Climate Alarmism defined: NYT’s Editorial Board Claims That ‘Trump Imperils The Planet’

By Michael Bastasch

The New York Times editorial board says that President Donald Trump is literally endangering the entire planet with his rolling back of the Obama administration’s climate agenda.

The NYTimes’ editorial, titled “Trump Imperils the Planet,” comes as the print edition published a 12-page special section on the “far-reaching and potentially devastating” consequences of Trump’s environmental policies.

The NYTimes’ editorial board members wrote the United Nations agreeing to rules to implement the Paris Agreement “was a hugely dispiriting event and a fitting coda to one of the most discouraging years in recent memory for anyone who cares about the health of the planet.”

To the NYTimes, it was “a year marked by President Trump’s destructive, retrograde policies, by backsliding among big nations, by fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs … of what a future of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions is likely to bring.”

Global greenhouse gas emissions are expected to hit record-highs in 2018, rising nearly 3 percent largely because of an uptick of coal-fired power generation. U.S. emissions are also projected to increase slightly this year, despite a decline in coal use.

“The peak in global emissions is not yet in sight,” reads a recent report released by the Global Carbon Project, which tracks emissions.

Virtually no major countries are on track to meet their emissions goals, and even countries, like China, who are ostensibly on-track aren’t actually reducing their emissions. China’s Paris accord pledge involves increasing emissions through at least 2030.

However, the NYTimes claimed that “[no] country’s backsliding, of course, compares with Mr. Trump’s” because of his rolling back three major Obama-era regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The Trump administration took steps to roll back Obama-era policies mandating cars get better gas mileage, forcing states to cut power plant emissions and effectively banning the building of new coal plants.

“These three programs formed the basis of Mr. Obama’s pledge at the 2015 Paris meeting to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025,” the NYTimes claimed.

What the editorial board didn’t mention, though, is that taken together, the Obama administration’s Paris climate accord pledge would result in roughly 0.03 degrees Celsius of avoided warming by 2100, according to climate model projections.

If the atmosphere is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than most models estimate, which could very well be the case, then Obama’s climate agenda would have even less of an impact on projected warming.

“They will deserve, along with Mr. Trump, history’s censure for doing virtually nothing to move to a more responsible energy future — and for not doing so at just the moment when the world needed the kind of leadership that Mr. Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry (and Bill Clinton and Al Gore before them), tried to provide,” the editorial board wrote.

That statement also referred to former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and outgoing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, both of whom aggressively pursued Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda before resigning.

Read more at Daily Caller


Meanwhile, US.  emissions are down, while the rest of the world is going up. Seems like the NYT has a case of selective myopia.

80 thoughts on “Climate Alarmism defined: NYT’s Editorial Board Claims That ‘Trump Imperils The Planet’

  1. The “Gray Lady” has fallen far from her days of “publishing all the news that’s fit to print”.

          • They cling to the assumption that someone still cares what the NYT thinks . . .

            The people who’re now suing France for acknowledging The Hoax of the Century (so far) have always controlled The Times along with the world’s MSM . . .

            . . . a façade that is becoming more and more difficult when truth grenades are being tossed daily into their packs of lies . . .

    • Look they are a communist rag. They have been for almost a century. Google Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews. That “newspaper of record bovine dejecta is and always was bovine dejecta.

      • They cannot claim they did not know – I wrote the NYT a month ago, excerpted below:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/23/palm-oil-was-supposed-to-help-save-the-planet-instead-it-unleashed-a-catastrophe/#comment-2528985

        To The Editorial Board – NY Times

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html

        Congratulations on your article of 20Nov2018 on the environmental damage caused by the palm oil industry in SE Asia, as mentioned in my email to you of 26Oct2018.

        Excerpt from my email:
        “…clear-cutting of the rainforests in South America and Southeast Asia to grow biofuels. These actions caused huge environmental damage.”

        We wrote in our 2002 debate with the Pembina Institute, also excerpted from my email to you:
        “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

        We also concluded in the same debate:
        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

        Given a few more decades of diligent study, the Editorial Board of the NY Times should reach the same conclusions that we wrote in our 2002 debate – 16 years ago.

        You have been misled by scoundrels and imbeciles, and have done an enormous disservice to your country and the world through your support of hugely misguided policies on energy and the environment. It is long past time for you to make amends.

        Yours truly, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
        Calgary

        From: Allan MacRae
        Sent: October-26-18 8:02 PM
        To: ‘letters@nytimes.com’
        Subject: RE your nonsensical editorial: “In California, Facts and Science Still Matter”

        In California, Facts and Science Still Matter
        Jerry Brown’s California is moving toward carbon-free electricity as President Trump’s Washington beds down with the fossil fuel lobby. We stand with California.

