Patterico's Pontifications

12/7/2009

Newspapers Agree on Climate Change

Filed under: Environment,Media Bias — DRJ @ 12:57 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

We may not know the truth about global warming but at least we know where 56 of the world’s major newspapers stand:

“Despite mounting evidence that key climate researchers were less than honest, and other indications that the science is not settled, tomorrow 56 newspapers will run a common front page editorial saying we have ‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation’.”

The editorial claims that “social justice” and “fairness” are the reasons why the world should support the Copenhagen climate change agenda. The newspapers even have a shared graphic:

null

All they seem to lack is science.

— DRJ

59 Responses to “Newspapers Agree on Climate Change”

  1. Science? schmience! If sincere belief was good enough for AlGore, it must be true.

    Icy Texan (6e4efb)

  2. This just in, the EPA has outlawed CO2 as a dangerous, toxic substance.

    Broad-leafed plants and phytoplankton vow to appeal the decision.

    BB-gun manufacturers in an uproad.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  3. Unbelievable. How many of these newspapers that have been around for 100 years and reporting the weather/temp every day, have plotted the hi/low temp every day for the year, and done it back to 1900 or so? Maybe lots of them, including the NYTimes. But they’ve never run a simple A1 page article about the results showing warming in their city……because why? Because the results almost certainly DIDN’T SHOW IT. If I had time, I’d look at the NYT weather for NYC hi/lo every day and average them per year, but I don’t have the time. What crooks these newspaper owners are. Intellectual crooks.

    SteveB (d71a0b)

  4. Social justice and fairness is going to fix global warming?

    Where is the chart on that one?

    bill-tb (365bd9)

  5. The organization People for the Ethical Treatment of CO2 Breathers (PETCOB) have issued the following statement:

    “This is another example of the arrogant attitudes of oxygen-breathers. Our green-leafed brothers will be condemned to a slow death under this cruel act by the fascist EPA. PETCOB protests this action in the strongest terms and vows to bring these criminals to justice in the international court.”

    Reportedly, new EPA guidelines designed to inhibit the production of CO2 will permit humans to exhale only five times per day, however inhaling remains unlimited (this provision subject to change).

    navyvet (c99bbf)

  6. I am curious how social justice and AGW are related.

    JD (b1f7fc)

  7. That editorial is absolutely filled with factual errors. Here are a few facts:

    In the last 600 million years there was only one time when temperatures and CO2 levels were as LOW as they are today – the late Carboniferous to early Permian (315 to 270 million years ago).

    Over the last 600 million years, CO2 levels averaged 2,800 parts per million compared to 386 ppm today. In the Cambrian, CO2 peaked at 7,000 ppm.

    Over the same period, average temperatures were 21°C. Peaks at 25°C occurred in the late Permian and early Tertiary.

    How did the planet survive? God knows!

    arch (24f4f2)

  8. EW1 – You wouldn’t be suggesting that the AGW/global climate change crisis proponents are whores, are you?

    JD (b1f7fc)

  9. #12 JD:

    You wouldn’t be suggesting that the AGW/global climate change crisis proponents are whores, are you?

    Whoremongers, maybe.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  10. Remember: The issue is never the issue. The issue is control.

    kazooskibum (a4dd38)

  11. Climate change is a result from cutting down too many trees to make newspapers.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  12. That editorial is absolutely filled with factual errors

    That is often the case with newspaper editorials, which are probably the most unreliable parts of newspapers. They’re just opinions, after all. Who needs facts?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  13. Pravda at its heydey didn’t do nearly this good of a job.

    Thanks redc1c4 for the link at #3.

    Picking out college for a child just became real easy. Find a place where scientists are allowed to voice their criticisms of AGW without being shunned. I bet there are a few (I’d wait to see if the folk at Princeton behind the link at #3 are still there next year).

    And the L says that Galileo was treated unfairly!!

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  14. I think lawyers have to be as bad on trees as newspapers. I’m waiting for the Bar to issue a position statement. (But I continue to inhale and exhale).

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  15. “Social justice” and “fairness” seem like a big clue as to what this is really about.

    Alta Bob (e8af2b)

  16. and the dead tree media wonders why they are on the extinction list?

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  17. By “social justice” they mean more money to petty dictators so they can stomp their boots on their people harder. Their concept of justice relates to real justice the way AGW relates to science.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  18. Breaking news: Statist Newspapers Endorse Statist Plan

    Film at 11.

