Does this mean they’ll stop printing the lies about global warming?
IN A DEPRESSING case of irony by juxtaposition, the death of climate change legislation in the Senate has been followed by the appearance of two government reports in the past week that underscore the overwhelming scientific case for global warming — and go out of the way to repudiate skeptics.
So opens “The truth about global warming,” an editorial in today’s Washington Post. Apparently lost on the editors is the other equally depressing case of irony by juxtaposition:
- WashPost goes tabloid, publishes second falsehood-filled op-ed by Sarah Palin in five months “” on climate science and the hacked emails!
- WashPost recycles another denier WSJ op-ed, this time from coal apologist Bjorn Lomborg. Funny how two new senior Post editors came from the WSJ.
- The Washington Post, abandoning any journalistic standards, lets George Will publish a third time global warming lies debunked on its own pages
And that is but the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg, which is which why the Post won the 2009 “Citizen Kane” award for non-excellence in climate journalism.
Does this editorial now mean the Post will repudiate skeptics like Palin and Will — or, rather, refudiate them?
Still, even if the irony is lost on the Post, the piece is well worth reading:
First came a report on global climate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which confirmed that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record — as were, in their turns, the 1980s and the 1990s. Unlike year-to-year fluctuations, these 10-year shifts are statistically significant. Further, the report notes that it derived its conclusions from an array of data sources — not just the land-surface readings that doubters challenge — from ocean heat uptake to melting land ice to sea level rise.
“If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups,” the report said. “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” The gases most likely responsible for that warming, such as carbon dioxide, continue to accumulate.
Second was a strongly worded response from the Environmental Protection Agency to petitions that it revoke its finding that “climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and threatens human health and environment.” As with much climate-change skepticism, the petitions were based “on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. Among other things, the agency reviewed every document from the “Climategate” e-mail hack at a respected British climate research unit. The EPA found what four other independent studies did: that the e-mails contained some “candid” language but nothing that seriously discredits the scientific consensus on global warming.Perhaps it is still too much to hope that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II will call off his misguided investigation of climate scientist Michael Mann, which seems to be based on the e-mail affair. Many climate-change skeptics will simply dismiss these reports as more evidence of a sprawling conspiracy instead of what they really are: yet more affirmation of the risks humanity runs if it continues to pump carbon into the atmosphere.
Precisely.
Whether the Post itself takes these words to heart — or remains overtly schizophrenic on the story of the century — will become clear in the coming months based on how they cover the story and whether they continue to publish the disinformers that fill their pages.
Related Posts:
- WashPost: “If current trends persist, it’s likely that in coming decades the globe’s climate will change with potentially devastating effects for billions of people.”
- The Washington Post op-ed page remains the home of un-fact-checked disinformation about clean energy and global warming
- Memo to Washington Post: Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt just recycled a right-wing WSJ op-ed.
- NY Times, WSJ, and Washington Post all rejected op-ed/letter from 255 National Academy of Sciences members defending climate science integrity
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Washington Post is now the master of the buried lede.
Nah. They’ll continue to be Fair and Balanced. It’s a form of OCD.
The Post probably looked at their AC bill for June & July.
I would add a third document to Joe’s list:
Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia, still available as a free prepub PDF.
This is an excellent (but pretty densely written in places) that strongly makes the case that we’re in deep trouble because of the timing of climate change. You know, that whole “love is fleeting but CO2 is forever” stuff. Just the section on atmospheric level of CO2 vs. lifetime CO2 emissions as a target makes the entire thing worth reading.
Don’t omit to be depressed by the New York Times’s latest foray into chin-stroking confusionism, “Is It Hot in Here? Must Be Global Warming” by Tom Zeller, Jr. (July 31, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/weekinreview/01zeller.html?_r=1&ref=science). The online Times’s front-age page link to the piece speaks of “both sides” of the climate debate (aieee): Zeller himself writes of “people at either extreme — that is, those alarmed by or dismissive of climate change . . .”
So it is an “extreme” to be “alarmed” by climate change? Someone should tell the Pentagon that it has been captured in the night by “environmentalists” holding extreme views (http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf, pp. 84-85).
Thought for the day :
” The first thing I do in the morning is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue. “
It almost feels like the media “balanced reporting” pendulum is swinging back the other way. Like in past years, most Americans believed humans were causing global warming, and so it was considered ‘balanced’ to report ‘the other side’ (and also controversial, and thus ratings-grabbing).
Now because of that horrid reporting, perhaps the media feels that enough Americans have been convinced that global warming is a scam that reporting the facts is now “balanced reporting” and controversial enough to get ratings?
The media continue to do a fine job of confusing the public through ambiguous messaging.
What constitutes “balance”? How exactly does one achieve “balance” when reporting on AGW/ACC? Does one even have to strive for “balance” on this particular topic?
Chen said heavy downpours have pushed unusually large amounts of garbage downstream, including tree branches, plastic bottles and other domestic waste. Nearly 3,000 tons (6 million pounds) of garbage are collected from the dam daily, but there is not enough manpower and equipment to clear it all, he said.
A layer of garbage about 60 centimeters deep (nearly 2 feet) covering an area of more than 50,000 square meters (about a half million square feet) began to form in front of the dam when the rainy season began in early July, the China Daily reported, citing the Hubei Daily newspaper. In some areas, the trash is so thick that people can walk on it, it said.
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1104ap_as_china_floods.html
Cyprus records its hottest temperature in history yesterday
The island of Cyprus recorded its hottest temperature in its history on August 1, 2010 when the mercury hit 46.6°C (115.9°F) at Lefconica. The old record for Cyprus was 44.4°C (111.9°F) at Lefkosia in August 1956. An older record of 46.6°C from July 1888 was reported from Nicosia, but is of questionable reliability.
The year 2010 is now tied with 2007 as the year with the most national extreme heat records–fifteen. There has been one country that has recorded its coldest temperature on record in 2010;
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
In Russia over the weekend more than 300,000 acres of ground were burning. More than 700 wildfires were burning and a quarter of a million people were actively fighting these fires and still not winning.
Temperatures are forecast to rocket back up to 38degC or more this week and the fires are still not over.
What does Watts have to say about it?
“Much of Russia has temperatures below normal but it’s not being reported”
Well I guess that a searing heatwave, 30% of the crop harvest destroyed by drought or fire, >1,500 homes destroyed and thousands of people homeless; plus 40 people burned to death (including children), is just a little bit more compelling than the fact that some areas in Russia are 2-3 degC cooler than normal…….
Watts, of course, doesn’t mention that.
So why would we expect the “rational” press to report climate change properly when we get such an “out of whack” alternate viewpoint.
All (and Joe too), it’s important to use the permalinks for Jeff Masters’s posts–otherwise they are very difficult to locate. Here is the one for the post about Cyprus’s record: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1563
Breaking: Warming Is Real. Now What? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/books/03book.html
Think maybe the prolonged 102 degree heat in D.C. scared the Post?
Might want to mention that the answer to the question is almost certainly no. On the facing page, there is the Samuelson column on Fracking which has this line:
That is, simply put, a WTF line. Want to argue that the risk is relatively low, that is an item for debate/discussion/exploration. What to argue that regulation works and there has been minimal pollution, that is a debate/discussion item (perhaps). But an assertion that “fracking has proceeded for decades without polluting water supplies” is simply bald-faced misrepresentation.