Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reading the New York Times; an exercise in masochism
The New York Times | May 29, 2004 | Verlyn Klinkenborg

Posted on 05/29/2004 8:06:51 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid

I don't know how many of you receive the New York Times Book Review. I suppose it's limited to people who subscribe to the sunday edition of the NYT, which I'm sure doesn't include many FReepers, though I could be wrong about that.

Anyway, I was curious if any of you have seen the column on the last page of this weekend's Book Review (Chronicle: Environment), written by Verlyn Klinkenborg. I'll try to sumarrize it as neatly as I can without boring you to tears.

Klinkenborg's argument can basically be reduced to two main-though not very perceptive-thoughts:

1. We have a global warming crisis, which is caused by emissions created by humans beings.

2. Even though we're all aware of this crisis, we are either too indolent and/or callous to solve it.

I think that that his thesis can be boiled down to one paragraph:

To most scientists, global warming is a truly scary hypothesis. The evidence overwhelmingly shows, as predicted, that human behavior is altering the climate, with potentially catastrophic results. And yet it seems strangely difficult to scare or reason or argue Americans, the critical audience to reach, into recognizing the truth and acting on it.

Now, I don't want to get bogged down in technical arguments as to the merits or demerits of the case for global warming. Yes, it's been proven that there has been a slight increase in the mean temperature recorded over the past few years. I'm not here to debate whether or not this will have beneficial or negative consequences-or both-for our planet.

I'm simply soliciting your opinions regarding the sheer arrogance displayed by Klinkenborg in the assumptions and conclusions he arrives at during the course of this article.

He continually places the blame for global warming at the feet of the United States: "...the country with the highest emissions and the most excessive consumption, as well as enormous potential to produce innovative technologies-knows and seems to care the least about global warming.", while obscuring the responsibilities of other G-7, not to mention third world, nations.

For example, Klinkenborg never even raises the issue of China and India's own depletion of the Ozone Layer-which should concern him if he were consistent in his beliefs-during their drive to industrialize their respective countries.

Instead of asking the rhetorical question: "Why have Americans refused to face up to Global Warming?" I think Verlyn-and what kind of WASPish, preppie name is that anyway(?)-should ask himself why he could devote the equivalent of a two page article to this issue, and not bring up the fact that the United States is only part of the problem/solution and not the sole custodian of this planet?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; liberalmedia; nyt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
I'd appreciate responses from any Freepers interested in this issue, even if you haven't yet read the article in question.
1 posted on 05/29/2004 8:06:52 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

I would not read the New York if it were the last rag on earth.


2 posted on 05/29/2004 8:15:54 AM PDT by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
I stopped reading the Slimes a long time ago. Never mind the slant on the news, their choice of agendas, er, "articles" (note the air quotes) simply did not interest me.
3 posted on 05/29/2004 8:19:24 AM PDT by Ukiapah Heep (Shoes for Industry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

I haven't read the article (not wishing to give a hit to the NYT) but will make several comments anyway:

1) Every story from the leftist media states that there is overwhelming evidence that global warming (higher temperatures) due to greenhouse gas emissions. What there is is evidence that the CO2 concentration has increased significantly - maybe 20-30% over the last 40 years. The assumption is that this is due to human-caused emissions. Some scientists then wrote computer programs to predict the effect of the increased CO2 emissions on temperatures. Every program so far has greatly overestimated the CO2 effects.

2) While the USA signed the Kyoto Treaty, Clinton refused to send it for ratification to the Senate. On their own, the Senate voted 95-0 against the treaty content, stating that it would severely affect the economy. Did Kerry vote against it?

3) China and India probably have very little to do with the ozone layer depletion (another scientific hoax?) -- there is little air conditioning and no aerosol deodorants used in those countries.


