LA Times Changes Its Mind: Science Doesn't Matter On Climate Bill

la-times-climate-dust-up1By Candance Moore

That thumping sound you hear is the Los Angeles Times moving the goal posts in the global warming debate.

On November 22, while responding to the growing scandal about alleged proof that global warming is a hoax, the Times brushed it off with a puzzling claim that science should have no bearing on climate legislation.

What a difference a few leaked e-mail messages could make: just over a month ago, the exact same paper had insisted science was behind the push for regulation. Now with the validity of that science in doubt, the Times was quick to find a different angle.

In an article titled “A Climate Change Dust-up,” writers Jim Tankersley and Henry Chu began with reassurance that the scandal was nothing to fear because the hacked e-mail messages would not make a difference either way:

Is it a “Warmist Conspiracy,” or a case of an email being “taken completely out of context”?

Regardless, the latest dust-up over the science of climate change appears unlikely to affect the dynamics of either a pending debate in the Senate or international climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month.

The whole point of the meeting in Copenhagen has been to limit pollution that supposedly destroys the planet based on evidence gathered and purported by researchers specifically involved in the email scandal. If the very premise of global warming has possibly been exposed as a fraud, why would that not be of interest to those who want to legislate global warming?

Because, according to the Times, the fight to stop possibly nonexistent global warming would be about saving the economy:

But advocates of action to curb global warming dismiss those claims, and political leaders and analysts say the Senate bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions will sink or swim based on economics, not science.

“The scientists are going to fight about this for decades,” said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of several Senate Republicans who say they are open to some form of a climate bill. “We should be doing something to curb our emissions that would not harm the economy, and would in fact boost the economy,” he said.

So the Times believed in doing something about emissions whether or not we knew that they were harmful. It was suddenly okay for the science to remain unsettled, and in fact, the Senate was encouraged to limit greenhouse gases even if science was unable to prove a connection between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature.

But if the entire logic of this effort to save the economy was based on the hope that green jobs would put Americans to work, someone should have told the Times that President Obama has already been funding green jobs without a climate bill.

Equally preposterous, nowhere did the article explain exactly how limiting a company’s carbon dioxide output would cause it to expand payrolls.

Not to worry, for according to global warming activists it would all work with or without the data to back it up.

Read the rest of this article at Newsbusters.

37 Responses to LA Times Changes Its Mind: Science Doesn't Matter On Climate Bill

  1. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    Eventually they will be more affordabel- look at computers. etc. To help that along we need to stop subsidizing the old technology and put more into the new. But that is more corporate foot-dragging and their dependence upon old subsidies- it’s called Corporate Welfare.

  2. paul wenum December 12, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    I would love to buy a hybrid car as long as it goes 200 mph!! It must be under $50,000.00. Good luck! Just kidding!!! I had a 1981 Toyota Tercel. What a up soup can! Got good gas mileage, but I was safer 19′ in the air in my deer stand!!! Innovation is good. There is no question about that. As to Copenhagen, climate change, Cap N Trade, et al, I’m totally against the government running our lives. I do not wish to be a Pavlov dog running every time the government bell rings!!!

  3. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    Oh, and I drove an early 80’s Corvette once and it felt like I was driving an old pick-up. Just sayin’ I hope the newer ones are better, cuz that one sucked.

  4. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Poor poor old beat-up free- enterprise…!! Good God give me break! And Paul, nobody’s taking your car away- and guess what? If we conserve oil now IT WILL BE available for a long time, my short-sighted and cranky friend, for the old classic cars and other even more important things that it is needed for. Why aren’t conservatives conservative any more??? It’s up to us Liberals to keep you wild conservatives from ruining everything.

  5. paul wenum December 10, 2009 at 1:11 am #

    I love my 1986 1/2 pace car Corvette! Get’s 32+ miles per gallon at 65-70 miles an hour. By the way, there is enough oil, natural gas etc. in the US alone to sustain us for 200 years. Oh my God we will run out of our resources! In 1980 I saw my first computer. Did you know that the basic computer today has more memory than the computer that put us on the Moon??? Can you imagine what the next 10/20 years will be if Government let’s free enterprise simply do what they do best? Create jobs, be innovative without cap N Trade, Climate change bull and high taxes. JFK is rolling in his grave. Cars, or any other vehicle can be made more fuel efficient. You simply cannot do it over-night. By the way, I will never part with my old partner, the Corvette!!

