The Washington Post is on the way down!

NASA's Blue Marble -- the only planet we have

James Fallows points out, for The Atlantic, that The New York Times did a much better job covering the story of the leaked emails on climate change than did The Washington Post. I quote his conclusion:

In this case one big-time paper, the Post, sticks with "critics contend," while the other presents a contrast between "decades of peer-reviewed science" and politically-motivated opposition. Moreover, the NYT presents the controversy as something that might get in the way of deliberations in Copenhagen; while the Post presents it as a scandal in which "wonky" emails may not constitute "proof" that climate change is a "lie or a swindle" but still justify introducing "lie" and "swindle" as possibilities.

Not to overdramatize, but: in a way the papers are betting their reputations with these articles. The Times, that climate change is simply a matter of science versus ignorance; the Post, that this is best treated as another "-Gate" style flap where it's hard to get to the bottom of the story. While I don't claim to be a climate expert, the overwhelming balance of what I've read convinces me that the Times's approach is right.

So how does The Washington Post respond. It publishes an op-ed piece by failed Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin titled "Copenhagen's political science". She writes:

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

It has been suggested that climate science is "not settled" but is still in flux. In one sense that is true, and in another it is dramatically false. It is true that thousands of scientists are working hard to measure the climate and the factors which drive climate change and to elucidate the complex global systems of interaction between sun, land, sea and atmosphere, and that it is very likely that they will improve our understanding of climate greatly in coming decades.

It is not true that there is serious debate among scientists as to whether anthropogenic global warming is taking place nor whether global warming is likely to get worse over the coming decades. The vast majority of scientists agree on these conclusions, and in fact there has been an unprecedentedly serious effort to document that agreement for the benefit of policy makers.

Let me argue by analogy. The theory of gravity is not settled, in the sense that scientists are still working to reconcile it with quantum theory and to discover a fundamental particle accounting for gravity. Still, since Newton theory has been adequate to predict very accurately the paths of comets and planets, and indeed to predict the return of comets and the existence of previously unknown planetary objects by disturbances in the orbits of known ones. With Einstein's theory, it became possible to explain gravitational lensing and to predict orbits of satellites with sufficient accuracy to allow our GPS systems to work. The theory of gravity may not be complete, but it is adequate for practical purposes.

So too, our understanding of climate change man not be complete, but it is adequate for the practical purpose of developing policy to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and to ameliorate the negative consequences to people of the changes we will not avoid. This is especially true if we accept the "precautionary principle" that we should take out insurance against problems that are not certain to arise, but which might with reasonable probability arise.

It is not the science of climate change that is political, but the reaction of Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, other politicians are seeking to deny the science and polls indicate that a significant number of American voters are being misled by their propaganda.

It should be clear that there are some rich people who will lose potential profits in the short run if and when regulations are put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that there are very large numbers of poor and middle income people who will suffer greatly unless those regulations are put in place. Do you suppose Palin is seeking funding from and reflecting the interests of the rich minority or the majority?

Who believes that journalism major, soccer mom, failed governor and failed candidate Palin knows anything about climate science anyway?

The Washington Post, historically a great newspaper, seems to be losing the groove. Not all opinions are equally worthy of newspaper space. Some are credible, some are simply wrong!