Skip to comments.Climate Alarmism at the New York Times
Posted on 11/07/2010 3:27:36 AM PST by Scanian
The New York Times editorial page has been persistent in publishing alarmist editorials on climate change. The latest one appearing shortly before the November elections accused politicians of being in "denial" about climate change. What nonsense! Climate is changing all the time; it has been doing it for millions of years -- without any human intervention. And politicians are simply trying to stay in step with the public.
There is no credible evidence at all that human activities have had any appreciable influence on global climate changes during the last century. While many scientists still believe in a major human contribution, the number of skeptical scientists has been growing steadily as the evidence against AGW [anthropogenic global warming] becomes ever more apparent.
Just ask yourself: what evidence is there to indicate that any warming over the last century is due to human influences? Not even the UN- supported IPCC has been able to point to any solid facts in favor of AGW. The latest science debate revolves around "finger prints" in the climate record. Do the observations of temperature change in the atmosphere show a certain pattern, which is characteristic of greenhouse warming? The answer is a resounding No.
Without any scientific evidence to support AGW, it is wasteful, counterproductive -- and foolish -- to institute regulations that limit the emissions of CO2, restrict the use of energy, and misdirect energy policy into such areas wind farms, solar projects, and biofuels like ethanol. For economic survival, all of these require huge subsidies. which are paid for by citizens twice over: first as taxpayers, then as energy users.
The mid-term elections have pointed up the public skepticism about AGW. Supporters of misguided policies to control emissions of carbon dioxide, through "cap and trade" and fuel standards, went down to defeat almost everywhere. California provided the big exception and now faces an economic disaster.
As reported by Cooler Heads Digest: "... the new Republican majority in the House is largely skeptical of the claim that global warming is a potential crisis and is close to unanimously opposed to cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing measures. Not only is cap-and-trade dead, but there is a good chance that the House next year will move legislation to block or delay the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The question is, can such a measure pass the Democratic-controlled Senate? There is certainly a majority in the Senate for blocking EPA, but sixty votes will be needed. My guess is that there will be more than sixty votes. As EPA regulations start to bite next year, Senators will start to hear complaints from their constituents. And a large number of Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2012 and will want to avoid the fate of so many of their colleagues this year.
The NY Times may be seriously out of step with its own readers, At least that's how I would judge the results of a survey of readers of Scientific American, a magazine that has been just as alarmist about AGW as the Times:
**77% believe that current climate change is caused by natural processes **68% think we should do nothing about climate change, are powerless to stop it **90% approve of climate scientists debating the issue in public forums **83% believe that the UN-IPCC is corrupt, prone to groupthink, and has a political agenda.
The New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers and to the US public in stoking unreasonable fears not based on solid science.
I’ve been reading Singer for years. He’s someone to pay attention to.
The New York Times does not have "readers" they have followers. Anyone who actually "read" what they project would realize it is a leftist mouthpiece. And the last time I read about the number of subscribers they had, it was falling like a rock. Wake up and smell the coffee. Bye bye, NYT
Trouble is, their “followers” include the news departments of all the TV networks and smaller papers throughout the US and the world.
Yes, ALL the networks. Fox quotes the Times regularly.
Yep, they do.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
This is the consequences of AP also.
Newspapers are dying because of “content” not media. The web is not a threat to print, the content of the print media is killing the companies.
I remember well the “good” regional newspapers when I was a young man. Almost all of them have been bought by huge corporate interests who no longer try to present news, only cheap canned garbage masquerading as news.
But at least for now, we can discuss and make fun of that content here on the web. It is an interesting passtime.
Four billion years, Fred.
Since the Liberal MSM as a whole has lost credibility, imagine the utter lack of veracity accepted by the sensible in their leader,the NYT.
Their "President" could raise that by shaving a day off his getaway trip.
Looks like it is now $225 million, according to Bloomberg.
And sounds like the interest rate is much better than what they got from Carlos Slim. (was 14%)
I despise the NYT. They are typical of the cretin that inhabit the major city power centers. They are also the most vulnerable when the cards are reshuffled.
