Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin leads the pack in this year’s contest for biased climate journalism.
March 10 article entitled "Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert
Danger, New Studies Say" has the same sort of journalistic objectivity
one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.
nary a critical word about the computer models used to project
increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new
model-dependent studies that "suggest that both industrialized and
developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as
mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation
patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."
"Using advanced computer models to factor deep-sea warming and other
aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon
dioxide, the scientists, from countries including the United States,
Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must
bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from
But none of the models in the
studies — nor for that matter any other mathematical model of global
climate — has proven to be particularly useful. No model has been
validated against historical climate data.
So why would any rational person assume that
they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for
developing national energy policy? As reported in this column
last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly
warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.
model failure should come as no surprise since they have many built-in
biases, including the unproven assumption that atmospheric carbon
dioxide drives global climate. But all the available real-life data —
including 20th century records and ice-core samples stretching back 650,000 years — fail to support such a cause-and-effect relationship.
ice core samples show, in fact, an opposite relationship. Eilperin, who
has long reported on climate for the Washington Post, must know about
the models’ problems, but she apparently chooses not to report it. In
her March 4 Post article, Eilperin mentioned a report by a number of climate experts from around the world entitled "Nature Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate." She even interviewed one of the experts for her story.
section of that report, entitled "Climate Models Are Not Reliable"
discusses in plain language how climate models don’t consider solar
dimming and brightening, don’t accurately control for clouds, don’t
simulate the potential feedback effects of water vapor, don’t explain
many features of the Earth’s observed climate, and don’t produce
reliable predictions of regional (let alone global) climate change.
JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as Playstation® Climatology,
with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its Playstation games
are, in fact, what they purport to be — just games.
content with ignoring viewpoints she doesn’t like, Eilperin goes on to
diminish, if not ridicule, critics of her apparent point of view.
Eilperin’s March 4 article featured four ad hominem attacks from three
environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming
orthodoxy as members of a "flat Earth society" and participants in the
"climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand."
Eilperin wants to poke fun at those who disagree with her on public
policy issues, she ought to write an opinion, rather than a news
column. Another disturbing aspect of Eilperin’s article was the
accompanying photo of downtown Beijing.
The photo was captioned, "A heavy haze could be seen in Beijing in
August 2007. Two recent reports call for a heightened global effort to
reduce carbon emissions."
The juxtaposition of
the article and photo clearly implied that unless we cut carbon dioxide
emissions, U.S. cities would soon look like Beijing. But as virtually
anyone who breathes knows, carbon dioxide is an invisible gas. Not only
can you not see it, there’s no possible way for carbon dioxide
emissions to cause smog, haze or whatever was fouling Beijing’s air in
The irrelevant and misleading
nature of the photo has been pointed out to Eilperin, Washington Post
ombudsman Deborah Howell and the paper’s editors. As of the writing of
this column, none have responded and it remains to be seen whether the
Washington Post has the journalistic integrity to remove the photo from
its Web site and publish a correction in its print edition.
quite possible that if Eilperin and the many other members of the
mainstream media who so far have been in the tank for global warming
started reporting on the very real debate about climate model validity
rather than simply regurgitating what the agenda-driven modelers tell
them, then we could avert the looming national economic disaster that
Congress is preparing for the next president to sign into law.