Has the liberal, Obama-supporting Los Angeles Times turned into climate deniers? It sure sounds that way.
The Times cited a recent study Monday indicating that the warming trend experienced by America’s West Coast during the last hundred years–what there was of it–wasn’t caused by human activity at all. It was rather the result of naturally-occurring changes in winds.
According to the LA Times:
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
The study made its claim, in part, by noting that the most significant temperature rise occurred between 1900 and 1940–a period when there was insignificant buildup of greenhouse gases.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term,” said study leader James Johnstone, who did most of the work on the project while at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, in association with the University of Washington.
Other climatologists caution that the study’s findings should be applied only regionally–not globally–and should not be used to dispel global climate change theory.
“There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. He added, “this does not call into question the concept of global warming.”
Trenberth went on to conclude that the study’s regional long-term climate trends “were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable,” the Times reported.
But then again, the same could be said of global climate trends–”the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable.” But he chose to ignore that.
Whoever is right, there is one thing for certain: The more data we collect, the more disagreement they generate. Nonetheless, the Obama administration gives global warming a sense of urgency not seen in earlier White Houses.
Secretary of State John Kerry told a group of foreign ministers Sunday that climate change poses as much of a risk as ISIS and ebola, according to Townhall.
And on Tuesday, President Barack Obama addressed the United Nation’s 2014 Climate Summit in which he said he would use executive actions to fight climate change, according to MSNBC.
Following his remarks, the White House tweeted the president’s plan, which included reducing carbon emissions from power plants, cutting energy waste from homes and businesses, assisting state and local governments deal with climate change and take the lead in global efforts on the issue.
Noticeably missing were carbon taxes, necessarily skyrocketing energy costs and increased loss of personal freedom. With this, no doubt in mind, Twitter user Phil Hall offered a rejoinder:
@WhiteHouse What we need to do is help the country prepare for impacts of the Obama administration.
— Phil Hall (@wvuphil75) September 23, 2014
Maybe the White House should spend more time reading the Los Angeles Times and less listening to alarmists like former Vice President Al Gore–who has a huge financial stake in the whole global warming/climate change/climate justice myth.
And now that the LA Times has apparently joined the ranks of climate skeptics, can the Washington Post and New York Times be far behind?
