USA Today Decides Climate Debate Over
The nations newspaper disregards scientific criticisms of global warming theory and doesnt include any scientific opposition in its one-sided cover story.
By Dan Gainor [1]
June 13, 2005
The global
warming debate is over just ask the people at USA Today. The
nations colorful daily led its front page with a one-sided climate
change story June 13, 2005, declaring the end of the argument and
failing to include any scientific voices to the contrary.
The article, written by Dan Vergano, follows a trend in
news coverage documented by the Business & Media Institute in the study
Destroying America to Save the World. [2] Vergano filled his story
with terrifying temperature predictions including a middle of the
road projection of an average 5-degree increase by the end of the
century, according to Caspar Amman of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
The graphic accompanying the article projected a
possible 7.3 degree increase in temperatures by the year 2100 if
greenhouse-gas emissions continue to increase. The story also cited
the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which
estimated that global temperatures will rise 2 to 10 degrees by
2100.
But those temperature figures are hardly undisputed.
Pat Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato
Institute, has commented extensively on the subject.
The variation in the constant warming trend has been
so tiny over the last 35 years that one can say with confidence that
the range should be between 1.0 and 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 2001
to 2050, Michaels wrote in April 2005.
According to Vergano, corporations, politicians and
religious groups agree that the problem is real. Conspicuously
absent from his article were legions of scientists who dont agree.
The IPCC, which Vergano repeatedly cited as a source of
climate change information, has hundreds of scientists working on
its reports. But more than 17,000 scientists signed a petition in
1998 urging the United States not to join the Kyoto Protocol, which
would further regulate greenhouse gases. That petition states:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the
Earth.
The Russian Academy of Sciences also advised President
Vladimir Putin not to sign on to Kyoto because they disputed the
science behind the treaty.
The article left out the costs for the United States to
comply with Kyotos regulations. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration has estimated that cost as high as $400 billion
annually. Vergano made the point that political leaders will
support such measures only if the benefits come at a low cost to the
economy, though he did not say what those costs might be, or what
would constitute high or low costs.
Vergano said, What the various factions don't
necessarily agree on is what to do about it, but its not enough to
point that out, said Myron Ebell, director of global warming and
international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute.
None of the proposed solutions would be
cost-effective, Ebell said. He said the USA Today article failed to
consult a sufficient range of analyses.
Also on the subject of regulatory costs, Vergano cited
a utility provider who indicated that power companies want to know
what sort of carbon constraints they face so they can plan long
term and avoid being hit with dramatic emission limits or penalties
in the future. He couched this in terms of companies going along
with global warming theory, rather than reporting on the stiff
payments that might be imposed on industry. He mentioned
corporations who have expressed skepticism about the science of
global warming theory, but Vergano didnt bother to include comments
from any of them.
Experts from one side
Vergano relied on several climate change advocates and even
Greenpeace to make his claim that the debate is over. One of these
is the University of Virginias Michael Mann, who claimed, All the
time we should have been moving forward ... has been wasted by
arguing if the problem even exists.
Mann is the architect of what is called the hockey
stick because his temperature-modeling graph forms that shape and
has been used for years to claim that temperatures rose suddenly in
the 20th century. According to the February 14, 2005, Wall Street
Journal, an amateur analyzed some of the data and concluded that not
only were there flaws, but that the statistical technique tended to
draw hockey-stick forms.
Mann admitted this, according to the Journal. He also
corrected the other flaws but claimed they didnt impact the overall
result. The problems dont end there. Mann wont release all of the
data, so no one can double check his entire effort. The graph also
de-emphasized a warming period around the year 1000 and the little
ice age in the 15th century.
Another expert Vergano cited was Jim Dooley, who leads
the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute and the Global
Energy Technology Strategy Project's research related to carbon
capture. Dooley has several responsibilities for the institute and,
according to its Web site, is also in charge of developing
Battelle's private sector businesses relating to carbon management
which would rely on climate change being a reality. Dooley and his
organization arent disinterested bystanders. The site describes the
mission of the institute to minimize the threat of global climate
change.
The article concluded by focusing on a stockholder
resolution in May that asked ExxonMobil to explain the scientific
basis for its ongoing denial of the broad scientific consensus that
the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change.
Vergano focused on how the resolution garnered 10.3% of
shareholders' votes, rather than point out that it lost by a nearly
9-to-1 ratio.
For more information on media coverage of global
warming, see the BMIs Special Report
Destroying America to Save the World: TVs Global Warming Coverage
Hides Cost of Kyoto Treaty. [2]