News Review by Kip Hansen – 4 March 2020
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’ misrepresentation: Tabuchi 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):
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”…..).
# # # # #
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.
That article instantly got under my skin, so, as is my habit, I commented on it. The first version, which was highly critical, did not make it but the second, toned down version did. To their credit, the NYT will publish critical comments most of the time, unlike some partisan organizations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/climate/goks-uncertainty-language-interior.html#commentsContainer&permid=105559261:105559261
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.
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.
The NYT’s old motto…”Democracy Dies in Darkness” was really their Main Strategy all along.
Who would admit they read the NYT? And believes what they report?
“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
Bill ==> A quote from the abstract of the paper linked….abstract talk, I think.
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.
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.
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.
“Where oh where is the NY Times’ Public Editor? ”
Where indeed? “Let’s call it Trumpvirus”, NYT 2/26/2020
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.
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.
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.
How much attention do you give the National Enquirer at el? The NY Times is no different, no matter what some think. One doesn’t develop tunnel vision from ignoring lies from such.
Hit the nail on the head.
Can’t resist beating a dead horse. Here is NYTs editorial person, Mara Gay, stating that because Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on his campaign, he could give $1,000,000 to every American. https://nypost.com/2020/03/06/brian-williams-mara-gay-make-absurd-math-flub-about-mike-bloombergs-wealth/
In addition to being dishonest, the NYTs is amazingly incompetent. Why financially support such an awful enterprise?
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.
# # # # #