Well, in essence, we have two fails in a row for the New York Times, the first comes from the vaulted “Fail-Gate” where I hate to point the finger at the New York Times when they simply parroted an article trotted out by every other media outlet in this country, but heck, they did it to themselves by not fact-checking it themselves. Read more here.
Where they basically accused the Heartland institute of false things based on a false document that basic fact-checking would have found the document to be a forgery….and to boot the entire concept and most of the aggravation and otherwise noise there was on the concept that they wanted to teach children something other than science in the classroom when all they wanted to do was teach science in the classroom (kind of ironic in the end when you think about it…)
But then the next day they do a press release and can not even get basic science facts correct that first graders could get correct! Shows that perhaps the entire point about teaching real science in the classroom that the heartland institute was promoting might be needed. Here is the scoop straight from the article.
Soot, methane and hydrofluorocarbons, which are used in foam and refrigerants, have a short life span in the atmosphere, measured in weeks or years. By contrast, carbon dioxide, the primary cause of climate disruption, persists in the atmosphere for thousands of years — and its effects are much more difficult to mitigate.
The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years
Which although is backed up by climate research, is at odds with both common sense and fails the smell test. Research from long ago puts the half-life of CO2 at between 5-15 years with a best guess at 8 years roughly. Now let me explain this in basic physics terms that everyone can explain. It does not matter whether you add or subtract CO2 from the atmosphere, the cycle remains the same whether it’s increasing or decreasing. The system will diffuse or suffuse at the same rate and a well-diffused gas will remain as such or not and having more of it will not change the rate at which it is absorbed or not. This is basic physics and as such the half-life or resident time of CO2 will never change.
As such the 5-15 years (8 years) is sound physics that must be disproven and you can argue that “but some CO2 molecules from 100 years ago are in the atmosphere” is missing the point. It is dishonest, wrong, and above all else is not scientific in any way. For the New York Times to get a simple fact like this so wrong is so funny as to be comical.
So yes, some CO2 will last 30-95 years as is the case in a cycle where half of every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere today will not be so in 8 years, but to tell people who the lifetime is estimated on the order of 30-95 years or 100 years as stated in the IPCC is rather dishonest, and as I showed the New York Times did in the “thousands of years” just completely dishonest and wrong.
So in essence the Journalistic reward for excellence goes to the New York Times for two days in a row for getting things so wrong that it’s a wonder that anyone at this paper can even walk. I wonder how they manage to do anything right truth be told. Two days in a row of getting facts so wrong that even a second grader just points at them and goes “ha ha”.
In other words, they have really failed and going back to the first fail, yes maybe the children of our country do need better primary education as the journalists in our country obviously can not even do simple things like get facts straight. Maybe simple fact checking and real science should be taught in elementary school instead of propaganda films such as Al Gore’s wild fantasy unicorn movie?