Brian Powell, Media Matters:
In a November 28 editorial headlined “Mixing science, politics can result in bad policy,“ _The Oklahoman_ put scare quotes around the word “science” when discussing global warming and argued that, because the science of climate change isn’t “settled,“ it may as well be ignored by policymakers
The National Research Council describes climate change and the associated uncertainties in the following:
In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Okay, fine. If you still wish to completely dismiss the entirety of climate science, ask yourself which is more likely: 1.) A global group of scientists - those comprising a wide array of ethnicities, cultures, and religions - have successfully conspired to perpetuate a hoax on the world for some untold payoff in exchange for their divorce of scientific reasoning and ethics, or 2.) a single billionaire oil and gas tycoon, Philip Anschutz, is using his newspaper as a tool to advance ideas beneficial to his personal finances?
You decide. But I’ll leave you with this from Powell:
The Oklahoman published its editorial just one week after the Washington Examiner (also owned by Anschutz) published an op-ed arguing that cutting carbon emissions is futile, raising ethical questions about the papers’ tendencies to oppose any policies that would harm their owner’s pocketbook.
As for The Oklahoman, what an embarrassment it is for a state that hosts the National Weather Center1 and the new South Central Climate Science Center to have such a sham of a newspaper serve as its largest voice.