4 posted on 05/29/2004 8:20:01 AM PDT by RandyRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
Well, if the "End of Days" scenario is correct, the NYT may be the first "rag" to feel the repercussions of Global Warming.
5 posted on 05/29/2004 8:20:08 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
You have to understand, the New York Times is no longer a newspaper in the traditional American sense. It has become a propaganda sheet more akin to Pravda in the former Soviet Union. The sole purpose of the paper is to disseminate whatever fiction the political operatives of the Democrat party want fed to the masses that day. Once you understand this the scales will fall from your eyes and you will probably be less incensed by what you read in the Times.

Interestingly, my guess is that those who control the NYT probably consider the comparison to Pravda a compliment.

6 posted on 05/29/2004 8:21:01 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

I have heard this issue debated and I seriously question the science behind his claim of global warming. With algore as the leading spokesman for global warming, I think we all need to take a giant step back away from this. We all know how clear thinking he is now don't we.


7 posted on 05/29/2004 8:21:31 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

What a disaster that would be. Not!


8 posted on 05/29/2004 8:23:26 AM PDT by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ukiapah Heep
Bob Kohn wrote a great dissection of the NYT partisan slant about a year and a half ago.

His book-even though at times a little tendentious-is full of evidence that points to the precipitous decline of the NYT since the stewardship of Howell Raines over the editorial page.

9 posted on 05/29/2004 8:24:32 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
Global warming is largely a hoax. Even the studies that show some temperature increase are marginal as proofs. Anthropogenic causes of warming are less than one percent of global warming factors. Even the decomposition of trees and cow flatulence are major factors. Kyoto, the only proposed solution cannot by any stretch of imagination stop or reduce global warming. China and India are exempted. The present spate of high gas prices due to China's massively expanding economy demonstrates the futility of constraining human economies.

In the 1970s climatologists raised big grant dollars by insisting that an ice age was coming. Now they insist that warming is coming. The price of stopping global warming has human costs as well. Poverty kills more than dangerous weather ever will. Kyoto is most significantly a financial arrangement for transferring wealth from the United States to Russia and Europe. The agreement constrains US economic growth while allowing Russia and other lower economies to sell their lower capacity economies for global warming credits.

The entire scheme is a terrible scam.
10 posted on 05/29/2004 8:26:18 AM PDT by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
It's available on line here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/books/review/30KLINKEN.html

11 posted on 05/29/2004 8:27:58 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
All you need to know about today's NY Times:

Quote:
the Times's new publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr ... was a sixties anti-war activist who famously declared that in a confrontation between an American and a North Vietnamese soldier he'd want to see the American get shot."
Unquote.
Stanley Kurtz (NRO on line, June 5, 2001)

12 posted on 05/29/2004 8:29:14 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

Well, two points. First, global warming is pseudo-science. We should be concerned about the environment and pollution, but we should spend our money sensibly. The Kyoto treaty was a huge boondoggle, designed to favor China, India, and Russia while putting the screws mainly to the U.S. It's chief covert purpose, I would guess, was to weaken the American economy and undermine the west.

Second point. The New York Times used to be the only available source of international news, short of subscribing to foreign newspapers, which were hard to get outside a few big cities. I subscribed to it for maybe 30 years and held my nose, because I could read between the lines and learn a few facts. Now, with the internet, that is no longer necessary. Plus the NY Times no longer even bothers to bury inconvenient news at the bottom of p. 38. They just don't print it at all. So it has lost its monopoly on the news. There's no longer any reason to hold your nose and buy it.


13 posted on 05/29/2004 8:33:29 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
I believe the current status of environmental thinking in our nation was fairly characterized by best-selling author Michael Crichton, when he said in his September 2003 speech before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

”There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

”Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.”

To read the reports from the UN and in the public press, one would think that the existence of global warming is a proven fact, and that human activity as its root cause is widely accepted in the scientific community.

One would also think that the only scientifically valid remedy for this grim situation is for the US and other nations to urgently adopt the Kyoto Accords, which call for draconian reductions in fossil full usage and, if implemented, would certainly create tremendous economic dislocation for our people and for those living in other countries.

