L.A. Times linked to lame climate coverage

Posted on

"L.A. Times linked to lame climate coverage"

kristen.jpgI like the LAT. They do some of the best reporting on environmental issues. So I’m reading a pretty good piece on how EPA Administrator overruled his science advisers on the recent ozone ruling (more on that in a later post) — and come to this remarkable paragraph that shows how the President himself actually intervened to weaken the EPA regulations:

President Bush intervened at the 11th hour and turned down a second proposal by the EPA staff that would have established tougher seasonal limits on ozone based on its harm to forests, crops and other plants, according to documents obtained by The Times. Federal scientists had recommended those growing-season limits as a way to keep vegetation healthy and capable of trapping carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

No, no, a thousand times, no!

Can’t the LAT do better than “linked to global warming”? The media use the word “linked” to deal with as yet uncorroborated or unproven allegations, as in the NY Times recent blockbuster: “Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring” [and you thought I’d never find a way to get that story into Climate Progress, ye of little faith].

Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe — there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a “greenhouse gas“? Why do you think your own story calls it a “greenhouse gas”?

Time for the Times to stop soft-pedaling climate science.

[Note to L.A. Times: I really really hope assume you know greenhouse gases cause global warming. So were you afraid to say, “… carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming” because that means you are acknowledging that global warming is a real phenomenon and caused by humans? If so, that is perhaps even lamer.]

« »

14 Responses to L.A. Times linked to lame climate coverage

  1. PGosselin says:

    “Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe — there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a “greenhouse gas“?

    You are certainly right about that.
    BUT the debate (yes there is a debate) is not whether it’s a greenhouse gas, but rather how much of a greenhouse gas it is. The data says it aint much of one. In fact it appears to be just a pee-wee player. There are other drivers that are far more powerful, e.g. the sun, water vapour, clouds, tectonics, ocean currents, land use, to name a few.
    This has already been proven. All one has to do is look at the January and February temperature anamolies. That big cooling certainly wasn’t driven by CO2, now was it?
    So what could it be?

  2. David B. Benson says:

    PGosselin stated “So what could it be?”

    A strong La Nina, as you could have eaily discovered for yourself.

    As for the other drivers, only CO2 (and maybe methane) is increasing sufficiently to account for the observations.

  3. Earl Killian says:

    PGosselin, asserting false statements does not make them true. The things you suggest are proven have been routinely debunked. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (you cited roughly debunked arguments #1, #23, #39, #16), or http://www.realclimate.org/
    You should also read Joe’s recent posts about January and February, and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/
    If you look at the graph at the latter, it is pretty clear that even 8-year trends can be too short (at least when volcanoes are involved).

  4. John L. McCormick says:

    PGosselin, you forgot to add the most potent and difficult to control driver of global warming: ie, Bovine flatulence.

    Come on PG, how can you be serious about your comment when you have not read any serious study on AGW. Go thee to the IPCC reports and do some homework.

    Plate techtonics…..that is your joke. Yes?

    John McCormick

  5. Peter Foley says:

    Joe, Spitzer’s pro-Girl-Friend picture(s) aren’t in the public domain according to her Public defender.
    The facts regarding CO2 caused (forced) AGW= CO2 has went up~50% and the global temperatures average rose less then one part in 290 and will change even less for an equal amount of additional CO2 MAYBE if the change is actually CO2 forced/caused.
    Ozone is and will remain a much larger threat to health here(US) and abroad then the inflated CO2 ‘crisis’. Show me the dead from AGW.
    If the CO2 jihadists have their way with the world economy and order a post carbon world won’t be able to afford any rational environmental initiatives, poor countries and poor people can’t afford not to pollute.
    The LAT just has a slightly more balanced world view then you do Joe.
    It is time to rethink your world view for accuracy.
    John L. McCormick, Before mega fauna evolved on land just what happened to all the plant matter? The slow “fire” of decay anyone.
    From the Anti-meat eating Book of the Green Bible. “Domestic cattle farts =bad, Bison/elephants/rhinos/etc farts didn’t/don’t act like evil meat animals(unless raised for human consumption). Some sects of the Green vegetarian ZPG church allow aboriginal peoples to consume a token amount of meat if they’ll practice infanticide. Did global warming halt/slow when UK destroyed their mad cow infected herd?
    Plate tectonics: A. Outgassing actual GWGs, B. Volcano’s injecting aerosols and sulfur. C. Geothermal heat causing ice flows. D. Interior convection movements ‘Flipping’ magnetic poles causing a hiatus period without any Van Allen belts leading to change in amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s atmosphere. E. Change of ice sheets mass ‘resetting’ climate with a surge of volcanic activity. F. Continental plates movements changing climate patterns. CO2 isn’t the only factor in the worlds climate. Belittling learning about the parts of the climate isn’t going to lead to an actual working climate model.