They hold the folks like us in fly-over country in high contempt. We are the uneducated, unwashed masses. /sarcasm
Those Eastern & Western Power Centers and places like Chicago always look to the Federal Government to protect them from the masses.
Top down solutions never work, that is why we are in this mess.
The "newspapers" serve a very important function in keeping Americans ignorant.
In every story I've ever seen on the NY SLIMES when given the chance they have to inject that IRAQ was NOT involved in the 9/11 attacks. Really? Although it would take a while to show you that simply is not true, the argument here is that the US Government plants the seeds of their lies in the media through the big outlets. If you Control the NYTIMES, CBS, ABC (alphabet media) THEN you control everyone else.
The propaganda blitzes started almost a half century ago when JFK was killed in a high level coup. Americans when even thinking about that topic shut down their brains and think "we'll never know the truth until THEY tell us." If you haven't figured it out yet, they are never going to tell you because they don't have to. In a couple of weeks the November blitz will start again (47th anniversary of the cold blooded murder) and Americans will once again watch the lies even though the truth is right in front of them.
In the news last year was words from the Obama regime that they wanted $$ for education of the newsmedia and even $$ for the media. Controlling what you think is very important as Obama and his supporters found out on Tuesday.
By whom? He was assassinated but I think the Cuban Mafia did it. But never was convinced that Oswald did that by himself.
Texans were never fans of any of the Kennedys, but we consider it a black mark that it happened in Dallas. The reason that Johnson was "forced" to run on the ticket with JFK was to balance out that anti-Kennedy bias here.
I find it curious that anyone would believe the Mafia could have been the ones who were at the top of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Sure, Mafia members could have been the people who pulled the trigger(s) but the people who killed him had extraordinary power to alter evidence and lead investigations into delivering BS, not truth.
In this clip on YOUTUBE, Ruby says there were important people that will never let the truth out AND he says Kennedy would never have been killed if we had a different VP, Ruby then goes on to say IT'S THE MAN IN OFFICE NOW. The last two segments in the video were later before Ruby came down with cancer. START watching at about about 3 min 10 seconds for RUBY.
We are talking about this topic because it is the best example there is of the American news media filtering the truth. Bet you've never seen before the clip of Ruby saying it was LBJ.
I agree the BAY OF PIGS was plenty of motive but HOW HOW in the world would the mafia FAKE autopsy photographs, alter the Z film, pressure witnesses..... AND have the investigations come out with bogus answers?
Simply they couldn't just like they couldn't today pressure the press to tell lies. Now the press doesn't KNOW they are lying, they only repeat what they are told and they surely don't have enough sense to tell truth from fiction.
Understand the JFK assassination and you can understand how a group of politicians think they can pull off the Global Warming scam.
By the way, you didn't comment on Ruby saying very clearly, it's the man in office now. Why would Ruby say that if it was the Cubans?
It was very clearly LBJ. LBJ wasn't forced to run as VP, it's pretty clear he forced the Kennedy's to put him on the ticket. It was JFK's death sentence, you lay down with dogs and fleas and bullets are your reward.
I was never a LBJ fan. Was exposed as a very young man to those in TX politics who knew all there was to know about him. But he did not do what you said.
Did you read in Goldwater's "With No Appologies" the statement Lyndon made (on his deathbed) to Barry about why he ran with Kennedy. He was blackmailed into running by way of his illegal ownership of TV stations in Austin.
Where are you from? Not Texas? Maybe Mass.?
“The question is, can such a measure pass the Democratic-controlled Senate? There is certainly a majority in the Senate for blocking EPA, but sixty votes will be needed. My guess is that there will be more than sixty votes.”
There is a fundamental constitutional question involved, that should give the Congress the direct right to act against the EPA. The EPA is an executive branch agency — it does NOT have any constitutional lawmaking ability. It does make, in effect, laws, but that’s only because the Congress has delegated its own legislative powers incrementally to the agencies. That delegation has resulted from a policy of Congress ‘passing the buck’ to the agencies like the EPA, and those policies can be reversed at any time, directly, by the Congress.
In other words, taking control of the EPA does NOT require the passage of a new law requiring Senate approval.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.