The Climate Change narrative that the Left runs with often has misleading or false information, sometimes to scare people into wanting to take action, other times to reassure them that action being taken is effective. Most reasonable people who believe in climate-change think that the steps we are taking, or could take, will reverse the damage and “save the planet.” But this is false.
For whatever combination of reasons, the earth seems to be in a warming trend and humanity’s best response is to make long-term plans to deal with any negative changes. Scare tactics and impending doom are meant to frighten people so much that they take action at the ballot box. Yes, cynic that I am, this is about political control. Socialists want voters to elect them so they can take over the economy and prevent climate change–and capitalism, and personal freedom, and gun rights–and implement the rest of the Left’s agenda.
Today’s article throws some numbers without context to readers and proclaims, falsely, that increases in new solar and wind projects are leading to a “seismic shift in how nations get their electricity.”
Let’s look at the numbers presented and compare them to “how nations get their electricity.”
New solar installations added 119 gigawatts (1 billion watts), which is 45 percent of all new capacity. Wind turbines added another approx. 23 percent, or say 60 gigawatts. So this totals around 180 gigawatts of new power from these two sources.
But the chart showing energy generation by source, in the terawatt scale (a trillion watts), shows solar and wind to be miniscule compared to that generated by the four other broad categories, which are fossil fuels, renewable, hydro-electric, and nuclear. Fossil fuels are at 15,000 terawatts, which if I am comparing the scales accurately, is about 75,000 times greater than the new wind and solar coming online.
So wind and solar may be “up and coming” based on new sources, but they have a long way to go to become “how nations get their electricity.”
And this underscores one of the foolish assertions of the Climate Left, which is that we can eliminate fossil fuels and somehow get by with just wind and solar.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/922787178246426
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*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!