Friday, June 5, 2015

Pushback On The Hiatus Cancellation

Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years

Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a study Thursday claiming there’s no hiatus in global warming. But new satellite-derived temperature measurements show there’s been no global warming for 18 years and six months.

“For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all,” writes climate expert Lord Christopher Monckton, the third viscount Monckton of Brenchley

“This month’s [satellite] temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el NiƱo, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months,” Monckton adds.

Monckton’s data comes as NOAA scientists release updated data purporting to show there’s actually been no hiatus in global warming. NOAA scientists made adjustments to temperature records to show more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale from 1998 to 2012.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in a new study.

The difference between Monckton’s data and NOAA’s data is that satellites measure the lowest few miles of the atmosphere, temperature measurements from government scientists rely on thousands of weather stations, buoys and ships across the world’s surface.

Both satellites and surface temperature readings, however, showed prolonged periods without statistically significant warming trends — 15 years for surface temperatures and more than 18 years for satellites.

Scientists have already pushed back against NOAA’s new study. The news site Mashable interviewed about a dozen climate scientists not involved in the study, and nearly all of them said “the study does not support the authors’ conclusion that the so-called warming pause never happened.”[See below]

“Instead, they said it simply proves that changing the start and end dates used for analyzing temperature trends has a big influence on those measurements, a fact that was already widely known,” Mashable reported.

“The main claim by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious,” scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute wrote in an open letter on the NOAA study.

“The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard,” they wrote.

And there's this:
"Pushback from other researchers

Scientists who have investigated the warming hiatus or are otherwise involved in assessing climate change on various timescales said the study's key shortcoming is that it does what mainstream climate scientists have long criticized climate contrarians — often now referred to as "climate denialists" — of doing: cherry-picking start and end dates to arrive at a particular conclusion.

Gerald Meehl, a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, told Mashable in an email that while he finds the new study laudable for improving temperature measurements, there are flaws in how the researchers interpreted the data. For example, Meehl said there is still a lower warming trend from 1998 to 2012, compared to the previous base period of 1950 to 1999, "thus there is still a hiatus defined in that way."

Meehl said adding two years to the time period by including 2013 and 2014, which was a record-warm year, makes the warming trend appear to be 38% larger than previous studies that did not include them.

"My conclusion is that even with the new data adjustments, there still was a nominal hiatus period that lasted until 2013 with a lower rate of global warming than the warming rate of the last 50 years of the 20th century," he said, "and a factor of two slower warming than the previous 20 years from the 1970s to 1990s."

Lisa Goddard, director of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) at Columbia University, told Mashable that the study does not support the conclusion that global warming didn't slow down for a relatively short time period.

"It is clear that Karl et al. have put a lot of careful work into updating these global products," Goddard said in an email.

"However, they go too far when they conclude that there was no decadal-scale slowdown in the rate of warming globally.

"However, they go too far when they conclude that there was no decadal-scale slowdown in the rate of warming globally. This argument seems to rely on choosing the right period — such as including the recent record-breaking 2014."

Another senior climate researcher, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, said the hiatus depends on your definition of the term. To him, global warming never stopped, as climate skeptics argue, because most of the extra heat from manmade greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide) was redirected deep into the oceans from 1998 to 2012. However, surface temperatures did warm more slowly during this time.

"I think the article does emphasize that the kind of variation is now much more within the realm of expectations from natural variability, but it is a bit misleading in trying to say there is no hiatus," he said in an email.

In response to such criticisms, Karl said even the 1998-to-2012 period that climate skeptics have long focused on looks twice as warm with the revised data set — at 0.086 degrees Celsius of warming, compared to the previously calculated rate of just 0.039 degrees Celsius.

Using the new data, the 1998-to-2014 period shows warming that is "significantly positive," Karl said, of 0.106 degrees Celsius, up from 0.059 degrees Celsius using an older data set for the same period.

In light of the new data, other researchers recommend discounting the short-term fluctuations in favor of focusing on longterm warming.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said the study helps drive home the point that "global warming continues unabated, as we continue to burn fossil fuels and warm the planet."

"Cherry-picking a warm start date like 1998, as contrarians are fond of doing in an attempt to downplay global warming, was never scientifically defensible to start with, and this article once again confirms that," Mann said in an email.
Why focus on a 15-year period anyway?

Regardless of whether the hiatus was really a hiatus, two things are clear. First, that slowdown is over anyway, given the record-warm 2014 and indications that 2015 may be a repeat of that. Second, focusing on relatively short timescales may be distracting from longterm global warming; however, it is important, since governments and businesses make decisions on shorter timescales. Decade-to-decade fluctuations in warming can affect everything from the productivity of agriculture in India to the likelihood that a U.N. climate treaty will be enacted, as a record-warm year can put pressure on politicians to act.

The IRI's Goddard, who has published extensively on the challenge of improving predictions of climate on decadal timescales, said she is puzzled as to why the new study discounts the importance of such short-term climate zigs and zags.

"All one has to do is to look at the time series to appreciate that the climate varies on all timescales, even when averaged over the whole globe. Global temperatures do NOT present a monotonic time series in which each year is warmer than the year before," she said. "I think that societally, it is important to realize that there will be periods of slowdown, as well as periods of acceleration."
Moving toward 'more sane' observing networks

One uncomfortable truth in climate science is that even at a time when we can wear computers on our wrists, we still don't have a truly global, extremely reliable network of climate-observing stations, which will prevent the need for additional data corrections in the future.

The new study reveals yet again that surface-temperature data has many flaws, according to Peter Thorne, a climate researcher at Maynooth University in Ireland. In an interview, Thorne said critics of climate science are incorrect in charging that global warming is an artifact of urban heat islands and other influences on thermometers; but at the same time, our approach to taking the Earth's temperature needs to be rethought.

Thorne said more investments should go toward establishing redundant, carefully calibrated temperature-observing networks where data is currently sparse, such as the Arctic, much of Africa and especially the oceans.

"The uncertainty in the marine records is far greater than in the land records," he said. "If we put enough good quality, traceable, redundant observations around the globe, we can make sense of all the other observations that aren’t so good."

"There is no need to bequeath onto researchers in 50 years time a similar mess."

25 comments:

Steven Satak said...

Michael Mann! Does ANYONE still pay attention to that goober?! The jerk has been spewing lies since the beginning and no amount of contrary data will stop him from hewing to the party line.

It's like listening to that actor Bill Nye spouting about evolution. What the hell does HE know?

Sheesh. When will regular scientists realize these boobs don't WANT 'more accurate data'? They want whatever fits their ideology, and nothing more.

'Denialists', my ass.

Martin Kulp said...

Climate change explained, and the myths debunked: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Stan said...

Martin, Welcome.
But 32 videos? Not realistic for me. Please recommend two, maybe three that might influence me to change in some manner. Thanks.

Martin Kulp said...

You're welcome. I would recommend starting from the end since it's still getting updated even after a few years.

Or perhaps 17th which starts a short 4-part series on Lord Christopher Monckton, who you mentioned above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&index=17&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

And this too:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/no-slowdown-in-global-surface-temperatures-after-all/

Stan said...

OK, I did watch some from the beginning. The narrator is a true believer, who claims to be working from original sources. The thing that sticks in my mind is his tracing of the story about why the historical CO2 did not follow the warming and the unpredicted ice age in the Ordovician era. The narrator follows a series of scientific papers combined into an overall Just So Story for quick removal of the excess of CO2 due to erosion of the Applachian mountains by a proposed chemical process involving using CO2, thereby rapidly removing it from the atmosphere. This type of convoluted "explanation" is accepted without a twitch by the narrator, who claims that it puts the issue to bed. He proceeds to assert "complexity" for conditions which appear contradictory, saying (correctly, I think) that CO2 is not the only large contributor. But in all, the dodges still add up the way he wants.

I'll view your recommended videos, maybe tomorrow, if it rains again and I'm still stuck inside. You'll not want to hear this, but it is unseasonably cool here, and excessively wet. Yes I know, that's weather, not climate. But I thought I'd throw it in anyway.

Glad to see you're still checking in... I know that I've radicalized since those days when we were in discussions together. It's hard not to do that with all the Atheists and trolls between then and now. The Atheists and trolls have radicalized too. My patience with them is flagging seriously. Still I try for logic over passion, even though I'm finding fewer places where logic can even be used in the new world of irrationality. Soon there will be no place for it at all. Too bad for all of us.

Martin Kulp said...

I have always like your use of logic and reason and you have been a great role model. Of course this does not mean we should always agree! I'm glad to see you are still open to looking at climate change issues. Remember it's like increasing the contrast on an image. The CO2 traps more heat, increases the energy in the system. So unusual weather is expected, colder, warmer, dryer, wetter, more extreme unfortunately, which is what we should all care about.

I am not as impatient with Atheists I suppose as I simply keep my cool and ignore them, which is easy. Nothing looks worse today than before if you do that, since they take little place in the public sphere. They are insignificant so don't worry.

Stan said...

I just don't get the reasoning about the comparison to increasing the contrast (I do understand that this is what they are claiming). For example, adding heat to a homogeneous system increases heat everywhere in the system by virtue of thermodynamic heatflow. It doesn't make sense that it should be expected to produce excessive cold as well. boiling a pot of water doesn't produce steam in one area and ice in another. So this is where the modern story telling science inserts the concept of "complexity", which is just the assertion that the skeptic is just to ignorant to understand the full ramifications that the elitist understands.

An example. Evolution supporters do the same thing. "If you actually understood evolution ("as I do", is implied, of course) then you wouldn't question it". And yet they provide no argument of substance FOR it. There is an excellent series of RNA World lectures which outline all the lab experiments aimed at producing RNA under natural-like conditions (long, 3 sessions for roughly 2 1/2 hours total, but worth the investment). It is presented by Szostak, the head scientist for the decades long program. The takeaway for me was that they are painstakingly creating an experiment-based story with three defects: first, that it is complex by necessity, to the point of incredulity even if they create a short-chain RNA molecule (they have not done so); second, the molecule they create will be randomly assembled and contain zero information; third, they have to make simplifying assumptions for the nature of the first cell, numerous assumptions which they have no empirical reason to make; the only reasoning for the assumptions is to invent a purely catalytic chemical, deterministic "thing", that they call an RNA-bearing "first cell" or protocell. Until they "understand" first life as information bearing, they have no understanding. There is no logical connection between random RNA in a membrane enclosure, and self-animated, information bearing and replicating life.

Well, I'm off on another rant, I see. Better get to work.

Martin Kulp said...

You believe another just so story if you take it the other way around: humans put tons on CO2 in the air, much much more than all natural causes put together, and the concentration has doubled already since pre industrial time, but we should conclude that this has no impact at all because some weather people and a tiny minority of scientists say so?

Same with evolution! We see it happen today, can extrapolate back in time, look at tons of markers in DNA, but because we don't fully understand how it all started we should instead conclude: magic! Because a tiny minority of biologists say so, and all the others are in a conspiracy?

Stan said...

Alrighty!

Let's take these claims one at a time.

1. Humans put much more CO2 in the air than all other sources.

This is neither necessary nor sufficient to claim AGW. The CO2 mechanism as a trip agent is speculative.

2. Concentration has doubled since pre-industrial times.

Neither is this necessary nor sufficient to claim AGW. Data still shows CO2 lagging Warming, with only specious speculation as to why.

3. Weathermen and a tiny minority of scientists disagree.

This is not a useful metric, and I don't use it. (I do use it to needle the true believers, though.)

