Fact-checking the NY Times’ “Lies”

News Review by Kip Hansen – 4 March 2020

 

False

The NY Times has been at it again – this time printing bald-faced inaccuracies (some might call it lying….).

Hiroko Tabuchi, a climate reporter for The New York Times, penned “A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research” in the 2 March 2020 online version of the Times.   I have tried, but I have found it difficult to find anything true in the story.

Here is Tabuchi’s lede:

“An official at the Interior Department embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.

The misleading language appears in at least nine reports, including environmental studies and impact statements on major watersheds in the American West that could be used to justify allocating increasingly scarce water to farmers at the expense of wildlife conservation and fisheries.”

The official at the Department of the Interior referred to by Tabuchi is Indur M. Goklany, the nexus of Tabuchi’s bizarre climate-denial conspiracy theory, who has been a career policy analyst  at Interior for 40 years.  Not only is he a long-time Interior scientist, he:

“….represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  He was a rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990,  and is the author of Clearing the Air (1999), The Precautionary Principle (2001), and The Improving State of the World (2007).”

Indur Goklany was an IPCC insider – involved in the IPCC movement for 30 years.

[Personal Opinion:  My suspicion is that he knows a great deal more about climate and climate change than our budding NY Times’ climate desk report, Tabuchi, who graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Science  in 2000. ]

Tabuchi gives only a few hints as to what offense she (and her unnamed sources at Interior) believe Goklany has committed.  Here is her best shot:

“In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it “may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;” climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not.

 

You’d think that if such language was in nine different reports, Tabuchi and the Times would simply quote the offending language.  Note:  None of the above appears in any language attributed to Goklany in the article and none is quoted from any document into which such language was alledgedly inserted.

Tabuchi gives what appear to be quotes – but not from anything inserted  “into the agency’s scientific reports” –

“He also instructed department scientists to add that rising carbon dioxide — the main force driving global warming — is beneficial because it “may increase plant water use efficiency” and “lengthen the agricultural growing season.”

Both of the alleged “misrepresentations” happen to be True:

1.      Increased atmospheric CO2 does increase plant water use efficiency. This has been clear starting in 1985, here, in Nature in 2013, here,  in Crop Science, here.  Google Scholar returns 314,000 links for the search “Increased atmospheric CO2  increases plant water use efficiency”.

2.    Increasing atmospheric CO2 does lengthen the agricultural growing season. Google Scholar returns 18,100 links for the search “increased CO2 lengthens the agricultural growing season”.  Including these examples:  In Nature, “Elevated CO2 further lengthens growing season under warming conditions”.  In Global Change Biology, here, During the last three decades, the thermal potential growing season has lengthened by about 10.5 days (P < 0.01, 1982–2011), which is unprecedented in the context of the past 60 years. The overall lengthening has been stronger and more significant in Eurasia (12.6 days, P < 0.01) than North America (6.2 days, P > 0.05).

The NY Times’ characterization of these two plain and simple biological facts as “misrepresentations” is, to be blunt about it, a lie.  The Times’ Tabuchi makes the “misrepresentation” accusation because, she says “Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that, overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields.”

Let’s parse the NY Times’ misrepresentationTabuchi misepresents what, so far, she says Goklany asked to be inserted in reports.  She says he said “rising carbon dioxide …  is beneficial because it “may increase plant water use efficiency” and “lengthen the agricultural growing season.”   I have just shown that both of these points are mainstream, consensus climate science – backed by scores of studies in major peer-reviewed journals.  Tabuchi changes the subject and makes accusations based on  (unscientific) consensus opinions about possible effects of  future climate change.

Now, up to this point, Tabuchi, writing for the Times, has not quoted a single word from Goklany that has been “inserted …. into the agency’s scientific reports.”

Far down in the Times’ article, after a stream of innuendo and guilt-by-association ad hominem attacks, Tabuchi finally gives us a real quote – in fact an image (probably a mock up, not an actual scan or photo of part of a document –  it is not labeled as to its documentary source):

gok_uncertainty_800

(link to larger image)

What Goklany actually asked to be inserted:

a.      “Future conditions at any particular time or place cannot be known exactly given the current scientific understanding of potential future conditions.”

b.      “Likewise, it is important to recognize that the risks and impacts are the result of collective changes at a given location.”

c.       “Warming and increased carbon dioxide may increase plant water use efficiency, lengthen the agricultural growing season, but may also have adverse effects on snowpack and water availability.”

d.      “These complex interactions underscore the importance of using a planning approach that identifies future risks to water resources systems based on a range of plausible future conditions, …. ”

e.      “…and working with stakeholders to evaluate options that minimize potential impacts in ways most suitable for all stakeholders involved.”

Each of these points are true, valid and certainly part of any sensible policy approach to problems that confront the Department of the Interior.

