The Boston Globe is ramping up its coverage of “climate change.” There were several direct and indirect allusions to this coming calamity, so dire that we need to focus on electing Democrats next year to stop the evil, racist, Nazi, homophobe, sexist, and xeonphobic Donald Trump and return the Senate to Democrat control. Then, when Elizabeth Warren wins, she and her allies in the Senate can eliminate the filibuster entirely, pack the Supreme Court, and Republicans might as well just quit politics and government because we will have one-party rule. Won’t that be great?
Yes, I am a climate-change denier, not because I don’t believe in science, but because I believe in logic. While the scientific consensus that the earth is slowly warming is broad, I don’t agree that this leads one to the conclusion that we need to adopt the “Green New Deal” or anything remotely similar. In fact, just the opposite needs to be done. We need to start preparing for these potential changes as a society, minimizing the negative impacts and taking advantage of the positive ones. What we can’t do is “give up” and devote the next 20 or 30 years to self-destructive policies that will put America at a severe economic disadvantage with our global adversaries.
What the media is promoting is a classic bait-and-switch. They are giving evidence here or there of global warming or climate abnormalities, and then saying explicitly that this means we need to take certain steps to stop the disaster. But the steps suggested are not in the best interest of our country.
I’ve written many times about all the issues I have with the “climate change narrative.” What is most concerning is that the Left has declared this issue to be “settled science” and anyone who opposes it is crazy. This is not an argument about the facts, it is classic bullying behavior, trying to silence opponents who fear being ridiculed by the Leftist zealots. Most people probably assume the narrative is all true because they keep hearing about it from the media every day. Well, in this example, four times today.
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!