There are only two useful metrics: (1)average temperature of the entire earth, properly measured, meaning consistent thermometer data for all regions taken over the period starting at the end of the last ice age. We don't have this, we have instrument changes mid-stream, temperature substitute measurements, fiddling with data by entering "corrections" which force conclusions; (2) measurement of all atmospheric components, properly measured, meaning consistent analytics without "corrections" for all regions taken over the same period.

This is obviously not possible given the nature of the subject, and further, any attempt to "reproduce" it through substitute sources is suspicious at best.

The existing "proof" mechanism is not available to the common man. The temperature data is controlled by those with access to the thermometers. That data is modified well after the fact. It is absolutely not independently verifiable. And further the cause/effect has not been established satisfactorily because it is purely historical and with obvious observation and measurement... um, issues.

Stan said...

Evolution:
(1) We see it happen today.

Unless you have data to the contrary, then no, actually we don't. We see the mathematically correct variablity within single genomic sets. We can discuss nylon-digesting bacteria again, if you wish.

(2) Extrapolation backward through time via DNA markers.

Here's an example of circularity found in the human genome paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html
(Do a search on (space)age(space) to get to the "age" text.)

The age of "copy" markers is based on the presupposition that comparison to "sibling species" is indicative of a time of divergence which, in turn, proves evolution. In other words, evolution is presupposed in the calculation which proves evolution.

Viral markers prove only that viral attacks occurred on certain genomes, some more than others - nothing more. DNA proves that living things need many types of proteins and many types of RNA. Much of the developmental information is not in the DNA but is contained in structural information which is extragenomic and not yet understood. In other words, it is probable that most of the information required to make a living thing is not in the DNA itself, but is epi-genetic, or outside the known genome altogether. Stem cells are an example of this flexibility... and it's not well understood.

As for information in living things, evolution shows no promise in developing even a shard of an hypothesis for either information content in the first cell, or information mutation beyond information entropy, say during the Cambrian explosion (when all phyla came from one unknown ancestral cell, almost overnight, geologically speaking). Information entropy is not resolvable by invoking open systems and "negentropy", because the conversion of photonic input energy does not convert to new information without a dedicated source for that creation. Semantic nformation is not observed to be created without intelligent input, or it would be observed in the purely natural world of atoms and molecules which are not living.

As for RNA world and its information-free conceptualization, it is necessary to posit that the roughly 3 Gb of semantic information for humans arose accidentally from zero Gb. That's "no step for a stepper" obviously, but it is a lot to swallow for an aristotelian.

And again, who believes and doesn't believe has no bearing on the truth value and objective knowledge value contained in the serial evolutionary inferences.

But back to AGW: they really need a better class of supporters to face the public. Al Gore, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye are objects of )deserved ridicule. They form the Westboro Church of AGW equivalent in the religion of Scientism. Same goes for evolution, with the likes of PZ, Coyne and the ACLU lined up to make it legal truth.

Well, you knew I was gonna write something on the order of this, so I did.

Anyway, it's good to have you around!

Martin Kulp said...

Regarding AGW, for 1 and 2, you are avoiding the issue: why do you believe the stories that CO2 has no effect? And 3 is where you get your information to support your views on 1 and 2 so it's also an Appeal to Authority when you make it.

Regarding evolution, what happens today is seen in the variations of offspring from their parents. That's all it takes for evolution to happen. Actually even less is required, as asexual reproduction already works. From there, yes there is what appears to you to be circular arguments, but only because you reject the starting facts, which yield valid inferences. The bilogical implications, the conclusions, are not less valid.

Martin Kulp said...

Who do you have as the 'face' of AGW denial? Or evolution denial? Plus the people you named are just a few popular names, of individuals, you seem to forget there are hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations fighting for these causes...

Martin Kulp said...

Actually... I guess your radicalization includes this statement on why people deserve ridicule? So it's not just about ideas anymore, you want to mock?

BobVong4 said...