    Techie (482700)

  19. Techie, you’re wrong. There will be no film at 11. You have to feed BigOil in order to make film. And that would increase the damage to the climate.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  20. If it’s any consolation only 1 US paper (the Miami Herald) published the editorial despite the Guardian’s attempt to get dozens.

    One actually told them to go to hell for orchestrating media pressure.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/climate-change-leader-editorial

    john (0d4ddf)

  21. But I wonder if the press is cashing a chip it doesn’t have on this one. Belief in AGW has fallen off hard. And I’m not sure if “social justice” and “fairness” is a good chip, either, considering the falling ratings of the politicians who bandy those terms about so readily.

    It may only be wishful thinking on my part, but I’m thinking this may backfire on the press in accelerated subscription losses.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  22. “Social Justice” – all your monies does belong to us.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  23. btw, i pee all over this argument, here: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07mon1.html?permid=34#comment34

    Let’s see how long it stays up given how harshly i call out the NYT itself.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  24. Hey, I have an idea! The Board of Directors of each newspaper should take an immediate pay cut of 50%. They can use the money to contribute funds to causes in less fortunate nations.

    I mean, since they are all about social justice and fairness.

    What’s that? Oh, you want other people to do things for social justice and fairness? All you will do is emit carbon dioxide from your hypocritical mouths in favor of social justice and fairness?

    I get it.

    Eric Blair (91356a)

  25. Isn’t 56 newspapers running the same editorial an example of what used to be called “groupthink”?

    JVW (0fe413)

  26. Wasn’t the Guardian the same Brit Assclowns that attempted to convince voters (via phone calls) in Ohio how stupid they were if they voted for Bush instead of Kerry? If memory serves, many of the voters in their targeted counties told them to f-ck off and mind their own business. Gee, wonder how those efforts turned out?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  27. What’s that? Oh, you want other people to do things for social justice and fairness? All you will do is emit carbon dioxide from your hypocritical mouths in favor of social justice and fairness?

    “It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”
    – Ayn Rand

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  28. Do they mention which US newspaper it was that told them to “go to hell”?

    Because I want to subscribe to that paper.

    mojo (8096f2)

  29. Isn’t 56 newspapers running the same editorial an example of what used to be called “groupthink”?

    I’d say it borders on collusion.

    Techie (482700)

  30. Forget pre-industrial — we won’t stop until CO2 levels are returned to precambrian levels!

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  31. Some thoughts on the editorial in question:

    Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial.
    — By which they mean that, this time, every word is exactly the same, instead of the usual slight variations on the exact same theme. I would call that an admission of spreading propaganda. Or, maybe by “unprecedented” they meant that only 55 of them endorsed Obama.

    We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
    — Isn’t it neat how words have meaning? If you aren’t committed to supporting climate change initiatives, you are an unfeeling member (barely!) of the human race. One assumes that this applies equally to those that believe the AGW theories, but fail to take any substantive action on behalf their beliefs.

    Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security.
    — No fear tactics here; no sir! Welcome to Liberal Doomsday. Said event will NOT be marked by the return of the Christian Lord & Savior, but will instead feature the real-life re-enactment of Godzilla vs The Smog Monster.

    The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation.
    — I remember: they told us, back on the very first Earth Day, that it was gonna be like this.

    Now the facts have started to speak:
    — We interrupt this quote to ask, “Really?” Your stuffy old English (or JOURNALISM!) teacher, not to mention Little Billy of the Family Circus, would jump all over your ass in a second for anthropomorphizing the things known as ‘facts’.

    11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc.
    — Apple, apple . . . orange! No simple explanation, such as “cyclical weather patterns” or “sunspots” will be accepted.

    In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage.
    — Don’t you just love the vagueness of “scientific journals”? It does not say that the MAJORITY of journals agree; it could be only two of them, for all we know.

    Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
    — Translation: You are too stupid & uncaring to come to the correct answer on your own; therefore, we must (once again) tell you what to think.

    Climate change has been caused over centuries,
    — Ever since the bastard “man” lit the first fire for warmth. He should’ve taken one for the team, and allowed himself to suffer from hypothermia instead.

    has consequences that will endure for all time
    — Yeah! ‘Cause you KNOW that there’s no possibility for the wind to swirl in the other direction.

    and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days.
    — The hubris of using the word “taming”, combined with the absolutism of “either right now, or never”.

    We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other
    — As with the Dems health care initiative, this matter is no longer up for debate. How . . . DARE you suggest doing anything else, other than to fall in line?

    but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics.
    — Uh-oh. What opportunity has Jimmy ‘Race baiter’ Carter offered us now?

    This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
    — The arrogance of claiming that this problem can, and needs to be, “solved”; along with the typical class distinctions and calls for collectivism.

    The science is complex but the facts are clear.
    — Don’t try to figure it out on your own. Just trust in the interpretation we’re trying to force-feed you.

    Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea.
    — Nope. No scare tactics here. In this case, “could” basically represents a 50-50 chance. Either all of these terrible things will happen . . . or they won’t. Have a Nice Day!

    The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
    — Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

    Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism.
    — See how bad we were? Thank GOD for the arrival of The Man That Voted ‘Present’!

    Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
    — Damn that pesky, anti-“world politics” U.S. Constitution!

    But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”
    — You vill do vhat the UN says, vhen the UN says to do it! To defy the UN is VERBOTEN!!!

    At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world
    — Political correctness run amuck! We can no longer say “industrialized world” & “third world”? Is this the international version of “everybody gets a trophy for trying, and we don’t keep score so that no ones feelings are hurt”?

    covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided —
    — Is it just me? or does “fighting climate change” really sound like “yes, we’re arrogant enough to try to tinker with mother-nature”?

    and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
    — Carbon Credits are a precious resource?

    Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far.
    — How arrogant of the rich to point out the truth! Doesn’t everyone know by now that the rich are evil? and therefore are always wrong, even when they are right?

    But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850.
    — Nobody ever breathes in the developing world. Those 148 million people, plus animals, packed inside tiny Bangladesh? Nope. No excess CO2 emissions there.

    It [the rich world] must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
    — Hey, you! Yes, you over there by the rich world bike stands. Stop developing, laddie!

    Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit.
    — Substitute “taxpayers” for “developing countries”, and “small-business owners” for “poorest regions”, and this could be a discussion about Obamacare.

    But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
    — We’re trying to set a good example for our developing brother & sister nations, Mommy Liberal Elite! Honest, we are.

    Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.
    — Typo: should be “Socialist justice”.

    The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring,
    — Look for UN inspectors, payed for by US tax dollars at your coal-fired power plant; soon.

    fair rewards for protecting forests,
    — Look for Sierra Club inspectors, payed for by US tax dollars, at your local nature preserve; soon.

    and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them.
    — Wow. If you thought Kobe beef was expensive before . . . (Damn methane emitters!)

    And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.
    — The rich will pay more to cover the poor, even though the poor might be producing more per capita emissions. Round peg, meet square hole. Pretending that things which are different are actually the same doesn’t work in the real world. Forced “fairness” at the end of an international-law gun barrel will inevitably cause more problems than it solves.

    The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
    — Sez you. Well, at least they sorta acknowledge that this will ADD to the burden on the already over-burdened global finance. They just don’t care is all.

    Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
    — “I’m free, to do what I want, any old time.” Ah, Mick. How arrogant you were. Don’t you know that none of us are here to have a good time?

    But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice.
    — Is Teh One preparing a plagiarism lawsuit over the theft of this line? Straight out of the Public Service handbook, this is.

    Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth,
    — Growth of government.

    jobs
    — Government jobs.

    and better quality lives.
    — Less freedom does equate to a better quality of life, doesn’t it? I mean, when you’re not allowed to screw up, you must wind up happier; right?

    The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
    — Gee, I sure hope that no one with an agenda tinkered with those numbers; ’cause if they did, that would be really ba- Oh my God! Look over there!

    Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history.
    — Okay, we admit that the goals are just numbers, not based on any research or proven technologies. There, are you happy?

    But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
    — Is ANYONE surprised that the word “collective” would show up sooner or later in this screed?

    Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.
    — Defying, denying, and overriding mother nature requires being better than mother nature. Nope, no hubris there.

    It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
    — “We’re mature. It’s you guys that are the poopy-heads.”

    The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
    — Absolutely. Make the “right” choice: Deny, defy, and override this ultra-liberal grab for power on the world stage!

    Icy Texan (6e4efb)

  32. “Social justice” and “fairness” are the key code words that establish that Copenhagen is not about science but socialism. Imposing a world government through the economic controls that these loons propose, that is the agenda.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. No offense, IT, but chop it up into multiple comments? That’s more WOT than I can read.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  34. Forget pre-industrial — we won’t stop until CO2 levels are returned to precambrian levels!

    But now Co2 is a pollutant? Who knew?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  35. […] of ClimateGate: Al Gore forced to sacrifice Copenhagen cash cow Patterico’s Pontifications: Newspapers Agree on Climate Change BUUUUURRRRNING HOT: Richard S. Lindzen – The Climate Science Isn’t […]

    Saudia Arabia drops ClimateGate Bomb on Copenhagen « VotingFemale Speaks! (30e6a7)

  36. Just today, I read an editorial from the Los Angeles Times warning that if we do not take action, the United States will become a threat to humanity.

