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

Skip to comments.

No, Alaska is not melting
Enter Stage Right ^ | July 8, 2002 | Alan Caruba

Posted on 07/09/2002 10:40:14 AM PDT by gordgekko

As heat makes life on the East Coast insufferable, the latest Big Lie is that "Alaska, No Longer So Frigid, Starts to Crack, Burn and Sag." This article by veteran Northwest correspondent Timothy Egan got a lot of attention because, unfortunately, anything that is published by The New York Times gets lots of attention. When it comes to science, however, the Times is not merely inaccurate, it has engaged in a pattern of deception that goes back over a decade.

Suffice it to say that the Alaska Climate Research Center immediately rebutted the claim. Gerd Wendler of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute wrote "In the last twenty years very little warming, for some stations even a slight cooling, has been observed." What warming had occurred in Alaska mostly occurred in the 1970s. Ironically, during the 1970's, environmentalists were writing books and articles claiming that a new Ice Age was coming.

The New York Times has lied about "global warming" for a long time. From 1991 to 1996, William K. Stevens, a so-called "science reporter", published 125 articles all testifying to the horrors of a global warming that was not happening. When several thousand scientists joined together to sign a petition debunking this greatest hoax of our times, the Times went to some lengths to ridicule them.

On August 19, 2000, The New York Times reported that the North Pole was melting, noting that this was "evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate." Ten days later they took a stab at telling the truth because, by then, it was public knowledge that during a typical summer, about 90 percent of the high Arctic is covered with ice, but about 10 percent is open water over the North Pole.

It confers far too much dignity upon the Science News section of The New York Times to wrap garbage in it. It is garbage. First Stevens and then Andrew C. Revkin have flogged the story of climate change ever since the United Nations Rio Treaty was foisted on the world in the 1990s. Stevens wrote apoplectically about the UN Kyoto Treaty on climate change. The US Senate voted unanimously to never ratify this treaty, aimed at undermining the economy of the United States.

Only a fool would read The New York Times expecting the truth. It is the American version of the former Soviet Union's Pravda, a newspaper published to deceive Russians into believing Communism was the future. That lie crashed along with the Berlin Wall. The Times needs to change its motto to "All the lies we deem fit to print."

Alan Caruba is the founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about scare campaigns designed to influence public opinion and policy. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.anxietycenter.com. (c) Alan Caruba, 2002


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: caruba; environmentalism; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; newyorktimes

1 posted on 07/09/2002 10:40:14 AM PDT by gordgekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
The left, and the NY Times in particular, believe the Lies, Errors & Ommissions department is really the newsroom. Real science? They've never heard of such a thing.
2 posted on 07/09/2002 10:41:48 AM PDT by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
William K. Stevens

So all this Kyoto and CO2 and the SUV taxes are the doing of this person and the New York Times. Is this a pseudonym of Osama? [They seem to use pseudonyms a lot.]

3 posted on 07/09/2002 10:46:24 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Scruffdog
"What on earth do these doomsday "global warming" fanatics expect to gain? What is in it for the NYT and the rest of these losers?"

The Environmental movement is the New Left in this country. It has become obvious to these communists and left-socialists that the American people are never going to voluntarily choose Communism, so their only hope is to gain control subversively - using, as their pretext phony environmental science. In this way, they can erode your freedoms, appropriate or make otherwise useless your private property, restrict your choice of purchases to only those goods deemed OK by Central Planning, control energy policy, expand taxation to confiscatory levels to "fund environmental goals and programs" (which includes welfare and other income redistribution schemes), and to gain power and control over the means of production of the US economy under the guise of protecting the environment.

It's incrementalism, to be sure, but that's their goal. The over-arching state control over its peoples.

I just got back from Alaska and found it a delightful place. You can go view glaciers, and even the National Park Service literature and maps show you that any warming (that shows up in glacial recessions) is measured primarily since the 1700's - not as a modern-day man-made phenomenon. The most fun I had on the trip was a tour on a fossil-fuel-consuming turbine helicopter up to a glacier, where I spent an hour riding around on dogsleds powered by fat-consuming Alaskan Huskies. What a rush.

In other words, "Alaska is Melting" is not playing IN Alaska, where people know better.

Michael

5 posted on 07/09/2002 11:40:12 AM PDT by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
"It is the American version of the former Soviet Union's Pravda, a newspaper published to deceive Russians into believing Communism was the future."
Except that Pravda was government run. The Times does this all on their own.
6 posted on 07/09/2002 11:44:39 AM PDT by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
Index Bump
7 posted on 07/09/2002 12:54:42 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko; Ragtime Cowgirl; Miss Marple; Howlin; hchutch; rintense; Mo1; farmfriend; madfly; ...
Thanks for posting more wisdom and truth from my friend Alan.

Alan's words of wisdom are very explicit when he covers the constant lies of the "NY Slimes":

Only a fool would read The New York Times expecting the truth. It is the American version of the former Soviet Union's Pravda, a newspaper published to deceive Russians into believing Communism was the future. That lie crashed along with the Berlin Wall. The Times needs to change its motto to "All the lies we deem fit to print."

