NY Times Says Earth Has Unlimited Carrying Capacity (white people's objective is the destruction of the universe)

ThinkProgress

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming over the next century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

In a collective act of media irresponsibility, the New York Times and Washington Post have joined the Wall Street Journal in publishing “don’t worry, be happy” articles days before the big UN climate science report will say quite the opposite.

We expect the WSJ to be a haven for disinformation, and as I discussed Sunday, Matt Ridley didn’t disappoint. But it’s sad when we see at the very same time

• The Washington Post publish a piece downplaying the climate threat from the well-known and well-debunked confusionist Bjorn Lomborg, and
• The NY Times run a Pollyannish piece, “Overpopulation Is Not the Problem” which asserts, contrary to much recent science, that, “There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity.”

Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, “an expert on environmental communications,” emailed me this comment on the WashPost and NYT pieces:

My opinion -– irresponsible, one-sided journalism on the part of both papers.

This really looks like the beginnings of the cultural/media counter-offensive against the forthcoming IPCC report.

That said – why are both the Post and Times publishing this nonsense? Either they are being played or are complicit.

Obviously fact checking is not required for op-eds in either of our “so-called” leading newspapers.

Memo to Jeff Bezos: The publication of anti-science pieces like “Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather” by Bjorn Lomborg — one of the most debunked confusionists on the planet — is one reason the Washington Post is dying. Here are two quick ways to tell if a proposed op-ed column on climate is worth publishing. Has the author written similar pieces for the anti-science WSJ editorial-page? (see “Bjorn Legacy: Lomborg Urges Climate Inaction With Misleading Stats In WSJ”). Has he or she written pieces for the WashPost that have been repeatedly debunked by climate scientists — see “Climate Science Rapid Response Team debunks Lomborg’s Post op-ed” and “WashPost recycles denier WSJ op-ed from Lomborg.” As that last link makes clear, Jeff, you have your work cut out for you.

Lomborg has lost the presumption of accuracy. He only makes implausibly sensationalistic (and, as it invariably turns out, inaccurate) claims. In his latest piece, he makes a torturous, semantic argument that because climate change doesn’t make every single kind of extreme weather more severe, we somehow can’t say that it makes any kind of extreme weather more severe.