To call them “misrepresentations” is untrue, false, not correct, contrary to fact.  We cannot know the future with any certainty, and climate science (in its current state of knowledge and capabilities) cannot predict local or even regional conditions out beyond a year or so – any attempt to deny the truth of Point “a” above is un-scientific.  Point “b” is true on its face and requires no  defense – but even die-hard Goklany detractors would have to admit it is at least one of a number of  valid policy opinions.  Point “c” contains several scientific points supported by consensus climate science.  Point “d” is a mainstream plank of IPCC-type climate science.  Finally, Point “e” is the purpose of policy planning by all government agencies – working out the best policy that gives the best results for all stakeholders involved – government for the people.

 

Bottom Line:

 NY Times’ Claim:  “A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research

 FALSE – there was/is no climate denial embedded in any scientific research.

 NY Times’ Claim:  “An official at the Interior Department embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change…”

FALSE – there was no “misleading” language inserted in any agency scientific report – everything in the “Gok’s uncertainty language” is true and/or sensible policy. 

NY Times’ Claim: “The wording, known internally as the “Goks uncertainty language” based on Mr. Goklany’s nickname, inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming.”

FALSE —  “Gok’s uncertainty language” (as printed in the Times) says nothing whatever about a lack of consensus about warming. Nothing in the Times’ article attributed to Goklany says anything whatever about consensus on warming.  

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Where oh where is the NY Times’ Public Editor?  She would have torn this piece of Junk Journalism to pieces and held the Climate Desk chief’s feet to the fire.

(If you don’t remember, the Times fired their Public Editor when it decided to give up journalism in favor of  political pandering and propaganda.)

Even after some 150 essays here at WUWT, many which have been  attempts to correct false information published in the NY Times, I am still appalled at the lack of basic high-school level journalistic values in the Times’ newsrooms.  Pathetic.

My 15-year-old granddaughter would have done a better job on this story (and she wouldn’t have left out the possessive apostrophe in “Gok’s uncertainty language”…..).

# # # # #

118 thoughts on “Fact-checking the NY Times’ “Lies”

  1. As always, thank you very much Mr. Hansen.

    You have the patience, education and intelligence to produce this painstakingly thorough rebuttal and condemnation. After so many decades of propaganda and flat-out lying by the soi-dissant “unbiased,” “non-partisan” hypocrites at the N.Y. Times, Auntie Beeb, NPR, the WaPo, PBS, et al, I have gotten to the point where I automatically don’t believe a word from them on the subject of climate.

    • Given how extreme and pervasive the politically biased lies about climate science are, how can you believe anything these wacko fake news organizations report, especially when partisan politics has taken opposing sides of a controversy?

      On a side note, I’m now an official climate policy refugee who has fled California to live in Nevada. It’s so much better here, the Internet is faster and I’m a lot closer to skiing …

      • Few people realize that everything green you see around us – meadows, forests, fields, orchards, gardens, flowers – only grows from carbon dioxide in the air.

        • They also fail to understand every carbon atom in their body, was once attached to two oxygen atoms, which is known as CO2. Without CO2 we would not exist.

        • Not only everything green, but every carbon atom in our bodies, and there are a lot of them, started as a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. Somehow, people have no idea any more of the importance of some very basic chemistry that enables nearly all life on Earth to exist.

        • Regarding clear thinking, politics, epistemology, and the mass of a tree: this is a strikingly astute blog post entry by a psychiatrist who was actively posting, a decade ago, about the nonsense of psychiatry. Using Tree Mass as an illustration…
          “Where dos a tree get its mass?”

          [Following his lead of claiming to the the “Last Psychiatrist,” I decided to be “The Last Democrat,” before I heard of “The Last Refuge.”]

          https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/11/where_does_a_tree_get_its_mass.html

    • John ==> I have written to the Department of the Interior Press relations office and asked them if they did in fact produce the image attributed to them in the article.

      Personally, I think the NY Times mocked up the image and attributed it to Interior.

      • Great job Kip, but can you get TNYT to withdraw the article and kick the writers butt?
        I said writer because there was obviously no journalism in her prose!!

    • Unfortunately, this thoughtful and intelligent analysis will be drowned by about a thousand more garbage articles and “scientific” studies which will be released in the next few days, not to mention the emotional whirlwind of Greta’s exhortations or fake images of polar bears or penguins. The solution is to cut funding to climate science and to universities generally. Much is made of the outrageous cost of university. It is really the horrible quality and brainwashing that is the problem. Thousands spent for nonsesne.

      • John ==> Actually, this web site still has more regular readership than all of the other “Climate Team” sites, by far.

        I am astonished by the quality of the readership, when A Team scientists from various fields contact me to add to my research on topics I write about.