    I wonder why not a single newspaper editorial pointed out that the United States can stop global warming simply by detonating its arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. Carl Sagan and four other scientists proved this to be true back in 1983.

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)

  37. icy texan

    um seriously while i basically agree with your p.o.v., that was pretty weak.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  38. fairness has become a code word for the introduction another income redistribution scheme just like resources are nearly always taxpayer funds for programs designed to fail so that even money will be given to fix them annually.

    clyde (8855de)

  39. […] power of ClimateGate: Al Gore forced to sacrifice Copenhagen cash cow Patterico’s Pontifications: Newspapers Agree on Climate Change BUUUUURRRRNING HOT: Richard S. Lindzen – The Climate Science Isn’t […]

    EPA to Attack US Economy by declaring CO2 toxic; without CO2, all plant life would die « VotingFemale Speaks! (ae46d6)

  40. fairness has become a code word for the introduction another income redistribution scheme just like resources are nearly always taxpayer funds for programs designed to fail so that even more money will be given to fix them annually.

    clyde (8855de)

  41. There is a truly execrable piece of hysteria by one of the AP’s alleged journalists, Charles J. Hanley, that could have come verbatim from a Greenpeace press release. I’ve done a bit of fisking.

    Feel free to add your own fact-checking!

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  42. From the article.

    Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more urgent story: To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

    This writing about the final chance proves that the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit. We have had the capacity to drastically reduce global temperatures since 1983.

    [note: released from moderation filter. –Stashiu]

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)

  43. Ah, everyone’s a critic.

    Icy Texan (6e4efb)

  44. The only solution to this crisis, as in other similar crises, is to take all of our gold and go to the deepest part of the ocean and dump it overboard. That will propitiate the goddess of warming.

    Of course, the Chinese have a deep diving sub stationed there to scoop it up but that would be telling.

    OK, it makes about as much sense as a yacht in the Chicago-Mackinac race dumping their filet mignon dinner overboard to try to get some wind. I know that one happened.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  45. Okay i think this might be the quote of the day:

    > For the delegates to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, inconvenient truths abound. Not the least of which is the prediction that attendees will generate a carbon footprint equal to all of Morocco’s for 2006.

    heh.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283333

    Read the whole thing. i especially love where he calculates how many polar bears this will kill.

    As i said on the NYT’s website:

    > How about you guys start acting like it’s an emergency, and then get back to me? They come off as the classic insurance fraudster, who claims a severe back injury but is caught by PIs lifting heavy objects around the home.

    And hey, go over there and hit the recommend button for my post. i want it to get to the top position so that everyone will see me smack down the NYT for lack of coverage of climategate.

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07mon1.html?permid=34#comment34

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  46. Icy,

    Superb fisking.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  47. Ah, now I understand that cartoon of the three monkeys, you know, see no evil, hear no evil and the best: speak no evil. Which for this Administration is very difficult to pull off. The lamestream media is what is left of decent good media that left the building long, long ago.

    Sue (68bdd6)

  48. Sorry, should have been: Which for this Administration is not very difficult…..

    Sue (68bdd6)

  49. #34 Icy Texan: Well done! Hear! Hear!

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  50. A.W.In the end, of course, climategate doesn’t prove or disprove the science. But the burden of proof shouldn’t be on the deniers anyway. It should be on the people who want to claim my freedom and my money, and at the moment they have fallen woefully short of their burden.

    Excellent point. The null hypothesis. However, I think the NYT has been better than you give credit for, at least on Andrew Revkin’s blog. After a slow start, he is actually examining the issues involved and talking to those outside the AGW cabal. He even got a nasty threat from an AGW activist posting as a scientist. Far better than the outrageous disinformation AP is spewing

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  51. Since CO2 emitters are now Public Health Menaces, will the EPA quarantine all emitters of CO2, to protect the public?

    Will “Carbon Charlie” join “Typhoid Mary” in the communicable hall of shame?

    AD - RtR/OS! (e77d9d)

  52. I nominate Fat Bore as the first nomination.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  53. James Hansen predicts that global warming will result in the Venus sydrome, with Earth’s oceans boiling away.

    After reading that, how can anyone still believe him?

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)

  54. Newspapers…

    Matador (176445)

  55. Re: numbers 49 & 52

    Thank you, fans. 😉

    Icy Texan (dccb58)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2646 secs.