Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
If the year were 1965 AND this were the Soviet Union AND he was writing in Pravda AND CAGW was required Party Line THEN I would understand Justin Gillis’ latest piece in the New York Times.
Justin Gillis, New York Times’ Environmental journalist, has been at it again attempting to shore up the Great Global Warming cause in his latest “opinion column” somehow erroneously placed in the Science News section of the International New York Times online at:
I’d like to really lay into Mr. Gillis for this bit of party-line propaganda, but he says so little that it would be difficult to do so.
He correctly points out that one cold winter does not mean that the world has not warmed up since the Little Ice Age — which is mostly what all those graphs that the NY Times used to put in Mr. Gillis’ articles about Global Warming would show, rising temperatures since 1850 or so. Neither Mr. Gillis nor the NY Times’ editors ever seemed inclined to mark the graphs showing the period from about 1975-2000 as being the part in which the IPCC believes the AGW signal began to be seen.
All readers here know why Justin Gillis no longer includes global temperature graphs in his articles. They tell a different story than his words — the world is a little warmer than it was during the Little Ice Age – thank God or your Lucky Stars — opinions vary – but not quite as warm as the Medieval Warm Period.
He points out as well that Alaska, which most people think of as the cold part of America, has been warmer lately, and that California – the state of my birth and childhood — has been having yet another drought — those in my lifetime alone being 1958-59, 1961, 1977, 1986-91, 2001-02, 2006-07.
Here’s Mr. Gillis’ winning hard-science punch line:
“Though the case is as yet unproven, a handful of scientists think the 50-degree temperatures in London and the frigid weather in Minneapolis might be a consequence of climate change.”
Wait for it now…it gets better:
“Fortunately, we are not stuck with human perception alone. Nowadays we have sophisticated thermometers scattered all over the place. On land, aboard boats, attached to satellites, floating in the ocean — wherever we put them, they are telling us a pretty consistent story.
No matter how cold it got in Wisconsin last week, the world really is warming up.”
I’m sorry, but I’ve just got to wonder who he thinks pops out and reads the thermometers “attached to satellites” and what temperature readings they get out there in space. Maybe Josh could do a cartoon of Gillis checking one for us.
The link on “warming up” goes to the three-year out-of-date — up to 2011– BEST Results paper (published in the very first issue of the journal GIGS: An Overview). You have to be pretty sharp to see it, with the way the material is presented, but, of course, the paper confirms the then-so-far 14-year hiatus in Global Warming.
The main point is: Why is Justin Gillis writing such an article in the NY Times? There is no news in it. His concluding sentence is blatantly incorrect. It contains little journalistic effort, other than finding some scientist that will say something warmish without mentioning the hiatus or the pause. He couldn’t mention the IPCC because they have admitted the pause and can’t explain it, yet he presses on in spite of them. The NY Times editors have been fairly calm on the CAGW issue lately, so it is unlikely they are pressuring him to write such tripe, in fact, they recently closed the Environmental Desk altogether. The NY Times is one of the world’s “newspapers of record” and should be above this sort of sloppiness.
[If there are any secret sympathizers on staff at the Times, weigh in in the comments. The moderators here at WUWT know how to reach me privately, I am intensely curious as to why and how such a piece could be published.]
MODERATION NOTE: I will reply to appropriate comments on journalism, the NY Times, propaganda and its uses in modern society, and the sloppy weather we are having in Florida this week.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It was an opinion piece, not a news piece, right? I think that liberates the author from the usual “Republicans claim Earth is flat, some Democrats disagree” false balance that burdens the news side of those operations.
Replies to Comments ==>
Gail Combs ==> Personally, I don’t believe stockholders have much sway over the content of newspapers with the exception of the battles that deal with endorsements at election time. If CAGW were important money-wise to the NY Times owners, they would never have closed the Environmental desk. I have read the NY Times every day for over twenty years and there AGW/CC coverage has been slip-slidin’-away with spurts matching IPCC gab-fests only. Opinions vary, of course.
Lichanos ==> The NY Times is generally a fine newspaper, that’s why I read it — if I could find a better paper, I’d read it. I do wonder why they keep Gillis on. He used to be quite good until he was suckered into the la-la-land of CAGW and had the rug pulled out from under him.
Johna Till Johnson ==> Innumeracy is a big part of it and worse when anyone starts in with anything that smacks of statistics. Gillis did a whole piece on flooding in the NE US and left out all the important numbers. I filled them in for him in this essay http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/27/what-to-do-about-the-flood-next-time/
timetochooseagain (aka Andrew) ==> Cape Canaveral. You’ll be pleased, I hope, to know that by afternoon the West wind has blown nearly everything, including the clouds and rain, away and it is bright and cold, but sunny now.
nutso fasst ==> In journalism (I was a radio journalist in university in the 60’s, which means I had a press pass on either side of the motorcycle helmet I wore to protest marches) “vox populi” — usually shortened to ‘vox pop’ — officially means the opinions or beliefs of the majority and comes from Latin, literally ‘the people’s voice’. In radio, it meant getting a recording of the man or woman on the street saying something on topic that would make “good radio”. In this case I just wondered if you lived in Anchorage and were reporting your local weather.
catweazle666 ==> I thought the NY Times did an exemplary job with the Blair situation once it discovered it. No cover-up, no shirking responsibility. Admitted that their internal system had failed to catch the fake journalism. How they justify Gillis, I don’t know. Editorial ignorance, I suppose.
Replies to Claimsguy ==> “It was an opinion piece, not a news piece, right?” That’s the rub, it was published in the Science section as news, yet the content was what one would expect to find in the Opinion section.
At the NY Times, they do have an Environmental Opinion columnist, Andy Revkin, with the Dot Earth blog. Revkin IS allowed to opinionate to his heart’s content.
Kip,
Over the years, I’ve enjoyed and greatly benefited from your climate commentary. Thank you. Keep up the good fight for scientific integrity and common sense !!
Reply to J W Garrett ==> Very Kind, thank you, sir.
“Fortunately, we are not stuck with human perception alone.”
The only truthful passage in his diatribe. Unfortunately, we also have human mental impotence.
Kip Hansen;
You have to take as given the whole leftist Weltanschauung to regard the NYT as anything but passé propaganda, from whence results its implosive loss of reach and circulation .
Reply to Brian H ==> The leftist Weltanschauung [the worldview of an individual or group] may be true but the loss of readership? Not according to Bloomberg last year.
“New York Times Tops USA Today to Become No. 2 U.S. Paper — By Edmund Lee Apr 30, 2013 The New York Times (NYT) posted an 18 percent gain in daily circulation, vaulting it past USA Today as the second-largest U.S. newspaper, according to figures released today by the Alliance for Audited Media. The Times’ average daily circulation rose to 1.87 million in the six-month period ending March 31, the alliance said in a statement.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/new-york-times-leads-major-newspapers-with-18-circulation-gain.html I’m not rooting for them, but they are my daily paper, until I find a better one.
Dead cat bounce. Plus some desperate double-counting of “digital subscriptions”.
Reply to Brian H ==> As always, Opinions Vary …. not everyone likes the Old Grey Lady. I am more often than not critical myself, as you can see. Just haven’t found a better paper that fills my need. Let me know if you have any suggestions — I need broad coverage of world events, broad representation of a wide spread of liberal world viewpoint, must be considered one of the world’s “newspapers of record” (which kind of limits the choices). I do appreciate your input.
Notice to readers ==> This Guest Essay has had the dubious honor of being expressly attacked by Suzanne Goldberg, U.S. Environment Correspondent, The Guardian in a discussion at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. While she did have difficulty reading the first sentence, and had to admit she wasn’t familiar with the acronym “CAGW”, it was disappointingly apparent that she had not actually read the entire essay, as she erroneously thought it was a political essay. Of course, the first sentence was just a ploy, a hook, to get readers interested; the essay was about poor journalism.
If someone can post an email address for Ms. Goldberg, I intend to write her and attach a copy of the essay for her to read, as a collegial courtesy.
Apologies ==> I have misspelled Suzanne Goldenberg‘s name above.