Al Gore himself, whom many in the US believe should have been our president, made the following statement about global warming in New York City on the January 15, 2004 – the coldest day in the city’s history since 1957.

I am particularly concerned because the vast majority of the most respected environmental scientists from all over the world have sounded a clear and urgent alarm. The international community – including the United States – began a massive effort several years ago to assemble the most accurate scientific assessment of the growing evidence that the earth’s environment is sustaining severe and potentially irreparable damage from the unprecedented accumulation of pollution in the global atmosphere. In essence, these scientists are telling the people of every nation that global warming caused by human activities is becoming a serious threat to our common future.

And yet, only three months earlier, on November 4, 2003 the Canadian National Post reported the following:

The growing number of scientists who dispute the [Kyoto] treaty's scientific foundation have become increasingly vocal, regularly pushing their case in the media as groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice.

Of these, none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records.

The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century.

The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.

So who’s right? Is global warming a real threat caused by human activity, or isn’t it? Obviously, there is vigorous debate on both sides of the question, and the science is far from settled.

But it is clear to anyone who will look closely that there are an awful lot social engineers in our own nation, in governments around the world and at the UN who have a vested interest in human-induced global warming being true.

An urgent need to save the planet from catastrophic environmental disaster would be just the thing to justify UN control of every square inch or cubic centimeter of the world’s land, air and water.

Imagine the power you would have if you were in a position – by virtue of your authority to save the world’s environment – to decide which human activities were environmentally permissible and which were not

You could tell people where to live. You could impose so-called “smart development” and stuff people into densely populated urban areas in order to save open space, an often stated pillar of the environmentalist agenda. (As it happens, there is so much unoccupied space in the continental US that every person in the country could be given a half acre plot and still fit entirely within the state of Texas, leaving the rest of the country entirely unpopulated. I know. I’ve done the math.)

If you were named Environmental Czar, your could tell people what they could do with their land and regulate their housing. You could tell them how much water they could have in their toilets, and how much heat, air conditioning and electricity they could use. You could control the amount of television they watch by rationing of electrical power. You could tell them what they were allowed to drive, and how much gas they could use. You could force them out of their cars and into public transportation (See Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore). You could impose manufacturing production quotas and regulate the world’s industries to the point where you would essentially own them. You could even tell people how many children they are allowed to have.

You would, in fact, rule the world and all the people in it.

Now wanting to rule the world is nothing new. People have been trying to do that since the first humans pressed beyond their own local habitat and realized that there were other people living in the next valley. In the 20th century, the drive to rule the world achieved its greatest expression with rise of socialism and the Communist empire. Back then, the social engineers believed that they could achieve ultimate Power Over Others by commanding every aspect of the economy. But of course, that didn’t work. Draconian government control of the economy proved unsustainable, to borrow the environmentalists’ favorite word. Thus Communism collapsed, leaving over 100 million murder victims in its wake, and with it went the dreams of millions of social engineers around the world who looked to it as a model for humanity and their ticket to power.

The environmentalist movement has given these people a new home, and a new theory for seizing power. The Kyoto Accords would have gone a long way towards imposing on the world’s most productive nations the kind of control that had vanished for the social engineers when communism and its weak sister socialism finally ended up in the ash heap of history.

And to anyone who won’t get with the program, all that is needed is to scream: “You want to destroy the environment!”

So perhaps it is not surprising that when confronted with a very reasonable caution about imposing the far-reaching, burdensome and society-changing Kyoto Accords in the face of conflicting scientific evidence about global warming, we have people like John Kerry publicly attacking George Bush’s motives in deciding to abandon the treaty once and for all. (It had previously been rejected by a 95-0 vote in the US Senate during Bill Clinton’s administration and was politically dead anyway.)

According to Mr. Kerry, in his February 9, 2003 speech at the Kennedy School of Government in Boston: “Nowhere is there a more determined, more dangerous, more concerted frontal and stealth assault on our values and our future than the Bush Administration's disregard for the environment.”