  6. Rob N. Hood December 8, 2009 at 10:11 am #

    True, valid point. But as Neil might say, that is splitting hairs. It still is technically “zero emission”. And so is a 100% electric car. Bottom line is they are more environmentally and CO2 friendly. Dan, and other scared people, I know you LOVE your ICE. You cannot fathom a world without it much less with any less of it (Dammit, I can’t just drive around on all my motorized gadgets and not give a rat’s ass??!!) But someday, it will run out, then what? Enlighten me, oh intelligent sage.

  7. Rob N. Hood December 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    Sorry lazerator, but the hydrogen fuel cell cars emit only water vapor. Another one bites the dust. Next?

    • Dan McGrath December 6, 2009 at 5:53 am #

      True – And I’d love to own a hydrogen fuel cell car – but it does require electricity to electrolyze water and extract the hydrogen. Where does that electricity come from? Right now, mostly from coal and natural gas. Zero emissions? No. Transferred emissions.

  8. lazerator December 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    There is no such thing as a “zero emissions vehicle”. It’s just another scam perpetrated by the greenies upon the ingnorant masses. Where do you suppose that vehicle gets the engergy to move it? If the liberals had one brain cell in their skulls they would be dangerous. But they’ll find out what the public thinks about them in 2012.

  9. paul wenum December 1, 2009 at 11:41 pm #

    Rob, you have your own opinion for which I respect. Unfortunately you are wrong. Quit pointing fingers without facts.

  10. Rob N. Hood December 1, 2009 at 9:24 am #

    It’s not all about you Paul. I didn’t specify who demonizes Obama, just that it happens and will continue no matter what he does, just like with Clinton. And I don’t believe you when you say you would be as concerned and angry if Repubs were making money off Cap n Trade, even though I’m sure some will. It worked for acid rain and that fact makes it a legitimate strategy to try with this issue. And it hasn’t passed yet, as far as I know and may not. It would also be a boon for big business and that is why it even has a chance in hell of passing. It isn’t just Al Gore and Soros who stand to make money off it. And as I posted previously the whole concept is a Republican/Business one, and people like me don’t support it mainly because it is another profit scam like you say… but not just for Liberals as you believe.

    I’m sorry to have to continually inject reasoning onto this site, but I can’t help it.

  11. paul wenum November 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    I have never demonized our President, Period! He simply makes bad choices that we don’t agree with. I believe it is called “Free speech?” which I have noticed is not correct to do if you disagree with this administration. I sense that they have an agenda and an elitist attitude that is unfounded in my memory. Now that is what has people like me very concerned. Let me cut to the chase. If it were a republican with the same agenda I would be all over them as well.

  12. P. McCormick November 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    Fraud is fraud. The Times needs to come clean and report the truth. The cap and trade bill is nothing but the gibbest scam the world has ever known. The times must suppoort ripping off the people. They are part of the scandal if they claim to say its ok to ignore the truth. The real story is who stands to get rich off this scam? Also, really good scientists were being destroyed. The times is evil for supporting the fraud and the lies. Time to protest them and burn their news papers. Al Gore needs to be investigated and prosecuted for what he has done. Wake up people, wrong is wrong, and fraud is fraud! La times is now official butt wipe paper!

  13. P. McCormick November 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    Fraud is fraud. The Times needs to come clean and report the truth. The cap and trade bill is nothing but the gibbest scam the world has ever known. The times must suppoort ripping off the people. They are part of the scandal if they claim to say its ok to ignore the truth. The real story is who stands to get rich off this scam? Also, really good scientists were being destroyed. The times is evil for supporting the fraud and the lies. Time to protest them and burn their news papers. Al Gore needs to be investigated and prosecuted for what he has done. Wake up people, wrong is wrong, and fraud is fraud! La times is now official butt wipe paper!

  14. Rob N. Hood November 30, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    Like I said elsewhere- I am probably like most people: If anything can clear anything up once and for all, it’s a good thing. So what happens to you guys when if, and when, this hacked email thing doesn’t do that? You will go right along with your crack-pot conspriacy theorizing and demonizing of Obama and Liberals.

    In fact: you guys always find things to demonize Dems about. It’s an endless list, mostly phantom issues spread bu nuts like Limbaugh, etc. Even when the Dems display little, if any, power at all, even now when they have some actual power but really do nothing real Liberals want them to do. They are the second string corporate party, that’s why. Actually they are now equal to the Repubs re: being owned and operated by big money.

    It’s really a sad and scary time for U.S.

  15. paul wenum November 29, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    Thank you Dan.