I see that Stan's rejection, of biology, continues, here on his main blog page. I should have looked at that, first, instead of the "course", that may not be as relevant.

Stan said: "Unless you have data to the contrary, then no, actually we don't." This cannot even make sense, even for Stan, or to any rational person. Stan must correct his statement, as on the other thread, a distinction was made between micro, and macro evolution, the former being accepted, but not the later. Now, there seems to be a regression, where no evolution happens at all!

In general, however, we can see evolution in action, at the molecular level, at the reproduction level, and even at the population level. The most basic premise, of evolution, is that things reproduce and keep changing, while doing so. Therefore, claiming that evolution, as a whole, does not happen, at all, is ridiculous, to say the least.

Stan said: "Viral markers prove only that viral attacks occurred on certain genomes, some more than others - nothing more." Such denial, of facts, why Stan? This here, is a very good example, of why organisms share common ancestors. It is not possible, at all, to have viral attacks insert themselves at exactly the same position, for every organism under attack. Therefore, the markers are, indeed, great evidence that when the same virus DNA is found, within various animals, at the same exact location, these animals must share a common ancestor, which had this same DNA at the same position.

What's interesting is that the Intelligent Design proponents often use improbability, as their excuse for denying evolution. Here, that same improbability proves evolution! Will they accept it? Apparently no…

Stan said...

Bob Vong4 is just the same old troll, HUGO, and all of his other sock puppets. Being unable to provide actual conversation, Hugo, et al, is obsessed with his hatred for anything posted here.

Ignore him.

Stan said...

Martin,
You have not provided any further reason to believe, and have merely questioned my integrity - which is OK because I can answer that.

Can you provide actual data showing that CO2 is a trip point agent for warming in complex environments? Everything I have seen merely amounts to careless, empirically empty projections of the trip point concept which are frequently accompanied with panic mode statements.

My attention does get triggered by media reports, but that's not where I look for confirmation. So your analysis of my analysis is not correct. For example, there is considerable internal professional criticism of the latent adjustments of NOAA's data, going from the use of the reliable monitoring being adjusted backwards to the "inaccurate" prior methodology which was replaced (see Judith Curry's reaction, and also Michaels, Lindzen, Knappenberger). Further, read this, from Curry:

"In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

Stan said...

"I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84."
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Here's a comment from the Federalist (I know, not a scientist, just an intelligent outsider):

"All of this fits into a wider pattern: the global warming theory has been awful at making predictions about the data ahead of time. But it has been great at going backward, retroactively reinterpreting the data and retrofitting the theory to mesh with it. A line I saw from one commenter, I can’t remember where, has been rattling around in my head: “once again, the theory that predicts nothing explains everything.”

If a "science" is not predictive in even the small scale of its domain, it is not a legitimate empirical science. A pursuit that succeeds ONLY in the metanarrative and retroactive adjusting of data is not a legitimate empirical science. Changing the data (from better measurements to correlate with worse measurements) is professionally despicable... and is not any kind of science. These facts are not restricted to AGW scientists (who do not subscribe to them anyway, it appears). Anyone who has studied science, the history of science, and the philosophy and logic supporting science has these facts available to him.

Argue those points if you wish.

Stan said...

Evolution, you say, is just this:
"Regarding evolution, what happens today is seen in the variations of offspring from their parents."

It seems to me that even you have admitted that this is not the position of actual "paid" evolutionists. They do talk in terms of macroevolution, need I prove it? Mere variation in offspring brings devolution due to the accumulated mutation load, where negative mutations swamp out neutral and the few positives which probably don't add up to any speciation anyway. (Kimura)

And it is patently obvious that variation within a set is normal, while leaving the set requires a change of some sort: mutation.

There is increasing understanding that all processes in life are information driven, and the realization that deterministic but random mutations are not realistic creators of new information simultaneously with the systems which need that information plus the systems which drive the information into use. Claiming this to be normal is without merit.

