Los Angeles Times Distorts
By David Henderson
Los Angeles Times reporter Brian Bennett, in the first paragraph of a recent news story, writes:
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a GOP star and possible 2016 presidential contender, does not believe human activity is causing climate change, he said Sunday.
That statement of Bennett’s is consistent with the headline of the story: Marco Rubio says human activity isn’t causing climate change.
But then Bennett goes on to quote what Rubio actually said. Bennett writes:
“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Do you see the difference between Bennett’s statement about Rubio’s thoughts and Rubio’s actual statement of his own thoughts? Bennett didn’t. At least, that’s the charitable interpretation. Rubio appears to be talking about extreme weather events. And Rubio is not alone. Even the latest IPCC Report expresses skepticism that there is much connection between greenhouse gases and recent extreme weather events.
In short, Brian Bennett, and the Los Angeles Times, distorted.
Bennett goes on to quote Rubio. Bennett writes:
“Our climate is always changing,” Rubio said. “And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activities.”
It’s clear from context that Rubio doesn’t agree. But the statement Bennett quotes allows for three possible things for Rubio to disagree with. Rubio could disagree that:
1. Some changes in the last few decades [neither Bennett nor Rubio specifies which, but it could be global warming] are evidence of a longer-term trend directly attributable to man’s activities.
2. Some changes in the last few decades are evidence of a longer-term trend that is almost solely attributable to man’s activities.
3. Assuming that the “this” in Rubio’s statement is the extreme weather events referred to earlier, that these events are due directly or almost solely to man’s activities.
In context, my money is on the third interpretation.
If the first possibility is the right interpretation of Rubio’s statements, then Bennett’s claim about Rubio’s beliefs is correct.
If the second possibility is the right interpretation of Rubio’s statements, then Bennett’s claim about Rubio’s beliefs is wrong.
If the third possibility is the right interpretation of Rubio’s statements, then Bennett’s claim about Rubio’s beliefs is wrong.
Note, by the way, that even Jonathan Karl, in his interview with Rubio, rigs the debate by asking [at the 5:30 point] “Do you agree with the science on this?” as if “the science” is really clear. And this is just after ABC News has highlighted [at about the 5:20 point] Obama’s shrill statement that climate change is already affecting us, something that, if Obama meant anthropogenic warming, is at odds with the IPCC report. Karl could have just as easily asked, except that he would probably not have had access, Obama “Do you agree with the science on this?”
HT to Tom Lee.