    • I’ve been reading NY Times, et al. (and a sample of ‘conservative’ sources) for years and I don’t recall any claims they are “unbiased” or “non-partisan” (scare quotes are yours) on any.

      In fact, the only source that uses (add “regularly” to that) claims of being unbiased that I know of is FoxNews.

      Automatically not believing ANY source is your loss, which you will find out someday when a tornado hits your trailer or a flood wipes our your bass boat.

      cheers!

      • When it comes to the Leftwing Media, you should assume they are lying or distorting the truth, until proven otherwise.

      • chris-
        Are you kidding me? You oughta hear my local PBS radio station and their continuous sanctimonious claims of “unbiased, objective reporting.”

        On NPR, you’ve got David Folkenflik and Nancy Barnes and the whole gang swaddling themselves in appending the editorial phrase”without evidence” to statements emanating from the President and the Administration.

        Hell, all these news sources are signatories and participants in an UNDISCLOSED orchestrated and concerted climate propaganda effort:

        https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/covering-climate-now-170-outlets.php
        (Columbia Journalism Review)

        It’s the most amazing and astonishing thing I’ve ever witnessed. It is an outright, brazen, formal effort by the media to bend the news (in direct violation of every tenet of journalistic ethics).

      • Fox regularly states that they are unbiased?
        Is that how you interpret fair and balanced?
        Questioning sources is what people of meaning intelligence would do. It’s called scepticism. It’s actually healthy.

      • “tornado hits your trailer or a flood wipes our your bass boat”

        Don’t you just love the way leftists look down their noses at anyone who doesn’t look or think like them.

        I’m willing to bet that if asked, chris will go to great lengths to tell how kind and compassionate he is. He may even believe it.

      • So many red herring logical fallacies in one short comment.

        “chris March 4, 2020 at 12:43 pm
        I’ve been reading NY Times, et al. (and a sample of ‘conservative’ sources) for years and I don’t recall any claims they are “unbiased” or “non-partisan” (scare quotes are yours) on any.”

        A) Claims that they ‘read’ NYT and a sample of “conservative sources”; which is an implication they read all and know all…

        B) Claim for perfect Eidetic memory

        C) Specious claim that “Chris’s” failure to “recall any claims they are unbiased or non-partisan” directly refutes Kip’s excellent article or anything in Kip’s article.
        i) Inference that Chris’s memory and unresearched personal opinions override Kip’s research and quotations.

        A perverse display of egocentric narcissism and condescension pushing imagined superiority and personal beliefs.

        “chris March 4, 2020 at 12:43 pm

        In fact, the only source that uses (add “regularly” to that) claims of being unbiased that I know of is FoxNews.”

        D) Another claim for perfect memory allowing Chris to make absolute declarations…

        “chris March 4, 2020 at 12:43 pm

        Automatically not believing ANY source is your loss, which you will find out someday when a tornado hits your trailer or a flood wipes our your bass boat.”

        E) Another red herring absolute declaration by Chris that is ‘absolutely false’.

        Nowhere does Kip state or suggest belief or believing or disbelieving “sources”. A complete fabrication by Chris.
        Allowing Chris to include his personal fantasies about a tornado or “flood wipes our{sic} your bass boat”. Do you get a lot of tornado or flood warnings from the NYTs, Chris?

        “Flood” wipes out a boat… Yeah, right.

        As Kips amply documents, NYT’s specious sophistry is written without facts; without truth; rejects reality; and is based entirely upon falsehoods and logical fallacies.

    • Or any other subject, either, for that matter! I find it hard to believe that the NYT is still in business!

    • BBC is worse : yesterday they ran with ” Australian bushfires made 30 % by climate change”, say climate scientists.

      You would think and hope they would mention the inconvenient fact that : less land was burned than normal this year in Australia, it was just in a different place.

      It renders the report nonsensical . Shamefully the BBC is no longer a trusted source for news, the Environment Editor is out of control.

    • The Times used to be proud to have its motto at the top of the front page: “All the news that’s fit to print.” Now, they can’t even modify that to read, “All the news that fits we print.” Lies are NOT news.

      The Times should be held accountable. Freedom of the Press does not include the right to defraud readers. When they do lie (and I’m not talking about simple errors), the Attorney General should file charges for fraud.

      And, especially during a Presidential election season, their lies amount to election tampering for which the Federal Election Commission should be investigating. At the least, the article should carry the reader warning that it doesn’t contain news but just an unpaid election advertisement.

    • Mr. Hanson subscribes to the New York Times, it seems, for the sole purpose of writing articles for this blog, telling us how bad the newspaper is. Hanson tells us the newspaper is inaccurate, yet he pays them, to help them stay in business. That’s not how capitalism is supposed to work — consumers are not supposed to reward people who produce bad products. Fortunately we will only have 11 more years to listen to Hanson ranting and raving about the New York Times, according to Perfesser Greta “thundering” Thunberg, a world famous climate change expert, and student of Al “the climate blimp” Gore.