RNA world is dealt with by the investigating team here:
http://www.ibiology.org/ibioseminars/evolution-ecology/jack-szostak-part-1.html

I will be writing on this very soon. For now, their plan is to create an RNA-bearing cell which replicates itself (because it is not possible to create DNA, and DNA does not replicate itself), and then invoke Darwinian evolution to cover blindly from there. Those are virtually their exact words. But here's the hitch: the RNA which they can predict will be produced is not information bearing, it is randomly assembled gibberish, semantically speaking; further, neither the cell nor its contents are in any way a facsimile of modern cells. There is no metabolic generation or requirement; there are none of the components of either prokaryotes nor archaea, both of which require the closed cycle of DNA/RNA/polymerase/many protein assistants, the cell enclosure is oppositely endowed regarding structure and permeability, not to mention ease of construction.

Top that off with their admission in the third video session that they cannot produce replicating RNA's either, so they are going to lesser molecules to attempt replication, which hasn't happened either.

If first life is not producible deterministically, then determinism is false. The tacit admission here is that it is too difficult to produce a model of first "life" even in the lab.

This is from the people doing the work.

If determinism is false, then it cannot be invoked in evolution.

So go ahead and argue that.

Stan said...

Of course, I recognize that repeated failures of this nature never disprove a concept, if it is not the concept being tested but only the process is being tested. This seemingly avoids the falsifiability criterion for knowledge by not directly testing for determinism. This is the negative, back-door into Scientism which makes the unfalsifiable claim that everything is testable due to determinism of cause and effect. So there is compounding non-falsifiability, which amounts to ideology and nothing more. In the video, Szostak admits that the process of first life will never be actually known; RNA world is just an attempt to provide a path, but the path is fatally flawed due to lack of independent, spontaneous information creation in whatever they create.

Stan said...

Correction:
Szostak admitted only the first part of my last statement; he did not have any comment on information at all, whether it is necessary or not, and whether the lack of information creation has any bearing on his conclusions. My statement seems to imply otherwise, and that is incorrect.

Robert Coble said...

Martin Kulp and BobVong4 both appear to be "HUGO" sock puppets.

The same logical fallacy appears in one of two forms:

A says P about subject matter S.
A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.

B has provided evidence for position T.
A says position T is incorrect.
Therefore, B's evidence is false.


The primary "tell" is the vague generalizations from the other's position flavored with more than a faint whiff of sarcasm.

Martin Kulp said...

Thanks for the thoughtful responses Stan, as usual! For the moment, let me just reply to "Can you provide actual data showing that CO2 is a trip point agent for warming in complex environments?" I don't think we actually need to find links to respond to this. It is actually simple chemistry, where the sunlight coming in the atmosphere and bouncing back to space is trapped because of CO2. I.e the greenhouse effect. You're not asking to prove this happens, don't you?

Stan said...

Robert,
You might be right. I don't think this sounds like Martin, and there's no profile to confirm. I've lost his email address (not on his blog), so Martin, if you're still here, email me about this, thanks.
Stan

Stan said...

Robert,
Yep the same troll. Good catch. Martin would never respond with the last stupid remark either. I suspect Martin would cite specific satellite data regarding IR re-radiation data in the proper band. The troll is an ignoramus pretending to use big words he heard in 4th grade science class, but doesn't really comprehend. His description of the greenhouse effect is just silly - almost right, but fails the test of specificity.
Stan

Robert Coble said...

Another article on the fraudulent "science" being touted by the government to "debunk" the heresy of the Global Climate Change deniers:

Link: Twin Peaks – Twin Lies

Quote:

"At this time, there is no scientific evidence – based on actual observations and measurements of temperatures and weather events – that humans are altering the climate to a significant or dangerous degree. Computer models, political statements and hypothetical cataclysms cannot and must not substitute for that absence of actual evidence, especially when the consequences would be so dire for so many."

Somebody is NOT aware that the narrative trumps actual (un-fabricated, un-adjusted data every time in the SJW worldview. After all, it's only "cis-data."

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"