Well my own position is that when it comes to concerted frontal and stealth assaults on the core values and future of the American people, people like John Kerry and his social engineering colleagues in the environmentalist movement are right up there with the best of them.

14 posted on 05/29/2004 8:34:03 AM PDT by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandyRep
3) China and India probably have very little to do with the ozone layer depletion (another scientific hoax?) -- there is little air conditioning and no aerosol deodorants used in those countries.

I have been following the story of the ozone hole above the Antarctic for years. There is a strong correlation between Congress convening in Washington and the appearance of the hole in the ozone. Whenever they recess, the hole magically disappears.


gitmo
15 posted on 05/29/2004 8:34:08 AM PDT by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

Sounds like the nutty Al Gore view of the future. If the government had stayed in the operation of asylums for the mentally disturbed we wouldn't even be discussing this phony problem.


16 posted on 05/29/2004 8:35:41 AM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trek
I wouldn't describe myself as "incensed."

I know that the NYT has a certain predisposition to slant the news to suit their own ideological nostrums. I was just somewhat chagrined that they chose this particular forum to launch a partisan assault against the Bush Administration.

It seems as if Klinkenborg's cursory mention of several new releases dealing with Global Warming was merely a pretext to insert his own political viewpoints into the NYT Book Review.

17 posted on 05/29/2004 8:35:43 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
...slight increase in the mean temperature recorded over the past few years

Not the past "few years." There has been a .3C (or 1F) degree rise in temperature over the past 100 years. The debate is whether the rise is attributable to normal fluctuations in global temperature or driven by fossil fuel emissions. Given that man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have only risen from .006 to .004 of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a very small increase, and given also that in the Middle Ages, when there were no man-made greenhouse gases, temperatures were substantially warmer than they are now, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the rise we've seen over the past hundred years is a normal fluctuation.

Being perfectly reasonable, however, has no appeal to those who claim a catastrophe is upon us.

18 posted on 05/29/2004 8:50:10 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tioga
"I am outraged! I'm simply outraged by that slanderous characterization!"

"I am Algore dammit!

"I drive a solar powered SUV! I can bend steel beams with my irises!"

(Thus spoke Gore-athrusta.)

19 posted on 05/29/2004 8:51:32 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: beckett
I see your point.

I didn't mean to imply that this was my characterization of what was occurring. I was merely trying to highlight the fact that this is a new tack taken by the extremist wing of the environmental mov't.

The fact that they've only been the standard-bearers for this issue since the early 90s, shows you the importance they assign to political opportunism, vs. genuine concerns about our planet's ecology.

20 posted on 05/29/2004 8:55:03 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
"1) I know that the NYT has a certain predisposition to slant the news to suit their own ideological nostrums.

2) I was just somewhat chagrined that they chose this particular forum to launch a partisan assault against the Bush Administration."

Sentence 2) is a direct contradiction of sentence 1).

21 posted on 05/29/2004 8:58:18 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trek
Read my post carefully.

I was surprised by the placement of this column, not by the fact that it was written and printed in the pages of The Times.

There's a link to the piece on this thread. Once you've read it, I think you'll agree that this did not belong in a section devoted to literary analysis.

22 posted on 05/29/2004 9:03:37 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

Random thoughts, typed as fast as I can think 'em:

Whether global warming is valid or not, Kyoto was fatally flawed. Free passes for the worst polluters, sinks ignored even though they do make a difference, no adjustment for transportation related emissions in large vs. compact countries, etc, etc.

The greenie weenies never forget to point out that US greehouse emissions are high on a per capita basis, but they conveniently fail to note how low they are on a per unit production basis. In effect non-Americans are the ones who consume much of the production for which we take the blame.

Global weather is several orders of magnitude too complicated to be thoroughly understood by humans. Air pollution by smokestack industries, for example, is much more straightforward and easy to demonstrate causation.

