Shepstone Management Company, Inc.
The New York Times has turned into a demagogic trash newspaper peddling outright hype about climate while ignoring the benefits of natural gas.
The New York Times writes for those who wish certain things to be true and has been reliably wrong on so much. Who can forget Ian Urbina’s “Drilling Down” series? Well, most of us have, actually, because most of what he wrote was nonsense, long since proven wrong; relegated to the bottom of bird cages thrown out years ago. The New York Times has since shifted to the bigger, more amorphous and more exploitable issue of “climate change.” Its style remains the same, though. It’s one of professional hype, that is to say clever falsehoods, about a subject guaranteed to swell the pride of its affluent readers and enable their continued condescension toward anyone who actually puts heat in their pipes. It pays no attention, meanwhile, to the role of a particular type of heat in accomplishing what they say they want.
That particular type of heat and energy is, of course, natural gas. It has single-handedly changed everything. The Energy Information Administration, in fact, reports:
…increasing use of natural gas has helped reduce overall U.S. CO2 emissions growth because it is the least carbon‐intensive of the fossil fuels used in electricity generation and industrial process heat…
EIA calculated that between 2005 and 2019 cumulative U.S. CO2 emissions reductions from shifts in electricity generation from coal to natural gas and to non-carbon generation totaled 5,475 MMmt. This amounts to 19% of total electricity CO2 emissions and 7% of total energy-related CO2 emissions (see methodology on page 18). Of this total, 3,351 MMmt resulted from decreased use of coal and increased use of natural gas, and 2,125 MMmt resulted from decreased use of coal and increased use of non-carbon generation sources.
If you are of the belief CO2 emissions are a threat to our climate, then you ought to love natural gas, which has permitted their major reduction. But, the New York Times knows its readers and they don’t want anything or anyone close to them with the slightest inclination toward developing fossil fuels, which are now perfectly gauche in the uppity politically correct world of the gentry class. So, what does the paper do? It resorts to climate scares, as it did in a recent story entitled “How Climate Migration Will Reshape America.” It was one falsehood after another, blended together to hype the supposed threat by making broad assertions—glittering generalities as Ron Clutz labels them—undermined by undisclosed stubborn facts.
Fortunately, others have noticed, starting with our guest blogger Roger Caiazza at his own
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog. He talks about these same “glittering generalities” that count for achievement among the smart set among politicians and the like; generalities that either don’t pan out or that are as destined as Ian Urbina’s series to fade away with the onslaught of reality. He also directs attention to this wonderful blog post by climate scientist Patrick Brown correcting the New York Times record.
Here are a few example excerpts, but the whole thing is very compelling and worth your time:
New York Times: “I am far from the only American facing such questions. This summer has seen more fires, more heat, more storms — all of it making life increasingly untenable in larger areas of the nation.”
Facts: …global annual area-burned has decreased over the past 20 years. This illustrates that, thus far, climate is not a first-order influence on area-burned and its influence can be totally overwhelmed by other factors.
It is true that this summer was hot in the US. It was the 4th warmest on record behind 2011, 2012 and 1936.
It is not clear what is meant by storms. But maximum 1-day precipitation might be a pretty good proxy for what most people think of as storms. There have been increases in this metric over recent decades but we are not at a historical maxima.
New York Times: “Let’s start with some basics. Across the country, it’s going to get hot. Buffalo may feel in a few decades like Tempe, Ariz., does today.”
Facts: This is absolutely false. The average daily high temperature in July in Buffalo NY is near 79°F. The average daily high temperature in July in Tempe Arizona is near 106°F. That’s a 27°F difference.
Buffalo is projected to warm by roughly 2.3°F under a medium emissions scenario by 2050 (and by 5°F by 2100). So that would mean that the author claimed a warming of something like 27°F “in a few decades” when our best estimate is something closer to 10% of that.
New York Times: “It was the kind of thing that might never have been possible if California’s autumn winds weren’t getting fiercer and drier every year.”
Facts: The most infamous fire-enhancing autumn winds in CA are the “Santa Ana winds”. They are not increasing every year and projections suggest that their occurrence will be less frequent not more frequent under climate change.”
Read it all and what you’ll find is that the New York Times writer demagoged, exaggerated, hyped and scare-mongered at every opportunity rather than delving into the facts. It’s pure propaganda designed to advance the gentry class and has nothing to do with the facts of climate change, which redound to the favor of natural gas but you won’t see that admitted because it doesn’t support the green eggs and scam plan assembled the hedge fund types who populate the ruling class the Times serves.
Despite this we learn the following from Wikipedia (which is only slightly more reliable than the Times so take it with a grain of salt):
The New York Times Building incorporates a cogeneration plant to supply its 24-7 operation and 40% of the power used. Located in a mechanical room at the far end of the podium’s top floor, the plant consists of two natural gas fired reciprocating engine driven generators with a total generating capacity of 1.5 MW of electrical power. It recovers the heat produced by combustion and converts the heat into usable energy in the form of hot water. The recovered hot water serves as the building’s heating loop to provide warmth during the winter and functions as a refrigeration machine to provide cooling during the summer. The power from the grid is solely used by the building as a backup source.
Yes, natural gas.
This post appeared first on Natural Gas Now.