        To The Editorial Board – Read this and learn about climate and energy – you are misguided on these subjects.

        [end of excerpt]

    • We could ask which planet they think that Trump is imperiling. Perhaps the planet where the climate models actually work?

  2. If you have been misled to believe CO2 is pollution, consider that he USA is the only sizable country with reduced emissions of CO2. As the only ‘performing’ nation of size, President Trump was more than justified in nullifying Obama’s gross wealth transfer scheme and withdrawing us from the Paris Accord.

  3. Yeah yeah yeah. How come New York Times readers aren’t seriously cutting back THEIR emissions?

    Al Gore: still flying, big heated swimming pool, not sure if he has multiple houses.

    Leo Dicaprio: still flying, renting big yachts,

    Obama, the eco-president, bought a nice BIG house.

    I’ll consider global warming when I see these boffos, and the New York Times staff, and the UN officials cut way way back.

    • And when the small African country Guinea sends far fewer than 407 persons to a COP conference, which is sponsored by Polish coal companies.

    • “Obama, the eco-president, bought a nice BIG house”

      Yeah, and I just heard this morning that Obama put up a nice ten-foot-tall fence around his nice, new house. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi considers Obama’s new wall around his house to be immoral? I wonder if Nancy Pelosi considers the wall that surrounds her house to be immoral. I’ll bet she thinks it is justified.

      • I think that was sarcasm, actually. If you follow the link, you will see the NASA BS followed by her point-by-point refutation.

    • You lost me at “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

      • The “climate system” is the UN political system, and yes, it is being warmed, recently by coal power in Poland.

    • He is saving the planet from the Climate Theologians. If we follow their doctrine, people will suffer greatly from energy poverty, due to the false assumption that CO2 is the thermostat for the planets warming and cooling. CO2 is rising, there shouldn’t be any new record low temps, snow should be a thing of the past (predicted in early 2000’s until changed in 2016), every year should be hotter than the previous, etc. etc. They got it wrong. Instead of doubling down, they should do real science and give the people real data and facts. Climate scientist give fortune tellers credibility.

    • You mean save the planet from the Carbon Cycle?

      I know those bozos over at the NYT think they’re made of teflon but that’s carrying this whole charade a step too far!

      • They’re Teflon? They haven’t strayed too far from the carbon cycle then.
        Polytetrafluoroethylene = PTFE = (C2F4)n. Lots of carbon there.

  4. The New York Times, as with other progressives, judges on intent only. As Trump clearly has no intent to save the environment at the expense of crashing the economy, he means evil. As Obama intended to save the world by reducing temperatures in 2100 by .03 degrees, and raise electric rates to those of Germany in the process, he meant well.

  5. The NYT should be campaigning about the rats and other vermin in the City and the State.
    Their own house is not in order.

  6. ‘For anyone who cares about the health of the planet.’

    I assume The New York Times editorial board would be SHOCKED to learn that the planet is as big ball of nickel/iron covered with dirt and some water.

    It is MINERAL. Minerals don’t have a ‘health.’

    ‘For anyone who cares about the health of the planet.’

    Singal dijet eye cue stupid. There might be things to be concerned about. So why did they pick – make up – ‘the health of the planet?’

    This is one of the most destructive aspects of Climate Change Inc. They divert attention from real environmental problems. I think it fair to say the environmental movement died 30 years ago, co-opted by the climety changy people.

    • In fact, the planet has outlived all life forms, individual as well as entire species, by over 4 billion years. It would be difficult to be more healthy than that.

  7. Guess the far-reaching and potentially devastating” is not going to be from Tornadoes. First year evarr without a F4 or F5 in US.

    • The 🧙‍♂️Popular Scientist Club🔮 would rather not discuss the tornado record for 2018. If you bring it up they will insist that the climate monster 🔥🧟‍♂️❄in the closet is about to find the doorknob and free himself. That capitalist💰 created invisible spectre ☠Carbon!☠ (not to be confused with Carbon Bigfoot😉)

  8. From the article: “To the NYTimes, it was “a year marked by President Trump’s destructive, retrograde policies, by backsliding among big nations, by fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs … of what a future of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions is likely to bring.”

    end excerpt

    Yes, CO2 is still going up, but the temperatures are going down. How does the New York Times explain that? I thought the speculation was that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter it would get, but apparently that is not the case.