  2. “to justify allocating increasingly scarce water to farmers at the expense of wildlife conservation and fisheries”

    you mean wildlife comes before farmers?

    • chaamjamal ==> This refers to a recent Federal government decisions to allow California’s Central Valley agriculture a larger share of the water that has been, up till now, been mandated to flow down the Sacramento River into San Francisco Bay to protect a 4 inch fish — the Delta Smelt.

    • Look to California for prime examples of diverting water from agriculture to saving “endangered species”. Many examples to chose from here.

      • Ah the Smelt! A brackish fish that does not object to salt water incrusion during low river flow. So what endangered the Smelt?

        The state government, “here to help” imported game fish, which, to the Smelt became a life and death game, and the Smelt lost. So, here to help some more, the government brought in Asian Smelt. They helped by eating most of the remaining Smelt. So, here to help some more, the government cut off water to farms, and drained reservoirs.

    • These signs were on the highways when I was a kid,

      “Each farmer feed 127 people and YOU!”

      So to re-frame your interrogatory,

      You mean wildlife comes before people?

      • That’s an interesting sign which ought to be reintroduced. With a littlle modification.

        Each farmer feeds 127 people and YOU!
        How many people does a climate scientist feed?

    • To be accurate … our reservoirs need to be dumped during times of drought to ensure salt water intrusion into the Delta doesn’t push the Delta Smelt a mile further up river. That might alter the “normal” range of feeding for the Striped Bass hence “destroying” the commercial striped bass fisheries (who wants to live in a world with less striped bass on the table?).

      Yes. Delta Smelt over Almond trees (which take far too much water for a civilized society). We all can live without more Almond milk … but not without striped bass. Thankfully, striped bass have advocates in the Federal Judiciary. Striped bass have teams of environmental lawyers filing briefs. Meanwhile, Almond milk growers only have a few crazed anti-dairy protestors rushing the stage at Joe Biden victory speeches.

      /sarc. … or is it?

      • Striped bass have a lot of methyl mercury in them, which is probably driven off when cooked. However, almonds don’t have any methyl mercury.

      • To be REALLY accurate California mandates water releases well in excess of what is needed to prevent saltwater intrusion into the Delta. 51% of all water in the state goes to ENVIROMENTAL USES! Commercial fishing of striped bass was outlawed in 1939 only game fishing is allowed of this nonnative species that is implicated along with largemouth bass in substantial predation of the native & threatened salmon. Some studies show they consume up to 97% of juveniles.

        Almonds are a high value crop that offers most farmers 2-3 times the return while using LESS water than their other marketable crops in parts of the state’s central valley. Per the latest available state report (2)017 almonds rank #3 behind dairy and grapes with just over $5 billion in farm receipts out of $59 billion produced across all commodities. – Almonds were grown on only 1.2 million of the state’s 25.3 million crop bearing acres.

  3. Good reporting, Kip. Not only the NY Times and Washington Post, but the majority of media, tailor their news to idiots with short attention spans but strong feelings that Trump is the most dangerous man in United States History (quote from San Fran Nan). The impartial satellites show a greening earth, how do they explain that inconvinient truth?

    • bernie1815 ==> Not at this time. There is no longer anyway to contact Times reporters directly — they used to provided email addresses, but now only, in some cases, give Twitter links. The Times got rid of their Public Editor, who would have handled issues such as this.

      I have written to the Press relations office at the department of the Interior asking them to verify or deny producing the image attributed to them in the NY Times article.

  4. Noam Chomsky wrote a couple of books The Political Economy of Human Rights volumes 1 & 2. He pointed out, in excruciating detail lies printed in the mainstream press and particularly the New York Times. His sources for facts were mostly the foreign press, The Times of London, The Globe and Mail, etc.

    When confronted with its lies, the editor of the New York Times didn’t even deny that they were lies or defend them in any way. He also didn’t print corrections.

    Chomsky himself has huge flaws, and he is probably a lying liar and a hypocrite, but he is also a first rate scholar. I found his documentation of mainstream media lies, and its refusal to own up to those lies, to be convincing.

  5. I like the Author’s final comment, “Where, oh where, is the NY Times editor”. The 4th estate used to follow self-imposed ethical rules for everything they published – such as fairness, accuracy and balance. The task of journalists used to be just reporting critically and without fear and favour on news events, political trends and social changes. Not so now. Now they think that, by fair means or foul, they must educate the public in the right and politically correct ways of thinking and behaving. They think that is their raison d’etre

    Sorry, Kip Hansen – old-fashioned editors no longer exist.

    • Andy Espersen ==> I fear you are right — editors with strict journalistic ethics are missing from the majority of the major media outlets in today’s world.