While the human contribution may have some impact, you have to have a realistic view of how minute we and our activities are in relation to natural forces that have been at work for millenia.

Why was the UN research on Kyoto signed by POLITICAL scientists?

Why were alarmists in the 70's predicting a coming ice age?


23 posted on 05/29/2004 9:04:05 AM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
I agree on that point.

The idea that "developing" nations, which are still in the process of industrialization, are somehow better stewards of the environment is ridiculous.

These people conveniently forget that if it weren't for the "green", fuel-efficient technologies developed by countries like the United States, and regions such as Western Europe, our globe would be in much worse shape than it is today.

24 posted on 05/29/2004 9:09:27 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
Read my post carefully.

Subterfuge and deception are fundamental tools of the propagandist. We laugh at the rag sheets printed in places like North Korea or the former Soviet Union where every aspect of life is politicized. (SNL did a great send up of this with "Bad Red Chinese Opera" back when SNL was actually funny). But what you noticed in the NYT is a manifestation of this same technique. It is to your credit that you see it and are annoyed. That is a hopeful sign. But make no mistake about the motivations or intentions of those who run the Times.

25 posted on 05/29/2004 9:10:20 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

the nyt calls for rumsfeld and the president to resign, but notice that in the blair mess, the publishers of the nyt did not resign.


26 posted on 05/29/2004 9:12:24 AM PDT by no_problema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gitmo

Excellent point...of course we only have "ozone hole" data above the Antarctic since the 1970's, so it's real probable that it occurred before that since Congress has been meeting since 1791 or so.

If you look carefully at the science involved, there is not a true "hole" in the ozone layer. It just thins in the Antarctic summertime. Funny that there is not a corresponding thinning over the North Pole in the Arctic summertime, since the concentration of the assorted Congresses (USA, EU, UK, France, etc) are in the Northern hemisphere, as are most of the sources of the gases related to the ozone layer depletion. I guess the theory is that the ozone-depleting gases run downhill towards the bottom of the Earth, or something.


27 posted on 05/29/2004 9:13:53 AM PDT by RandyRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: trek
Well, they did reject my op-ed. So nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the Times.
28 posted on 05/29/2004 9:14:16 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RandyRep
Well, the ultimate responsibility for this debacle lies with "Pinch" Sulzberger.

The fact that his henchmen, Boyd and Raines, were sacked doesn't ameliorate the problem in the least.

As long Sulzberger, his sister, and their cronies wield the power of a veto over decisions made by the board of the Times, nothing will change.

29 posted on 05/29/2004 9:17:57 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
My favorite source for combating the "Global Warmisists" is Sallie Ballunis, formerly with NASA and MIT in upperatmosphere and weather research.

This is a link to just one of her many articles refuting what the enviromental-fascists would like us to believe.

Oner of her best articles discusses how all models of man-caused global warming show that the heating would show up first in the upper atmosphere. Her point is that that isn't happening, hence huge cause for skeptiism on the environmentalists claims. I don't have al link to that article. Googling a bit will find it.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=149

30 posted on 05/29/2004 9:18:01 AM PDT by HardStarboard ( Wesley...gone. Hillary......not gone enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
Thanks for the tip!

Who was the Danish scientist (Bjorn Lumberg? I know that ain't it) who used to work for GreenPeace and gradually became a skeptic?

31 posted on 05/29/2004 9:25:18 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

It's the same reason why most of those foolish earthlings missed the spaceship that was following Hale-Bopp!


32 posted on 05/29/2004 9:27:13 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Any "church" that can't figure out abortion and homosexuality isn't worthy of the appellation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

I think the only people left who are subscribing to the NYT is the diehard leftists and those who want the coupons. It's a dying paper.


33 posted on 05/29/2004 9:31:03 AM PDT by McGavin999 (If Kerry can't deal with the "Republican Attack Machine" how is he going to deal with Al Qaeda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
C'mon.

