The bias of Wikipedia in dealing with climate issues has been well documented. I tend to find that the more controversy their is over any topic, actually, the less reliable wiki gets. But who would expect that should be mostly factual articles would be infected with climate bullshit? It would be one thing to expect unreliable, biased information on local politics to infect an article about a major city. It is quite surprising to look at an article about a major city and find a falsehood about climate being promoted, and referenced to “scientists” who ought to know better, given that they work for an organization that gathers data that contradicts their own claims.
But when, with the intention of merely identifying the coordinates of the City of Austin, Texas, to examine temperature records nearby (prompted to do so by this post), the above described situation is in fact what actually happened to me. I will use screen captures in case someone comes to their senses and realizes this is a really stupid, factually inaccurate thing to put in an article: here.
What is wrong with this statement? Well, let’s think carefully about it. What “these kinds of droughts will have effects that are even more extreme in the future, given a warming and drying regional climate” can be interpreted as meaning is pretty unambiguous. Droughts will get worse in the future, given regional warming and drying as facts. Now, weasels will say, that he is saying that, “if” we take such future trends as a “given” then “of course” that would be true. If that is what is being said, someone needs to go back to grade school, because the actual statement is saying that given the present tense trends, that is what will happen. So no weaseling for you fools. The facts are that this statement, that Texas is warming and drying is false both as two separate statements, and as a combined statement. The long term records for Texas annual temperature trend since 1895, according to the National Climate Data Center is 0.00 degF / Decade, precipitation 0.08 Inches / Decade, in other words, the numbers given by the NOAA organization that specifically monitors climate directly contradict the claims of an NOAA “scientist” who clearly should know better: The trends are pretty clearly not different from zero, if you look at the data themselves, although the temperature trend is technically slightly negative. So the claim that Texas is drying and is warming, is FALSE. If anything the long term trends are toward wetter and cooler. You can see the data for yourself here.
Anyway, I am glad I got that off my chest. I really can’t stand that “scientists” make claims that can be shown to be wrong by a mere amateur with a couple of mouse clicks. I am even more frustrated that such claims get parroted unquestioningly in “factual” articles about major cities. Thankfully it would appear that no such stupid statements are present on the West Palm Beach, Florida article (the nearest major weather station (the airport) to where I live, although that’s not particularly close), even though we have also had a bad drought (well, bad by our standards, and since we are subtropical, and very wet normally, “bad drought” here is nowhere near as bad as in Texas), although ours is safely over for now, with quite a lot of rain recently (it may return next year if La Niña persists). How does it come to be that climate idiocy finds its way into non-climate articles? Is nothing sacred?