    • Andy,
      The problem is, “journalists” today believe that their job is to improve/save the world, not just report on what is happening. If one just reports the news, they reason, one can’t be certain that this will make the world a better place since it’s not possible to predict what people will do with that news. They may make the “wrong” decisions, so instead of journalism, they have decided to be advocates for whatever movement they think is the “right” way. This change has happened slowly over the last 50 years, so the general public didn’t notice. Edward R. Murrow would cry if he could see what has happened to the vocation that he so cherished.

      • I think that is being unfairly kind to them.
        Most journalist on Guardian and NYT especially on the environment : do not care about making the world a better place.

        You don’t distort the truth in such a relentless fashion for altruist reasons.

        They are just being tribal. Deaths from weather and natural disasters are at a record low , you would think this would make them think about the alarmism they promote.

    • Except in the hard sciences, college students are told the purpose for their education is ‘to change the world.’ i.e. making little socialist soldiers.

  6. Kip, your “15-year-old granddaughter would have done a better job on this story” because she would deploy a professional ethic, which Hiroko Tabuchi does not.

    I’d expect your granddaughter would feel compelled to be faithful to the facts and to investigate where she is unsure. Hiroko Tabuchi apparently does neither, but merely and opportunistically invents an outrage where none exists.

    Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose (2018) wrote about Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship in on-line Areo Magazine.

    In The NY Times and Hiroko Tabuchi we have Reportorial Grievance Mongering and the Corruption of Journalistic Ethics.

    • Pat ==> My granddaughter would not have called true statements misrepresentations. She would have investigated the seeming disagreement between what appear to be contrary facts — and tried to make the issue clear to the readers.

  7. Brilliant analysis. I challenged the WaPo when their fact check published ten reasons to disbelieve Trump. One was that the Paris Accords could give rise to a $100 billion annual payment by the West to the third world, as compensation for the ill effects of climate change. WaPo said it was $10 billion.

    It takes 30 seconds to prove I was right. WaPo referred me to the authors, who did not bother to reply – let alone apologise…

    Note, the NYTimes is ultimately run by my old boss from the BBC, the ex-Director General, Mark Thompson. He seems to feel at home there…

      • Nice point, but who says “unchallenged”? I think many things this government is planning are questionable, and I would hope they will listen to wiser counsels, maybe even comments from me!

        • I say unchallenged because he generally is. Just today in Prime Ministers Questions he confirmed that he is committed to “the cause” . I didn’t see you stand up and ask if it is wise to base policy on an unproved theory. Or are you, like most politicians, in favour of taxing air?

          • Sorry, I think you are confusing me with an MP. I don’t get the chance to stand up in the House and contradict the PM. I did see my MP last Saturday morning to point out some of the problems with HMG’s policies. Not sure how much effect that might have…On the other hand, I have stood up in the County Council and expressed views that one opposition councillor charaterised as Neanderthal. I suppose that’s a start…

          • Apologies, I assumed from your title of “Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure” that you were a member of THE cabinet.

          • No problem. Apology accepted. At Worcestershire County Council, we think we are pretty important, but not THAT important…Influence is something else, and we can try that!

  8. I know this guy as I just read a paper of hic. I suggest he is targetted by the climate science Inqusition because he writes old fashioned science you have to be able to prove by observation, rather than by the self styled experts agreeing with each other religious/political science model.

    He has done a piece on this subject, in which he is expert, for the GWPF, a supporter of real climate science and a proportional approach to whatever response is actually possible, if any.

    Goklany is also a member of the GWPF Academic Advisory Board. So a threat to the climate change as existential end of days threat we must pay to avoid with no actual threat to measure protection racket. A clear target for the one true cause of climate change Zombies. This is a good read. Foreword by the late Freeman Dyson, who was also a founding member of GWPF and on the Academic Advisory Board. I endorse this message.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

    • Brian

      Thank you, it is a good read, (a 64 page PDF).

      Professor Dyson’s 2 page Foreword is superb.

      Jack

  9. CBS’s 60 minutes Sunday had a piece on hurricane Dorian and the Bahama’s. They interviewed the PM who wants developed nations to ante up to pay for the damage. Because they are responsible for man made climate change and the hurricane. The reporter did not challenge this assertion.

    • MIKE MCHENRY ==> Hurricane Dorian smashed the shanty-towns on Abaco and Grand Bahama last September. Dorian was a Cat 5 Hurricane when it hit Marsh Harbour, Abaco. It was bad bad bad. Death toll is unknown, but believed to be at least 350 — many of them undocumented Haitians living in the shanty-towns of Marsh Harbour, the Mudd, and Pigeon Peas.

      Hurricanes are not caused by CO2 or “global warming” — and the Bahamas have been swept by hurricanes all through recorded history.