  6. PGosselin says:

    Killian,
    8 years is indeed too short. 20 years (1978 – 98) certainly is in fashion today for many people! But if we go back 150 years the warming had already begun back then, before CO2 emissions even got started. Go back a 1000 years and the temp. trend is flat (unless you still believe in MBH98). Go back 20,000 years and we have a severe warming trend. But if you go back 3 million, then we are in a serious cooling trend. Choose the trend my friend!

    In fact, today we live live in a very unusual climate…in an ice age. The earth in her long history was wamer than today 90% of the time.

  7. PGosselin says:

    John L.
    Not so fast my friend…plate tectonics have played a huge role in driving the climate of this lucky planet. Read up on it.
    That’s your big mistake: assuming I haven’t read any real scientific studies. In fact that’s exactly what is going to be your BIG weakness: I have read a large number of studies.
    But of course, if you are not interested in good-news data, then you don’t need to look at it. You’re free to ignore it!
    But, just so that your know, a normal person would welcome data showing good news. It is a little weird that when data appears showing a catastrophe most likely won’t happen some people get really upset about it. But when data appears showing a catastrophe may come, loud cheers and applause can be heard. Some people just can’t live unless they’re convinced there’s a catastrophe lurking around the next corner. Weird huh?

  8. PGosselin says:

    Peter F.
    Concerning meat, this food staple actually played a major role in the evolution of man. The brain size of human-related species grew from 600 cc back millions of year ago to about 1500 cc today. This would not have happened if man had not added meat to the diet. No meat – no brains!
    So liberals and alarnmists, don’t stop eating meat!
    Finally, plate tectonics (continental drift) was the major factor in determining climate-driving ocean currents. And you are absolutely correct with volcanoes and mountain building.

  9. PGosselin says:

    Killian
    Thanks for the RC link, which used GISS surface temp data. Problem here is that when compared to the other 4 measuring systems (Hadley, MSU-USH, RSS etc.), GISS is always the oddball. I think a more accurate approach is to make a composite of all five, but then you’ll get results that you probably will not like. Finally it’s well-documented that surface temp records are hardly examples of measurement excellence when it comes to accuracy and methodology.
    http://www.surfacestations.org/
    Some of these stations are truly amazing!

  10. PGosselin says:

    Have a nice day everybody. I think I’ve given you enought to chew on.

  11. Dano says:

    I think I’ve given you enought to chew on.

    Indeed. I’m chewing on how much longer it will be when the gullibles will stop repeating long-ago refuted FUD.

    Best,

    D

  12. Ronald says:

    PGosselin,

    Don’t become a police detective. If someone was in the middle of the living room with their head bashed in with a bloody baseball bat nearby, you’d say they died of starvation because people died of starvation years ago. You have to remain current to what is happening now.

  13. PGosselin says:

    Ronald,
    That’s the best analogy you can come up with?
    BTW, all you alarmists are doing is plagarizing historical records.
    Does this sound familiar? LOL!
    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/#comment-8445

    All a jounlaist has to do is dig these up, digitialise, change the date and you’re ready for print!

  14. PGosselin says:

    Or check out the Iceland temp. record.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040630003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    You see, all of this is nothing new! What’s new is the level of hysteria.