There are some people whose word just can't be relied on; people who, if they told you at high noon that the sun was up, you'd look out the window. And, sadly, a lot of people like that work in the legacy media, supposedly as "objective" reporters. They aren't objective, and while it can be difficult not to let just a little bias shine through, it's different when it's so blatant, so obvious, that the affected media outlets lose credibility. And losing credibility, they are.
Key disclaimer: I'm an opinion writer. An advocate. I make no pretense of being anything else. But plenty of folks in the legacy media can shovel up an impressive amount of horse squeeze and assert it as an objective fact. That may be why, in recent polling (see this one by Gallup), people's approval of the legacy media is somewhere around that of toenail fungus and lint.
With climate change, though, things really go out the window. The Empowerment Alliance's Gary Abernathy has a great example from the New York Times.
Nowhere is the media more prone to veering from truth and accuracy than on climate reporting. Mainstream media outlets are for the most part firmly entrenched as true believers in the Church of Climatology.
Case in point: A few days ago, Lee Zeldin, the head of the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, was a featured speaker at a conference organized by the Heartland Institute. According to the New York Times, this offered proof that “climate change deniers are experiencing a triumphant resurgence in Mr. Trump’s Washington after years of feeling sidelined by the scientific and political establishments.”
There is nothing to indicate that the Times reporter who wrote the story has a science-related degree, although she has a history of climate reporting. And yet, at least three times in her story she took it upon herself to label as “false” various statements with which she apparently disagreed.
This story is by one Maxine Joselow, whose bio lists her as reporting on climate change, although she appears to have no background in science. Quelle surprise!
Well, few, if any, people are denying that the climate is changing. That's the first misstep, and it's just the uttering of a pejorative with nothing behind it; the rhetorical equivalent of calling someone a "big doody-head." The planet's climate has always changed, and it always will; nobody's denying that. What we are denying is the notion that it's changing in a manner that's leading up to something catastrophic, and that we must immediately and dramatically reduce our standard of living to prevent it.
Gary Abernathy lists the points from the New York Times piece; let's take them one by one.
1. “Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by ‘leftist politicians.’ Fossil fuels are the greenest energy sources. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be harmless. These were some of the false claims made at a conference on Wednesday held by groups that reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.”
There are two claims here. Few, if any, are claiming that fossil fuels are the "greenest" energy sources. Most of us don't give two hoots about "green," so why would we argue that? They are the most efficient fuel sources, save one, that the climate scolds also don't approve of: Nuclear power. As for more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there's significant evidence that it's actually beneficial; it may well be turning the Sahara desert into a grassland. How's that for green?
2. “Other sponsors included the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit group that claims falsely that planet-warming carbon dioxide is beneficial to humans.”
So, turning desert into grassland isn't beneficial? Boosting Amazon rainforest growth isn't beneficial? Yes, an increase in CO2 can have some effect on the climate, but through most of Earth's history, it's been warmer than it is now, and CO2 levels were higher, as well — and yet, the planet just kept on turning.
3. “The conference was set to continue on Thursday with a speech by John Clauser, a Nobel physics laureate who has claimed, falsely, that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet.”
Uh, he's right. Increased cloud cover increases albedo. That's the amount of sunlight reflected into space. That has a cooling effect. Perhaps Maxine Joselow is confusing this for the cold weather warming effect cloud cover can have overnight, when the clouds reflect infrared radiation — warmth — back downwards, instead of letting it escape into space. That's why here in Alaska, a clear January night may be -10 degrees, while an overcast night may be 20 degrees warmer. The New York Times itself admitted this:
Low clouds such as these puffy cumulus typically have a cooling effect, as do the clumpy layers known as stratocumulus and the smooth layers known as stratus.
Much of the sun’s rays are reflected off their white tops back up into space. And they are dense enough to cast shadows, cooling the surface below — the natural parasol effect you feel on a beach when one drifts overhead.
In simple English, all these assertions from Maxine Joselow just aren't right. As in, they are factually incorrect.
Read More: Climate Change 101: 'What Is the Proof?'
Zeldin Zings Climate Fanatics, Says US Will No Longer Bend the Knee to 'Gloom and Doom' Crowd
Which brings us to Gary Abernathy's key point:
In conclusion: The New York Times reported, falsely, that the Heartland Institute conference included numerous falsehoods. But that’s not really news, right?
It's not. But that's the sad state of affairs in the legacy media today.
Here's that New York Times article. See for yourself.
