FACT-CHECKING THE NEW YORK TIMES

By Rick Jensen

The New York Times editorial board recently published, “5 Climate Truths Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand.”

While there are likely many climate truths the president doesn’t understand, the editors have now indelibly etched into the internet the fact that they, like Trump, do not understand “climate truths.”

Let’s begin by ransacking words from The Bard: “I come not to praise the president but to bury the notion that the Times’ editors have a clue.”

Times point #1:”Trump cannot save coal.He only says he can.”

James Bennet’s crew laments the EPA decision to revoke “Barack Obama’s commitment under the Paris climate agreement to cut United States greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.” They also grieve for allowing coal fired power plants to be at the ready in times of need.

Neither of these has anything to do with a “climate truth.”They are simply policies which would be more accurately described as “energy truths” or “policy change truths.”

A real “climate truth” in this vein would be to opine upon the genuine debate among scientists as to whether CO2 causes climate change or is a result of climate change most likely caused by the sun.

Reading the Times regularly, one may believe 97 percent of scientists claim man is causing global warming. That’s simply not true.

The short version is that if you believe 160 climate scientists in one study or 200 in another represents “97 percent,” then have at it.

If you believe 41 papers (0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion regarding anthropogenic climate change, in another study) represents 97 percent, then you will pass the Times editors’ climate change quiz.

An excellent overview of this resides in an October 8, 2015 National Review article by Ian Tuttle. You could also ask climatologist Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, a former state meteorologist.

As for myself, this belief in climate change seems absolutely religious on the political left and quite atheistic on the political right.

Why can’t we simply listen to the scientists while they work it out?

Ah! That brings us back to the Times dribble.

Times Point #2: “Coal use is declining.”

True, natural gas in surging. But this is not a “climate truth.”It is a “marketplace truth.”

Unfortunately, the clerics at the Times First Church of Anthropogenicy are blinded by their own scripture.

Times Point #3:”Renewable energy is coming on strong.”

True. While energy companies continue to experiment with alternative energies, coal use is declining.

Again, the Times’ climate clerics have articulated a “market truth,” not “climate truth.”

A “climate truth” would be: “only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed “Organizational Studies.” By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

Only 17 percent are the Al Gore-Times styled “fatalists,” believing man is causing climate change and we’re doomed.

Times Point #4:”Wind and solar are becoming cheaper.”

That’s nice. Still not a “climate truth.”

Times Point #5: “Technology is helping renewables.”

While the Times’ Bishops of Bloviating Bullhockey genuflect at this alleged “climate truth,” anyone smart enough to clear one’s cache to evade news site paywalls recognizes this to be a disturbing waste of reading time unless it’s included in a well-researched piece that articulates the toxic sulphuric waste of supposedly “clean” Bloom Energy boxes and the latest developments in lithium-ion batteries.

Instead, the Times Council of Congregational Climate Clergy simply states batteries are getting cheaper.

Currently, the cost of batteries is less relevant than their holding capacity, discharge and recharging rate.

When wind turbines can power effective batteries with holding capacities of weeks not minutes, perhaps fewer of these government-subsidized corporations will go bankrupt.

When the Times replaces their editorial staff of politically liberal posers with independent thinkers, perhaps it will survive its current intellectual bankruptcy.