      My son sailed to Grand Bahama in January this year, and visited Freeport. He did not see extensive damage there.

      • Fully agree. Air doesn’t have enough heat to effect sea surface temperatures significantly. Besides the shanty’s it looks like some millionaires homes got wiped out. I question whether modern life style makes any sense on these islands in hurricane alley. Certainly wood frame residences don’t.

  10. How does Miss Tabuchi imagine that an observation of nature, ie a scientific fact, can be “debunked”?

    I read this drivel without summoning the energy to reply. Thanks for a job well done, Kip!

    • John ==> The NY Times did not like its Public Editor pointing out, in print, that calling a sitting President of the United States a “liar” because the journalist (or newspaper owner) disagreed with him was not journalism. So they fired her and eliminated the position altogether.

  11. Lies or not, the basic principles of propaganda based on human psychology shows that if repeated enough it forms its own truth in the minds of susceptible readers and viewers.

    NYT is the principle propaganda outlet for the Democrats, the Green Slime, and their very deep pocketed climate propaganda campaign. As such it signals to other media outlets what is current climate propo message to run with…. without the trail of internal emails or communications that can be hacked, released, of otherwise exposed.

  12. Worse is if you go to the wiki link for Indur M. Goklany the BS in this article has already been incorporated into the wiki page!

    • Randy ==> Edited it out — that’s William Connolley and his cohort Kim Petersen smearing yet another climate contrarian.

  13. Off Topic (but necessary): The amount of carbon black that China is sending into the atmosphere to land on and mix with arctic winter 2019-2020 snow and ice is probably lower than any time since the 1980s. I think there should be a substantial impact on albedo-related melting, and the scientific community should be watching closely.

  14. {QUOTE FROM TABUCHI] “In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it ‘may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;’ climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately.”

    This is another Tabuchi falsehood, which Kip Hansen did not address in his article. Here at WUWT we have seen numerous graphs showing the temperature rise predicted by various climate models running far ahead of observed temperature rise, with some models predicting more than double the observed temperature rise rate.

    So Goklany stating that “climate science [i.e. computer models] may be overestimating the rate of global warming” is factually correct, and Tabuchi’s claim that “climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately” is clearly false.

    A model designed to predict the future is worthless if it can’t predict the past.

    • Steve Z ==> Tabuchi, honestly, seems confused in this article. She conflates issues important to the department of the Interior with issues important to the Department of Agriculture. She confuses truths about the present with fears for the future. She fails to list any report titles allegedly polluted with “climate denial”. She fails to supply a single quote from any Interior study.

      I think that the “quote image” has been faked and attributed improperly to the Department of the Interior. This is only a suspicion, but I have queried Interior about it.

      • Among the many errors of fact and logic, there is also an issue of conflating ‘largely predicted’ and ‘accurately’.

        ‘Largely’ infers that there is some unquantified error. ‘Accurately’ does not.

        Interestingly, there was an interview this morning on TV with a 110 year old Australian who offered the advice not to believe anything you have been told unless you check your own sources. Tabuchi could learn a lot from this man.

  15. Tons of free money are at the stake of the new imposed by the politburo economy. Therefore the propaganda goes full bore.

    Even Dacia (Romania modern day equivalent of Hugo) owned by Renault starts to market EV’s.

    Which of course no one would buy in a free market society since those opting for the brand are already on tight budgets and it would be nonsensical to pay more for even less in this context.

    However things are suddenly different if there’s no alternative option.

    • OK S. ==> Great, thanks — the “uncertainty language” does appear in this July 2019 document.

      It is not the only such language in the document. There is an entire section on Uncertainty, which I recommend to readers. It is fairly straight-forward and accurate — and far more realistically skeptical than “Gok’s” language.

  16. Well, well, well… When the Canadian Oil & Gas industry promotes itself on Facebook, the CBC finds a way to denounce it:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coastal-gas-link-rail-blockades-facebook-1.5484039

    These groups, some of which position themselves as grassroots movements, have spent an estimated $110,000 since the start of the year on Facebook advertising — either to promote the Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline at the heart of the protests or to oppose the rail blockades as illegal. A CBC News analysis found these ads were shown to Facebook users about 20 million times.

    They even provide a figure with who pays what amount, entitled “the blockade battle on Facebook” in which two small pro-blockade spenders are identified, drowned into an apparent sea of pro oil lobbying… This presentation is of course misleading since the backers of those protesters spent their $ well before the protest started and thus given the publicity networks like the CBC provide them with, these groups do not need to spend a dime in marketing.