    And did someone claim just recently in another thread that CAGW was just a figment of a skeptic’s imagination? Yes, they did.

    May I direct your attention to the “by ever more ominous signs” reference in the quote above. Is this not claiming catastrophe is coming our way because of CO2? I believe it is. Any climate study that projects dire consequences because of CO2 is CAGW.

  9. From the article: “Virtually no major countries are on track to meet their emissions goals, and even countries, like China, who are ostensibly on-track aren’t actually reducing their emissions. China’s Paris accord pledge involves increasing emissions through at least 2030.”

    end excerpt

    China being “on-track” is a farce since China did not agree to restrict its CO2 output until, as it says, “at least” the year 2030. Yes, China is on track to do exactly what it wants to do about CO2 with no restrictions, and as a result, they are producing more and more CO2 output. The New York Times thinks this deserves praise. Trump’s the bad guy.

  10. “Global greenhouse gas emissions are expected to hit record-highs in 2018,” That is not so. Greenhouse gas emission are dominated by H2O emissions so much so that CO2 emissions are insignificant. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR radiation than is CO2. In terms of the total radiant greenhouse effect, if you believe in that sort of thing, human caused CO2 emissions are insignificant.

  11. The New York Times piece is pure climate alarmist propaganda. As numerous articles here at WUWT have shown the worlds developing nations are increasing use of fossil fuels and ignoring high cost unreliable renewables to better their economies and peoples lives and well being.
    The U.S. is reducing CO2 emissions based on market driven energy costs employing lower cost fuels in place of coal.
    The Obama environmentally irrelevant and high cost coal plan is meaningless to global emissions growth by the fossil fuel energy increases of the developing nations.
    The Times opinion piece is pure climate alarmist propaganda garbage.

  12. NYT is known to conflate news and propaganda, politics and cult, logical domains including science and prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

  13. According to CAGW alarmists’ MAGICC computer model projections based on erroneous ECS assumptions, even if all signatories of the Paris Agreement fulfilled their CO2 cuts, global warming would only be reduced by .05C by 2030, and if these CO2 cuts were continued to 2100, global warming would be reduced by 0.17C at a cost of $122 TRILLION (IPCC 2018 estimate)… Oh the humanity….

    The NYT is a Leftist rag.

    • The Donald’s response: My emissions are yuge, trust me I have the yugest emissions of any president.

  14. I still wonder why no greens have expatriated to North Korea.

    Think of it, no cars, no money to buy gas, rationed food, heating is a luxury, every aspect of life is under total control.

    The green agenda in all of it’s splendor !

    • The greens envision themselves as being the commissars who run the system, not the serfs who have live under it. If Korea were to offer them such leadership positions, and the perks that go with them, many would move.

    • That or Venezuela. Put up or shut up, Gore, DiCaprio, et al! Live like you demand everyone ELSE live! We won’t miss you!

  15. Trump doesn’t imperil anything except the swamp and any enemies of the West. Here is the real actual maximum effect of CO2 on temperature.

    http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm

    Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.

    When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase 0f 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasonsother than clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
    A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating teperatures from fluxes in a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
    In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.

    So from the aove URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).

    So all we have to do is calculate Twet.

    Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.

    Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
    So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C?

    Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. You have to ask, why are the climate alarmists attacking America, when USA CO2 emissions have stabilized? Should they not be attacking the countries where emissions are rising fastest? Instead we see fake news put out to the effect that China is a ‘good guy’ in this fight against warming, when in fact they are the single worst offender.

    Perhaps the reason is that China is already a Communist country, a situation they’d like to see spread to America.

    • “why are the climate alarmists attacking America…”

      They’re not analyzing the global warming situation and deciding who deserves to be attacked. They’ve already decided who they’re going to attack. This is just what they’ve decided to attack with. This narrative seems to sort-of, maybe fit — at least well enough to satisfy those whose minds are receptive, and who thus won’t be analyzing whether or not it makes sense.

    • “Perhaps the reason is that China is already a Communist country, a situation they’d like to see spread to America.”

      I think that has a lot to do with it. Plus, they are afraid of the Chinese and keep their mouths shut when it comes to criticizing China.

      I think the radical Democrats actually do want to create an authoritarian style of government similar to China’s where there is a small, rich elite, themselves, that controls everything, and the peons, us, do what they are told, or else.

      We were/are well on our way to such an authoritarian-style government what with Obama and Hillary Clinton weaponizing the institutions of government in an ongoing effort to destroy the political opposition.