  16. Rob N. Hood November 29, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    The vital point being left out, is that “regardless of how cherry-picked,” there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”

    This is a “smear campaign to distract the public,” said Mann. “Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side,” he added.

    Professor Davies called the stolen data “the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign” designed “to distract from reasoned debate” about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.

    According to Somerville, the comments in the emails “have nothing to do with the scientific case” for climate change.

    It is “desperate” to launch this right before Copenhagen, Eric Steig, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, said on the call.

    Sen. Inhofe, meanwhile, lauded the timing of the incident.

    “The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their timing was good,” he said.

    • Dan McGrath November 29, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

      Actually, there’s some pretty damning stuff in there. Large portions of, or entire emails are reproduced here: http://www.nocapandtrade.com/climategate/ and this is just scratching the surface. We haven’t had time yet to review everything. What we have found already is enough to call it all into question, though. Have a look at the climate model program subroutines. One’s tagged “Apply A VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!” in a REM line. See the latest post from Climate Depot as well. The mythical “concensus” is falling apart.

    • Mark Lamont Brown December 1, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

      Rob,
      Deep level of concensus from the IPCC? So what? Even if there is, they are not even the most qualified bunch, the majority being political appointees more than not, in an organization run by a Railway engineer? At least you could agree that maybe its time that we installed an organization which is able to seriously clarify the situation as regards AGW, not a bunch of hacks, but real appropriate scientists.

  17. Rob N. Hood November 29, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    Uh, Paul, what about my “rants” against Obama? Why is it you always forget that part? Hard to wrap your mind around someone who can think in more than two dimensions is it? I know that is difficult for you. I cannot take anyone seriously who cannot do that.

  18. paul wenum November 29, 2009 at 12:29 am #

    Rob can blow off steam to his hearts desire. However, people easily see through the rants and the constant changing of the subject at hand, Bush hating/blaming/name calling. Based upon what has been found on “Climategate” we were more on point than ever and it is still not take seriously. Now that is why the average American doesn’t believe what they read or see on TV any longer. Credibility by the media has gone by the wayside.

  19. Lance November 28, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    Neil and Mark, who made you two captains of this website? If he wants to put in his opinion then power to you Rob, nothing wrong with that. And Mark if you support freedom of speech why are you telling him to blow off? I guess you can join the hypocrite club with me and Neil.

    • Mark Lamont Brown December 1, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

      Well Lance,
      Nobody did! However I confess to being very passionate about this subject, so fair enough. I would still defend Robs freedom of speech as well as my own though.

  20. Rob N. Hood November 28, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    Uh, Mark, that is of course not what I was saying to Neil, and if you really beleived that then you are not the sharpest tool. Bush II did in fact refer to the war in Iraq as a crusade. Do you not know the bible or world history? You guys are dense apparently. And do you really beleive that the grunts on the lines know what the real reasons are for what they are ordered to do? Really? It’s all about “honor and serving your country”, to you. That is pretty mindless stuff you know? So you get ordered to kill, and you don’t question it, just do it, right? That’s scary stuff, brainwashing kind of stuff. But you won’t ever admit this or pretend to understand what I am saying. You will get all Red, White and Blue on me… as will others.

    And Neil, re: the supposed hacked emails. It needs to be investigated, and if true, investigated even further. Does it automatically prove a conspiracy of the kind you believe in? Of course not, that is unless more damaging info is obtained. Scientists do this sort of thing to each other a lot, I believe. It is an unfortunate consequence of our competitive and money driven world we live in.

    • Mark Lamont Brown December 1, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

      Ok Rob,
      Then be a little bit clearer in future please. I just get fed up of hearing this kind of stuff in the freakin media. Oh and I am not any kind of tool, however I suspect that you may well be.

  21. Andrew November 27, 2009 at 11:41 pm #

    I am pretty much of the opinion that global warming will happen with us here or not. The major cause is that big, hard-to-miss, glowing ball of extremely hot gas called the Sun, which is an entity of constant change. Think about the size of it compared to Earth. I’d bank on it having more to do with warming or cooling than anything else.

    NOW my point though, is that REGARDLESS, I don’t like pollution. I don’t like breathing polluted air or drinking polluted water. These are the things that we need to change. These are the major reasons to me for zero emission vehicles and having legislation in place to force companies to be responsible. Warming or cooling, we do need to change. It’s just such a shame that people have to be mislead through the media into a frenzy before they will do anything. With that kind of blindness how can anyone make a correct decision.

