The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
    • World
    • National
    • Politics
    • National Security
    • DC Area
    • Business
    • Entertainment
    • Technology
    • Investigations
    • Faith
    • Energy
    • Environment
    • Headlines
    • Citizen Journalism
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • National

    Green energy stimulus growing few jobs

  • National

    9/11 defendants eye platform

  • Entertainment

    Jackson wins 4 American Music Awards

  • Politics

    Unemployment taxes hit small firms hard

  • Sports

    Redskins' loss like a kick in the gut

  • Politics

    Dem senators at odds over health bill

  • Local

    Company that repaired Chairman Gray's house lacked license

Home » Opinion » Editorials

Sunday, May 24, 2009

EDITORIAL: Uncertain climate

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

Throwing cold water on The Post's warming story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen
  • Videos
Please stand by, images loading!
  • ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS
Kandolhudhoo Island, one of nearly 1,200 islands of the Maldives, faces the threat of rising sea levels as global warming melts arctic ice caps. Recent data, however, challenges the dire predictions that scientists have been making, showing that the islands can adapt to their changing environment. **FILE PHOTO**

More Editorials Stories

  • EDITORIAL: Death for being a Christian
  • EDITORIAL: Another stimulus
  • EDITORIAL: Schumer's change of heart
  • EDITORIAL: Gunning for Sarah Palin

By

A person needn't be a buffoon or political hack to be skeptical of global warming. That would be news to The Washington Post's news desk, however.

A Post article on May 19 falsely reported that there is a "consensus" among scientists and a growing portion of the American public that human carbon emissions are causing a dangerous, long-term increase in worldwide temperatures. The facts, overwhelmingly, show no such consensus.

The Post's David A. Fahrenthold reported that Republican "warming skeptics" are becoming ever bolder on Capitol Hill even as "most" or a "consensus" of "scientists around the globe have rejected their main arguments - that the climate isn't clearly warming, that humans aren't responsible for it, or that the whole thing doesn't amount to a problem." He continued: "Public opinion has also shifted" in favor of warming's existence and importance.

The latter claim is risible. Earlier this month, Gallup poll editor Frank Newport told U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard that on global warming, "Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned." The highest number of respondents ever, he said - 41 percent - thinks warming claims are exaggerated. That 41 percent swamped the 28 percent who think the threat is "underestimated." Of eight major "environmental issues" (including water pollution and loss of rain forests), the public ranked warming last. The Pew Research Center in January reported climate change ranking dead last among 20 major public concerns.

Respected scientists are far from united on the issue. Reports in August from the International Geology Congress - and from other conferences or major scientific organizations in Canada, Japan, Australia and elsewhere - indicate majorities disagreeing with climate-change dogma. Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have compiled a list of more than 700 well-credentialed scientists, including many who once believed in warming, who argue against the warming theory.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a Global Warming Petition expressing doubts. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has written that warming is "the greatest scam in history." As far back as two years ago, The Post's own Juliet Eilperin reported that consensus on warming was shrinking, not growing. And for good reason. Earth temperatures actually have dropped since 1998. The National Snow and Ice Data Center in April showed more Arctic sea ice than in any April since 2003. Even many prominent warming supporters acknowledge that their own models now forecast cooling for the next 30 years.

Whichever group of scientists is correct, the simple fact is that the idea of consensus is a myth.

The Post reported none of this. The only examples of warming skeptics The Post cited were those of foot-in-mouth Republican politicians. The story features a huge highlighted quote from House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, who misspoke in an April ABC interview to the effect that the issue was whether carbon dioxide is a carcinogen. A Boehner spokesman says the leader meant to question whether it is a pollutant, which is a perfectly reasonable issue.

The Post's Mr. Fahrenthold did not ask Mr. Boehner's office if the congressman still thinks the issue involves carcinogens. Yet the story was published as if Mr. Boehner's comment, ludicrous on its face, represents his continuing understanding rather than a simple verbal error of the sort frequently made in live interviews.

The Post portrayed all skeptics as "irrelevant" ignoramuses asking "head-scratching" questions in an "odd way" that is not "germane," but it refused to provide a single sentence acknowledging the growing debate among widely admired scientists. The misreporting in favor of a far-from-proven theory is enough to make any fair-minded person extremely hot - under the collar.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Ask a Question

You Report

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Massive bill steals show in health care debate
  2. Report: D.C. schools chief Rhee mishandled sexual misconduct scandal
  3. Islamic center in Maryland keeps ties to Iran
  4. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  5. EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused
More Top Stories »
  1. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  2. EXCLUSIVE: Hoffman considering recount claim
  3. Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty
  4. EDITORIAL: Gunning for Sarah Palin
  5. Report: ACORN mismanaged grant money

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused
  2. Islamic center in Maryland keeps ties to Iran
  3. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  4. EDITORIAL: Gunning for Sarah Palin
  5. Ego of 'O': It's all about him
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: Death for being a Christian
  2. Anglers serve time for black-market rockfish trade
  3. Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically
  4. Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty
  5. Misplaced Viet lessons

Most Commented

  1. Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically
  2. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  3. ANALYSIS: Obama takes a bow, but applause is weak
  4. Senate Democrats win key vote on health bill
  5. Islamic center in Maryland keeps ties to Iran
More Top Stories »
  1. Obama's approval rating falls below 50%
  2. Massive bill steals show in health care debate
  3. EDITORIAL: Gunning for Sarah Palin
  4. Military academies lack minority nominees
  5. 20-pound, 2,074-page bill steals show

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    RNC: Breast cancer recommendations may lead to 'rationing'

  • Belief Blog

    Evangelicals OK civil disobedience

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • Redskins 360

    Rinehart looks badly hurt

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.