“But some scientists say that weaning the world off coal is crucial to slowing the devastating effects of climate change.“
Really, Los Angeles Times? “Some Scientists?” That’s your report? You actually printed that?
Is that the same thing as 99% of the world’s scientists? As in every major recognized science organization and association? Is that what you’re saying? Is that what “some” is?
Because that sure doesn’t sound like what you’re saying.
It sounds like you’re saying that only “some” scientists think weaning us off coal is the single most crucial thing we must do to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving us to a climate catastrophe. It sounds like you’re saying that there’s even more scientists who think we shouldn’t. It sounds like the Los Angeles Times is telling us there is still a viable debate on this subject.
And if you’re saying that, then you’re simply full of shit and wrong and it’s my job to call you on it. Sorry, but it’s too late in the game for polite language.
I didn’t think that I knew more about this subject than the multi-Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper of record in this top tier megalopolis I live in, but clearly I do.
I’m more surprised than anyone to discover that the Creative Greenius is more accurate, more in depth and more responsible on one of the most important issues in history but the record doesn’t lie and I’ve been drinking the Times’ milkshake on the story of coal for over a year now.
And I’ve been doing it for free. In my spare time.
What the Times is offering instead of Creative Greenius is a cowardly, inaccurate, cover-your-ass kind of statement that neither informs or enlightens.
In fact, what that limp-wristed closing sentence in their article on the Coen Brother’s new anti-coal commercial really does is carry water for Killer Coal.
It’s as if the L.A. Times isn’t aware of the facts, doesn’t have the courage to tell the truth, or has an agenda to con its readers. That crap might fly with Sam Zell but it doesn’t fly here on the coast.
Because it’s not just irresponsible and inept it’s also not news. It’s a none-too-subtle form of propaganda on behalf of the most polluting, planet-warming product anyone sells and uses in our world.
Here on the coast we know that those kind of lies go in scripts for Chevron commercials, Fox News broadcasts and direct-to-DVD Andy Dick movies – not in our newspaper’s business section.
Why is the Times so schizophrenic about this life or death issue? I’ve also read terrific, accurate reporting in the Times on coal’s starring role in causing much of the world’s global warming and its threat to our children and their future. Of course the people who wrote those pieces were fired by the Times and no longer work there because the Times is becoming the Countrywide Mortgage company of newspapers.
So why does the Times fudge about global warming, the value of solar panels, the need to make the life altering changes we must to cut emissions and eliminate the burning of carbon? Why is their environmental coverage so lame?
It looks to me to be a combination of being emasculated by eight years of Bush/Cheney as well as the paper’s own decade of internal decline, downsizing and dumbing down.
But I don’t really care why the Times no longer has the courage or the character to bring us the truth and accuracy when we need it most. I’m just sick of the damage they do us and the disrespect they pay us.
And I’m going to call them on it and publicly smack them down every time they treat us like chumps who don’t know any better.
I do like me some creamy milkshakes and if I have to keep drinking the L.A. Times’ every morning then I’ll just have to increase the intensity of my workout to keep the fat off.
Meanwhile if you want to learn a whole lot more on the risk of climate change by a source far more reliable and informative than the L.A. Birdcage Liner, check out this remarkable video by Oregon high school science teacher Greg Craven: