Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The 'Hottest Year On Record'

Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The 'Hottest Year On Record':
"When you read a science report claiming that 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect that you will get numbers. 
And you would be wrong.
They say that mathematics is the language of science, which is a way of saying that science is quantitative.
It is moved forward by numbers and measurements, not just by qualitative observations.
“It seems hot out” is not science.
Giving a specific temperature, measured by a specific process at a specific time, compared to other systematically gathered measurements—that is science.
So when you read an article proclaiming that, for the third year in a row, last year was the hottest year on record, you might expect that right up front you will get numbers, measurements, and a statistical margin of error.
You know, science stuff. Numbers.
Quantities.
Mathematics.
And you would be wrong.
I just got done combing through a New York Times report titled, “Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year.”
The number of relevant numbers in this article is: zero.
...It wasn’t just the New York Times.
Try finding the relevant numbers ready at hand in the NASA/NOAA press release.
You get numbers comparing 2016’s temperature with “the mid-20th century mean” or “the late 19th century.”
But there’s nothing comparing it to last year or the year before except qualitative descriptions.
So the government’s science bureaucracy is setting the trend, making reporters dig for the relevant numbers rather than presenting them up front.
It’s almost like they’re hiding something. 
And that is indeed what we find. 
I finally tracked down an exception to this reporting trend: the UK newspaper The Independent gives us the relevant numbers..."
Read on!