  22. Rob N. Hood November 27, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    Neil, ever think that this is the way the “West” has decided it needs to fight the Muslim world? By being against it, you are basically fighting yourself. Get it? Or is that too sublte for you? Many have thought that Bush’s wars were not just about oil, but a “crusade”. Get it now?

    • Mark Lamont Brown November 27, 2009 at 2:35 am #

      Rob,
      Are you saying that Neil is a muslim? Man you are one incoherant, shrilling, quasi Marxist nut job.

      • Mark Lamont Brown November 27, 2009 at 5:54 am #

        Dont get me wrong, some of my friends are real marxists, not Quasi- Marxists…

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 27, 2009 at 7:48 am #

      No Rob, I have never thought that. And now that you mention it…. I still don’t.
      When I joined the Army 25 years ago, I took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign, and domestic. And though I am not in the Army anymore, I intend to be true to that oath. A one world govt. would be an enemy of the U.S. constitution. A one world sharia govt. would be an enemy of the U.S. constitution. Therefore I would be bound by my oath to fight either one of those entities. But I’m sure that’s just all too black and white for you. In your world there are no oaths, or pledges to uphold. You just hold your finger in the wind and go with the flow.

      • Mark Lamont Brown November 28, 2009 at 2:26 am #

        Well said Neil!
        I also have had the honor of serving our Armed Forces, and I totally believe in freedom of speech, thats what I will always defend. I know a real mixed bag of people from all political spectrums, but I will draw the line at listening to pointless, diatribes, where the point is at best vague and at worst facile. Some of my friends are actually my political enemies, however certain people are just totally ersatz. Politics as we well know is fraught with frauds. I love the way that Rob ignores the majority of my jabs. However I am seriously concerned with using any means to up the ante on fighting this hideous AGW Evil. Shit even some of my Marxist Reddy-Green Friends believe that AGW is a fraud. They should know, they are in contact with some of the perpetrators. I even heard that it was never meant to be taken quite so seriously. Unfortunately, some cynical corporate people, (Al Gore for example) view this as an opportunity to even supercede our constitutional rights. Rob has the right to blow off, but believe me, he is quite disingeniuous. keep it up sir!!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 27, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

      So…… What do you think of this topic? you know, the one where the hacker made the CRU data and emails public? The emails and data that completely expose the lying lyers and the FRAUD of AGW? Or do you think it doesn’t matter? I think it matters quite a lot. What it does, see, is illustrate how CORRECT I have been all this time, and how WRONG you have been. So, what else are you wrong about Rob? How’s that majority of scientists from around the world workin’ fer ya’? Nice try on changing the subject, I know that’s all you can do in this situation.

  23. W Howard Baker November 25, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    Here again, since the proponents of global warming have been shown to be promoters of a hoax that will cost the United States Trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, it isn’t a problem to our Marxist president as it works into his plan to destroy the American capitalist system. Look at his advisors and their agenda and you will see Maoists and Communists in his advisors with an agenda of redistributing American wealth into the third world. After all, it isn’t fair that Americans have worked their butts off to have what they have while the third world has laid back and taken handouts and not gotten ahead or have been ruled by a dictator with central power which stifles creativity.
    This conference in Copenhagen, starting on Dec. 7th, a day that will live in infamy, which is supposed to be about global warming, is actually to set up a one world government run by the U.N. that supercedes any other government. I hope that the Islamic nations have been told about this as they also want a one world Islamic government under Sharia law called a Calliphate and will go on Jihad to achieve it, as they have been doing. This will set up the world as the Muslims see it, the part of the world under Islam, which is at peace, and the world of war. In other words, this will set the stage for another Holy War culminating in amegeddon. This is why global warming doesn’t depend on the science as it is now about who will survive Amegeddon.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 26, 2009 at 11:34 am #

      I have wondered to myself what the Muslim nations would do if and when they tried this one world govt. thing. That is a freightening scenario because I will be at war with both of those entities.

      • Mark Lamont Brown November 27, 2009 at 2:33 am #

        Thats what the Islamics want though, a one world freakin stoneage Muslim Government.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Add your name! 28/11/09 « TWAWKI - November 27, 2009

    […] Media; Andrew Bolt talks about how the ABC continues to be in collusion with the government over the AGW issue  censoring debate and aggressively attacking skeptics. I finally received a response from the Australian Press Council – update here over my complaint over Fairfax newspapers biased reporting. Revealing its abject stupidity The Times says that science should have no bearing on climate legislation. […]

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes