Apparently, so, judging by this column that appeared Thursday, the same day President Donald Trump announced his decision to exit the Paris climate deal: “3 Books That Help Make Sense of the Climate Change Debate.”
What are these three books?
The first is Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, written by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It’s a widely-praised book on the origins of the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign that has so warped the climate discussion.
The second is An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming by Nigel Lawson. Lawson runs a widely debunked climate misinformation group and has “links to Europe’s colossal coal polluter.”
The third book is Flight Behavior, by acclaimed novelist Barbara Kingsolver.
So we have one highly regard (sic) work of nonfiction and two works of fiction, only one of which is intentionally so. The Times is severely confused if it thinks a work of climate misinformation could “help make sense of the climate change debate.”
Oreskes summed it up in an email to ThinkProgress: “More false equivalence from the NY Times.”
It’s hard to understand what the New York Times is up to with its positioning – it is only for profits / more readers or are many of their editors climate deniers?
And I’m sorry – since when did fiction become a method by which one should make important decisions? Didn’t Michael Crichton’s State of Fear case enough problems? Hell, members of congress have held it up as fact!