    So when tens of million $ are spent by US green foundations to attack Canadian oil & gas industry, it is all OK, but when the industry spends $110,000 in ads to defend its projects in time of crisis created by the very activist in the pay of those US foundations, the taxpayers’ funded CBC writes a patsy article to denounce the Canadian industry! The best is that ads are clearly labelled “sponsored by….” which is the complete opposite of what Vivian Krause has been exposing from the Tides and Rockefeller Brothers, that are hiding their support Canadian groups, the Pembina Institute, the Sierra Club etc… The master of astroturf are the fake climate grassroot association that have been springing all over.

    Meanwhile Greenpeace is hiring a Head of Climate, based in Canada, $70,039 CAD salary, to “provide leadership in the development and implementation of our campaigns to fight climate change and scandalize the fossil fuel industry in Canada”
    https://twitter.com/WBrettWilson/status/1235086292364316676/photo/1
    https://twitter.com/FairQuestions/status/1227464610564972545/photo/1

    Funnily enough the CBC fact checkers Roberto Rocha, Jeff Yates and Andrea Bellemare never seem to find these kind of job offers…

    • And the gift that keeps giving on CBC: today comes an Op ed from some Montrealer, self appointed historian, so called independent journalist named Taylor C. Noakes, whose complete background and allegiance is a mystery, modestly advising Canadian levels of government to “end fossil fuel subsidies” because of the climate crisis, that no doubt his vast knowledge and expertise has evaluated as “severe”.
      https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-oil-industry-subsidies-1.5476030
      Who the heck is Taylor C. Noakes? What is his background in order to make his opinion publishable by the CBC? His links to the National Observer? Who is imposing this guy?

  17. It is all to obvious from this NY Times piece that the left is out to disparage and attempt to vilify anyone in public office who, by their Greenie standards, is not up to the mark on matters of ‘Climate Change’ and has the temerity to voice comments against their notions of it.
    Next, no doubt they will be searching for, then hyping up, some unrelated private matters to try and get Indur M. Goklany removed from office. Such are the ways of Demoncrat politics and the compliant MSM.

    On another matter, I’m glad to see that Hiroko Tabuchi has stopped beating small children.

  18. Kip does an outstanding job of exposing the reckless stupidity and outright lying of these so called “environmental journalists” When you check their credentials most are from the liberal arts world. They continue to feed this irresponsibleinaccurate popular narrative on Global Warming. When examining their ideas you realize that:

    They have no idea what the scientific method is
    Bad scientists never get the correct results
    Scientists become intellectually and cognitively committed to a bad hypothesis.
    Global warming alarmists have a culture of pseudoscience
    Journalists are the gatekeeper of these false “scientific consensus hypothesis “

    • Tom ==> Hiroko Tabuchi does a very poor job on this story — supplies no solid evidence — no quotes — no study titles — and uses “phrases” snipped from unattributed undocumented anonymous emails that show Goklany to be a climate realist….

    • re “ Bad scientists never get the correct results“: I think that is only half right. My understanding is that getting an incorrect result is bad science; getting a correct result for the wrong reasn is bad science.

  19. Terrific work, Kip Hansen. Please keep at it. This was on my list to look into, as I have friends who took this NY Times report uncritically. The 2020 election season is going to escalate the nastiness.

    • David ==> “Gok’s uncertainty language” is contained in this Interior report :

      (h/t ==> OK S.)

      Read the report and see that there is a whole section on uncertainty, and the language used in the rest of the section should be far more upsetting to the Climate Alarmism crowd. Gok’s little paragraph is mild compared to rest of the section.

  20. Thanks for your hard work, Kip.

    The New York Times caught making incorrect claims about climate issues, again. Yikes, the NY Times may have sensationalized more environmental news.

    Intellectually speaking, this recent example of “the science is settled” attempts to appear to be balanced is NY Times, one-eyed as usual. From the Big Green Machine to the Loud Green Media, these kind of pieces make the global future sound certain and horrifying.

    When the Times is reporting on climate, it should have two major disclaimers: “If and only if” the science is settled; and, Our reporters may not have all the facts.

    P.S. Anyone who thinks that they can see the future with certainty has a bright future reporting doom and gloom for the BBC, The Guardian, NBC, Huffington Post, ABC, Wash Post, Newsweek Magazine, LA Times, CNN, Time Magazine, The Atlantic, or of course the NY Times.

  21. I take it on faith, as a libertarian-leaning conservative and staunch Republican voter, that the NY Times is intentionally lying to me in every article about politics, environment, religion, culture.

    The crossword puzzle is excellent, though. Thank you, Will Shorts.

  22. The NYT’s old motto…”Democracy Dies in Darkness” was really their Main Strategy all along.

  23. “During the last three decades, the thermal potential growing season has lengthened by about 10.5 days (P < 0.01, 1982–2011), which is unprecedented in the context of the past 60 years."