You know that Heaven's Gate cult was onto something.

I mean, why else would they be living in Washington?

Or was it Oregon?

Whatever.

They're both seriously whacked.

34 posted on 05/29/2004 9:32:56 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
With a lot of scratch.

See the NYT Newspaper Group, The New England Newspaper Group, The Regional Newspaper Group, the Broadcast Group and New York Times Digital.

They don't own media. They are the media!

35 posted on 05/29/2004 9:36:49 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
That's not even including the concatenation of scandals relating to the ethical laxity of Times reporters/editors.

Blair, Bragg, Muller, etc., have proven that The New York Times' real motto should be: "All the news that's fit to stint."

36 posted on 05/29/2004 9:44:15 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
Who was the Danish scientist (Bjorn Lumberg? I know that ain't it)...

You were close. It's Bjorn Lomborg. His book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, is absolutely essential reading, and an essential reference manual, for anyone who wants to employ well researched, impeccably gathered hard facts with which to refute the environmentalist Cassandras.

37 posted on 05/29/2004 9:46:02 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Well it was worth a shot.

He is really impressive, at least he comes across that way on television.

I watched him on "Now", when Moyers was moderating a discussion about different threats posed to the environment. I think this occurred during one of the myriad, useless global summits dealing with global warming.

I was struck by how easily he refuted his opponent's arguments, especially when they were debating the relative merits of government spending for anti-Global Warming research vs. inoculating millions of children with life saving vaccines.

38 posted on 05/29/2004 9:53:03 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Good point.

Though, I wonder. If methane is so bad for the atmosphere, why do they let Teddy Kennedy roam free?

39 posted on 05/29/2004 11:42:13 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I'm gonna' be iron. Like a lion in Zion. Gonna' be like Iron. Like a lion in Zion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
Bjorn Lomborg
40 posted on 05/29/2004 6:07:47 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Wow!

Thanks for the link to that great article. I had forgotten some of the defamatory charges leveled at Lomburg's scholarship.

I'm always curious about these cases of purported academic fraud. All of this internecine, academic warfare is usually a ruse to cover up people's own petty interests.

If you visit my web-page on FR, you'll see a perfect example of a professor-Stuart Schaar-who for all intents and purposes, is a paid propagandist.

I also have a whole section devoted to my favorite historians, if you want to check it out.

41 posted on 05/29/2004 6:22:29 PM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("Angels come to greet with lots of jack, and when you lose it they don't attack...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong

I'm on it!


42 posted on 05/29/2004 10:20:53 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Good luck.

I know there's probably a lot of crap on there that you can just as easily disregard, but there is a really funny scene from an Ionesco play that you've got to check out.

To my mind, he was the best European playwright-with the possible exception of Beckett-of the entire 20th Century.

43 posted on 05/30/2004 3:20:44 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("Angels come to greet with lots of jack, and when you lose it they don't attack...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I meant to tell you the other day that I admired the strong argument you presented in these paragraphs:
Imagine the power you would have if you were in a position – by virtue of your authority to save the world’s environment – to decide which human activities were environmentally permissible and which were not

You could tell people where to live. You could impose so-called “smart development” and stuff people into densely populated urban areas in order to save open space, an often stated pillar of the environmentalist agenda. (As it happens, there is so much unoccupied space in the continental US that every person in the country could be given a half acre plot and still fit entirely within the state of Texas, leaving the rest of the country entirely unpopulated. I know. I’ve done the math.)

If you were named Environmental Czar, your could tell people what they could do with their land and regulate their housing. You could tell them how much water they could have in their toilets, and how much heat, air conditioning and electricity they could use. You could control the amount of television they watch by rationing of electrical power. You could tell them what they were allowed to drive, and how much gas they could use. You could force them out of their cars and into public transportation (See Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore). You could impose manufacturing production quotas and regulate the world’s industries to the point where you would essentially own them. You could even tell people how many children they are allowed to have.