      Obama and Hillary wanted to rig it, using the power of the federal government, so only Demcrats could be elected president in the future. So they used the FBI and the Justice Department and the Intelligence agencies and the IRS and every other facet of government to enhance their political power and destroy their opposition. And it is ongoing now with the Mueller investigation, and will resume as soon as another amoral Radical Leftist Democrat assumes the presidency.

      So Trump, before he leaves Office, needs to declassify *all* the documents that the U.S. Congress has requested from the Executive Branch over the last ten years and this will shine a light on the sedition and treasonous activities carried out by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton, and once the American people see the truth, then maybe they can save themselves from this fate, and prevent themselves from being ruled over by a Chinese-like elite in the future.

      This is a fight for our survival as a free people. There are forces out there in the greater world and here at home who are actively trying to impose their will on us and not for our benefit, but for theirs. We need to be aware of it and we need to fight back.

      Free Speech is our weapon and our salvation.. It’s the first thing the Radical Left/Authoritarians will try to take away from us, because their lies can’t survive in a free speech environment. They need to control the message, otherwise their schemes to steal our freedoms and give power to themselves are exposed..

  17. … keep atmospheric temperatures from barreling past a point of no return.

    “barreling”? Really? — a degree or two is … “barreling”?

    … “new rules would help build a virtuous cycle of trust and cooperation among countries, …

    Should be “virtue-signalling cycle”.

    … fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs (devastating wildfires and floods, frightening scientific reports) …

    What about the fresh data showing that US CO2 emissions are still going down? What about the fresh data showing wildfires and floods are no more extreme than usual, and that those … “frightening scientific reports” are still misrepresenting this fact to scare people irresponsibly?

    That’s as far as I’ve made it through that scamatorial.

    • There is no data to support the claim of a “point of no return”, in the last 100K years, the world’s temperature has been as much as 5C warmer than it is today (with CO2 levels pretty much the same as pre-industrial levels) without hitting this mythical tippling point that they always worry about.

      • 7,000 ppm CO2 could’t cause a “runaway greenhouse effect,” but now we’re supposed to believe that 400 ppm CO2 is a “tipping point” to a runaway greenhouse effect. Need I say more about how imbecilic their arguments are?!

  18. Getting the world up to the temperature enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period, but still cooler than the Roman and Minoan Warm Periods and way cooler than the Holocene Optimum is going to threaten life on this planet.

    Really?

    • And we’re not even anywhere close to the MWP level anyway. When they’re farming in Greenland again where there is permafrost today, growing grapes in Scotland where they did back then but can’t now, and when the tree lines advance up the mountain slopes to where they were then, THEN we’ll have reached MWP warmth. Until then, it’s nothing but garbage “data” measuring UHI effects rather than actual changes to the temperatures.

  19. “If the atmosphere is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than most models estimate, which could very well be the case,”

    All of the actual, real world, science indicates that sensitivity is well less than that “estimated” by the models.

  20. “If the atmosphere is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than most models estimate, which could very well be the case”

    All of the science, using real world data, have found that the climate sensitivity is way below that estimated by the models.

  21. What actually imperils the planet are the efforts of the Leftist politicians, the UN and EU and others to use the
    co2-global warming meme to terrorize us into accepting a world socialist government, i.e., something truly frightening, a world wide Venezuela.

  22. “The NYTimes’ editorial, titled “Trump Imperils the Planet,” comes as the print edition published a 12-page special section on the “far-reaching and potentially devastating” consequences of Trump’s environmental policies.

    What the editorial board didn’t mention, though, is that taken together, the Obama administration’s Paris climate accord pledge would result in roughly 0.03 degrees Celsius of avoided warming by 2100, according to climate model projections.”

    Also unmentioned by the TDS NYT board of fakers; is that America is only responsible for 1/6th of emissions by countries.
    And that the USA is very successful at reducing CO₂ emissions solely through cleaner more efficient fuels and efficient conversion of those fuels to energy. Something that wind and solar are not!

  23. Logic, NY Times style- while arguing that electric cars are the future, the Times argues for not rescinding the vehicle emission standards due out well into the future.

  24. Here is the headline “Is there any Logic Left in the Left???”
    And the answer is “none to be found”. Just make hysterical illogical accusations, about future results of current policy. Then expect the public to be dumb enough to believe what you say, without any evidence to support your position.
    I openly question the IQ of anyone that pays for this, and thinks they are getting an informed “editorial opinion”. The evidence refutes their position, and it does not bother them one bit.
    They are acting like they have transitioned to “Kamikazi mode”. They know they are going down, and they want to take out those that ridiculed their shoddy methods, and biased coverage.

Comments are closed.