    WUT? a 30 year period is 'unprecedented' in terms of a 60 period? Words fail

  24. Didn’t the Times win a Pulitzer for their Russian collllluuuusion story?

    I am still waiting for someone to go to jail for thar travesty, so Trump doesn’t feel emboldened to turn around, hire his own FBI stooge and do the same thing to the next Presidential candidate.

    How anyone believes anything from the Times is beyond me.

  25. Having seen a ton of pro AGW AGW through Yahoo and attributed to sources such as GQ, Esquire, and other fashion magazines/sites, I suspect articles are written independently then sold or sponsored on sites where they are displayed as original content.
    This sponsorship probably prevents the need or use of such editors.

  26. Kip,

    Oh how I detest what has happened to the NYTimes. I canceled my subscription years ago but I can’t resist reading your excellent critiques/takedowns. Unfortunately after reading this I will need to double up on my blood pressure meds for a few days.

  27. “Where oh where is the NY Times’ Public Editor? ”

    Where indeed? “Let’s call it Trumpvirus”, NYT 2/26/2020

  28. Kip,

    I hope you have cancelled your old subscription to the NYTs. It is not worthy of receiving money for its product. Very good work on your part.

    JD

    • JD ==> I have not cancelled my subscription to the NY Times, nor do I intend to do so.

      In order to maintain the necessary broad perspective on the world, it is required reading as the world’s leading Newspapers of Record. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record ]

      Reading only sources one already agrees with is like wearing intellectual blinders — and one ends up like the Climate Team — blind to any other viewpoint — foolishly stuck in ignorance.

      • Examples of the NYTs lies and inaccuracies are far too plentiful to list in detail here. In addition to your article, as an example of the propaganda institution that the NYTs has become, the NYTs coverage of Michael Brown’s death has been shamefully dishonest.

        On March 4, 2015, the Obama Justice Dept. issued a report showing that it was 100% clear that the police officer who shot Brown was 100% innocent of any wrongdoing and couldn’t possibly be legitimately accused of murder. For instance, Brown’s DNA was on the officer’s gun and thigh. All credible witnesses (those whose testimony was consistent with the direction that the bullets entered Brown’s body), including many minority witnesses, testified that Brown attacked the officer. See wiki article on Michael Brown shooting that is substantially based on Justice Dept Report. (I believe if I have more than one link, it may delay publication of this comment, so I am not publishing link)

        TWO YEARS LATER the NYTs published an article stating that there were questions as to whether Brown had been murdered by the police officer. It stated:

        “Regardless of what happened at the store in the early-morning hours, the new security footage does not resolve long-simmering questions about Mr. Brown’s encounter with Officer Darren Wilson along a Ferguson street that day. Officer Wilson, who claimed that he feared for his life and had been assaulted by Mr. Brown, was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a county grand jury and federal civil rights investigators. He resigned from the Police Department.

        Mr. Brown’s death and the sometimes violent protests that followed raised broad questions about how police officers treat black people, both in the St. Louis area and across the country, and many remain steadfast in their belief that Mr. Brown was murdered.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/michael-brown-ferguson-police-shooting-video.html

        No half-way honest institution could produce such garbage. Whether uninformed people consider the NYTs to be a paper of record is of no concern to me. Its record clearly demonstrates the opposite. I would also add that its recent 1619 project is also shot through with inaccuracies. Doesn’t matter to those at the NYTs so long as, in their mind, they can advance their political narrative.

        Personally, I don’t give money to institutions that have lying in their DNA. There are many other places or free sites where you can get different views, which I agree is important.

  29. The NYT author has a twitter account. I commented on the tweet she sent with this article with a link to Kip’s post.

    • DRH ==> Thank you. I do not personally use Twitty or other “social media” for a whole raft of reasons — but if you can discover an email address for Tabuchi, I would like to communicate privately with her.

  30. This post is kind of obvious — the corrupt media is, wait for it, corrupt. Save time by assuming anything from is a lie unless proven otherwise. Or, simply ignore it like any other tabloid.

    • beng135 ==> One ignores contrary opinions at the expense of developing tunnel vision.

      Pretending that there are not forces afoot intentionally misleading the public is just sticking one’s head in the sand.

      Not everyone is called to defend the truth — but some of us feel it as a personal calling.

  31. Epilogue:

    The Tabuchi piece is so poorly and incompletely done, that I am beginning to suspect that she was fed the story by activists — complete with quips from emails and partial documents. I also suspect that the Times’ art department created the “image” used in the article which is presented with “credit” to “Department of the Interior”.

    I am trying to confirm from the press office at Interior that they (the Department) did not supply any such image — which means that the Times faked the image.

    Anyone with any information about this issue , such as employees of the Department of the Interior, who would like to help expose this malfeasance can, please, email me at my first name at the domain i4.net. Thanks.

    And, Thank You for Reading.

    # # # # #

Comments are closed.