The Boston Globe ran a big article about how 2020 is going to be the warmest on record, based on some new scientific consensus. This is despite no “El Nino” effect this year which tends to warm the earth up.
These articles predicting the next dire consequence of global warming, which appear like clockwork in the Boston Globe, are meant to keep readers in a tizzy about this issue. Every year is the hottest ever recorded, which say is about 50 or 100 years of data. But when you measure today’s temperature over earth’s history, I’m sure it is ranked below average. We are, after all, still technically in an ice age. It is very possible that our warming trend is because we are slowly coming out of an ice age and has little or nothing to do with our activity. Or perhaps we are merely hastening what is going to happen anyway.
But I was surprised at this article because it is predicting this year’s average temperature, and we are in the middle of a pandemic which has shut down much of the world’s economy. You can’t give oil away, and planes are grounded and cars are sitting in their driveways because nothing is open.
This worldwide lack of economic activity is significant not just in our pocketbooks, but in the use of carbon fuels. We’ve got to be using 10% or 20% less fuel, and if humans really are the driver of global warming, surely not burning millions of barrels of oil for several months on end has got to be a significant reduction in carbon emission. So why don’t we hear scientists predicting some positive news on the climate-change front? Put another way, given our economic situation, and no “El Nino,” should scientists be predicting a much lower average temperature for the earth?
Could it be that our huge drop in carbon fuels is not having any impact on global warming? That would be the clear indication based on this article and that is real news. So either the article is wrong (shame on the Globe) or the article directly contradicts what we should be doing if we are concerned with climate change. And, evidently, using less fossil fuels is not the answer. So much for the plans and sacrifices outlined in the Green New Deal.
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/831923147332830
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!