormy weather in the North Atlantic is set to bring balmy weather to the world’s northernmost point.
Temperatures at the North Pole could hit 40 degrees, according to Discovery News, which would be about 50 degrees higher than average for this time of year. Storms over Iceland and Greenland, fairly common in winter, are pushing warmer air to the Arctic region.
Fluctuations in temperature are actually not uncommon in the Arctic region, Mashable reports, but a 50 to 60 degree shift would be very notable. There have reportedly only been three other times since 1948 that temperatures in the North Pole have hit or risen above freezing in December.
These high temperatures could impact sea ice formations that are already at historic lows in other seasons.
Wow! How much more proof does anyone need of "catastrophic global warming"? If the North Pole is at 40 degrees on the next to last day of December, it's surely proof that...
Wait...what? Y'say the first version of Time's story had a sliiightly different text? And that blogger Patterico discovered it and saved it? Well...how was the first version different? Here it is:
The temperature in the North Pole hit 42 degrees Fahrenheit on Wednesday morning, which Discovery News says is 50 degrees higher than average for this time of year.Okay, so Time changed the story from "The temperature at the North Pole hit 42 degrees..." to "...could hit 40 degrees..." So this blogger is gonna nit-pick over two lousy degrees? I'm not very... wait...what?
See the link that starts "42 degrees"? It was in Time's original story. And guess where it takes you?
To the current weather for a town called North Pole, Alaska.
Which indeed made it to 43 degrees Wednesday.
Of course to a Time reporter, North Pole Alaska must be really close to the real north pole, right? And sure enough, one click shows it's at 64.7 degrees north. Of course no one at Time bothered to do that, or knew what it meant.
It means the town is roughly 1500 miles from the geographic north pole. And this isn't an unusual temperature there.
But wait, isn't Time part of the Mainstream Media? And aren't the members of that "elite" group constantly telling us ordinary folks that we need to trust the... because they have "all these layers of fact-checkers and editors" n' shit. So how in the world did such a gross error make it through all those...oh, yeah, I see:
It supported the Narrative. So no fact-checking was necessary. Or done.
Okay, so maybe the story had a few trivial errors in it. But you nutty climate deniers shouldn't make a big deal out of it, cuz all the folks at Time all wonderful Democrat elites with the right thoughts.
And of course Time admitted the error and highlighted the correction and took down the original scare headline, right?
What? You say the only admission they made was to say "Correction appended," and to add this:
This article originally misidentified a temperature reading as belonging to the North Pole.And you say the text of the allegedly-corrected article still reads "Temperatures at the North Pole could hit 40 degrees"?
Wow, that's no admission of any error at all, let alone a correction. It's like they're standing by the original, false scare story.
Wait, wasn't the original claim a flat-out lie? Or do Time's editors still not understand the difference between the geographic north pole and the Alaskan town?
H/T Patterico
posted by SF at
11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home