In trumpeting a bill intended to limit the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses (which passed the House on Friday) The New York Times itself emitted even more gas than usual.
In an alleged news story, The Times quoted four proponents of the legislation and one opponent. This is what passes for balanced coverage at The Times.
In the second paragraph, the paper informed readers, “The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.” (Emphasis added.) Which scientists? The Times doesn’t say. Maybe it considers Al Gore — who claims he invented the Internet, after all — to be a scientist.
The Times doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of scientists on the other side of the debate.
Last year, the Petition Project released the names of more than 32,000 scientists — including 9,000 Ph.D.s –in such fields as climatology, atmospheric science, Earth science and environmental science — who assert: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
The ideological journal which calls itself a newspaper also claims that “the average American household would pay an additional $175 a year in energy costs by 2020” under the bill. Where this sunny estimate comes from is anyone’s guess.
According to an analysis of similar legislation which was before the Senate in 2007, it would have cost the average American household between $800 and $1,300 by 2015 and $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.
The Times also doesn’t acknowledge that cap-and-trade will result in 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs lost, according to an estimate by Charles River Associates, and drive more business overseas – all to lower the earth’s mean surface temper by 0.07 degrees (seven one-hundredths of one degree) by 2050.
Stories in The New York Times are to news coverage what the theory of global warming is to science.
@nytimes.com