That's what they have in mind, you're right.

44 posted on 05/30/2004 9:45:02 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: beckett
I meant to tell you the other day that I admired the strong argument you presented

Thank you very much for taking the time to say so. Much appreciated.

45 posted on 05/30/2004 10:00:21 AM PDT by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
>>>Who was the Danish scientist <<<

Yes, I know who you mean but can't remember his name. I think he and Sallie Ballunis collaborated on an article I read a couple of years back.

Let me dig a bit and see if I can get a name for you.

46 posted on 05/30/2004 10:47:50 AM PDT by HardStarboard ( Wesley...gone. Hillary......not gone enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
Yes, the fireman dialogue was hilarious. Overall, your page is a fun read.

In your musical preferences section, I notice you like a smattering of artists from "my era"...

Dusty Springfield... the minute I heard her sing "The Look Of Love," I knew that girl had soul!...

Leslie Gore... along with the Angels, she reigned supreme in the biotch song category. I think her best effort was "You Don't Own Me." In her teens, she commuted into Manhattan from New Jersey to sing in a little dive during the summer. Quincy Jones walked in there one day to wet his whistle, heard her sing and the rest is history...

Ray Stevens... Figures you would like him. I do too. Coincidentally, I was listening to the original "Ahab The Arab" just a couple days ago. It's been years, as they say. He was very talented at producing novelty tunes, but also was an excellent musician who could hit the charts with a straight ditty from time to time, eg. "Everything Is Beautiful" (#1 in '70). A lot of people mistook him for BJ Thomas on that cut. He was a fine mimic.

Keep in touch.

47 posted on 05/30/2004 10:51:27 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ItsonlikeDonkeyKong
OK, I went to Tech Central Station - Sallie Baliunas (correct spelling) - is a frequent contributor. The name of a couple Danish scientists appear in here articles.

Here is a URL that covers some of the stuff by Sallie I was refering to. Lower in the body is details about the lack of trophosphere warming being indicative of no man-made warming effects from CO2.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/062002B.html

There is a link to all of Baliunas's articles at the bottom of this one.

For reference, here is her bio from TCS. Pretty damned impressive.

From TCS:

Sallie Baliunas

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. served as part Deputy Director of Mount Wilson Observatory and as Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC, and chairs the Institute's Science Advisory Board and is past contributing editor to the World Climate Report. Her awards include the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckmann Award for Scientific Freedom and the Bok Prize from Harvard University.

She has written over 200 scientific research articles. In 1991 Discover magazine profiled her as one of America's outstanding women scientists. She was technical consultant for a science-fiction television series, "Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict," airing 1997 - 2001. She received her M.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University.

Her research interests include solar variability and other factors in climate change, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sunlike stars, exoplanets and the use of laser electro-optics for the correction of turbulence due to the earth's atmosphere in astronomical images.

End TCS Quote

There is an intereting article, with some technical stuff way way over my head, that comes to some interesting conclusions. The comments that only the bad news seems to get noticed by the scientific press is much like what is going on with the press in Iraq. URL http://www.techcentralstation.com/070903C.html

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts after you read some of her stuff. Feel free to contact me by FreepMail if you wish.

48 posted on 05/30/2004 11:25:39 AM PDT by HardStarboard ( Wesley...gone. Hillary......not gone enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
Thanks for the help!

I'll get back to you after having read some of the suggestions you mentioned.

P.S. I probably would never have used that website if it hadn't been associated with the likes of James Glassman. I used to love the 'TechnoPolitics' show he hosted on PBS. I even used his Washington Post column for a high school paper I wrote about the '96 presidential election.

49 posted on 05/30/2004 2:49:12 PM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("I caughts a rheumatism a chancin' on the snow. I killed me seven yankees, I'd like to kill some mo')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid

bump


50 posted on 07/29/2004 11:53:25 PM PDT by GeronL (geocities.com/geronl is back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson