I like the LAT. They do some of the best reporting on environmental issues. So I'm reading a pretty good piece on how EPA Administrator overruled his science advisers on the recent ozone ruling (more on that in a later post) -- and come to this remarkable paragraph that shows how the president himself actually intervened to weaken the EPA regulations:
President Bush intervened at the 11th hour and turned down a second proposal by the EPA staff that would have established tougher seasonal limits on ozone based on its harm to forests, crops and other plants, according to documents obtained by The Times. Federal scientists had recommended those growing-season limits as a way to keep vegetation healthy and capable of trapping carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.
No, no, a thousand times, no!
Can't the LAT do better than "linked to global warming"? The media use the word "linked" to deal with as yet uncorroborated or unproven allegations, as in the NY Times recent blockbuster: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring" [and you thought I'd never find a way to get that story into a climate post, ye of little faith].
Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe -- there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a "greenhouse gas"? Why do you think your own story calls it a "greenhouse gas"?
Time for the Times to stop soft-pedaling climate science.
[Note to L.A. Times: I
really really hope assume you know greenhouse gases cause global warming. So were you afraid to say, "... carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" because that means you are acknowledging that global warming is a real phenomenon and caused by humans? If so, that is perhaps even lamer.]