We all need to bookmark this great oped to have ready when someone tries to post Bravo Sierra from the Slimes as reality.

8 posted on 07/09/2002 1:20:42 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Stand Watch Listen; RightWhale; Free the USA; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; Ranger; ...
Thanks for the ping!

What does the NY Times gain by this propaganda?

9 posted on 07/09/2002 1:29:29 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Bookmarked, thanks.
10 posted on 07/09/2002 1:30:46 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
A very good article and a good website , adding to favorites.

This would be neat to have at every school:

Available from the website:

Order here

11 posted on 07/09/2002 1:39:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What does the NY Times gain by this propaganda?

They get another chance to further the grand, interconnected, socialist agenda.

12 posted on 07/09/2002 1:44:51 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scruffdog
The biggest sources of private funding for the environmental movement are the "charitable" foundations of the stockholders in major oil companies: Rockefeller, Pew, Prince Bernhard, and others. The dirty little secret is that the earth produces more energy than we can use. The strategy of the environmental movement is to prevent development of any effective alternative to oil and gas, and then create a scarcity to maintain high prices. Not only that, but they intend to use Kyoto to trade "carbon credits" through the World Bank to subsidize their investments in the developing world, at the expense of your electric bill. You will note how many European power generating companies are buying out US producers. All they need is a complicit State governor and they can get the surcharge for the carbon credits put on your power bill.

Got it?

13 posted on 07/09/2002 1:45:39 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Wright is right!; Shermy; BOBTHENAILER; madfly; farmfriend; countrydummy; ...
This is an excellent answer to your question, which Michael responded to earlier:

"What on earth do these doomsday "global warming" fanatics expect to gain? What is in it for the NYT and the rest of these losers?"

Michael's excellent response: The Environmental movement is the New Left in this country. It has become obvious to these communists and left-socialists that the American people are never going to voluntarily choose Communism, so their only hope is to gain control subversively - using, as their pretext phony environmental science. In this way, they can erode your freedoms, appropriate or make otherwise useless your private property, restrict your choice of purchases to only those goods deemed OK by Central Planning, control energy policy, expand taxation to confiscatory levels to "fund environmental goals and programs" (which includes welfare and other income redistribution schemes), and to gain power and control over the means of production of the US economy under the guise of protecting the environment.

I would add that the NY Slimes has been in bed with the Opecker Princes since the days of the first phoney oil crisis. I'm sure that the Opecker Princes have bought a lot of advertising in payment for the increased dependency on Opecker Oil thanks to the Slimes, the enviral whackos and Senators like Da$$hole who need the Slimes and envirals to be elected.

Kudos to Michael for his excellent response to your question and Scruffdog's ? re what does the NY Slimes get out of these lies and why do they lie!

14 posted on 07/09/2002 1:49:02 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Now Ernest, please pick up your text book and turn to page 18.

Given that the ability to gain personal control of commons is based upon the ability to make a political sale, there are several prerequisites:

* A simple justification to maximize the applicability of the claim to individual perceptions and desires.

* A majority perception that acquisition comes at minimal personal cost.

* Collective benefits that are difficult to measure or long deferred.

* Powerful beneficiaries with sufficient personal interest and resources to fund and execute the taking.

* Control of communications media to influence majority opinion then becomes the cheapest means to control factors of production and the key to controlling wealth.

Does the need to maintain a sense of crisis lead to shortsighted decisions? Does it lead to the unconscious realization of self-fulfilling prophecies? Does it create a smokescreen for the exercise of corrupt intent? Does it overtax the ability to generate capital? If we adopt an ill-conceived plan, could such an exercise irreversibly damage the resource? Could the repeated application of mechanics like this lead to the unwitting vengeance of self-destruction?

There are those who have come to regard the exercise of external claims upon private property as a structural evil, a distorted exercise in "ends" justification for personal gratification disguised as altruism. It is truly curious that the same people, who warn us that the cause of ecological problems is a lack of individual motivation to care for commons, propose solutions that are in structural antipathy to maximizing the value of the assets. The very act of collectivizing the factors of production has historically destroyed their value. That loss can propagate rapidly. People get desperate because the process of political acquisition of private property is unsustainable.


15 posted on 07/09/2002 1:53:41 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
They're Americans, Dave.
16 posted on 07/09/2002 1:56:08 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Carry, you can ignore the $ impact of the Opecker Princes on the enviral and legislative processes since the 1970's all you want to. Eventually this $ impact will come out.

None of these Opecker Princes are the evil Americans in Big Oil!

Does that mean that Big Oil is innocent in this enviral mess. NO!

I for one would love to have about 10% of the ad $'s paid just to the NY Slimes by the Saudis to push their PR Image as good guys. Since the days of the first oil crisis. Hell, I could do very well on 1%.
17 posted on 07/09/2002 2:06:28 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
They get another chance to further the grand, interconnected, socialist agenda.

Now, for ten points, why the socialist agenda?

Is it possible that property rights, as a matter of natural law and as protected by the Fifth Amendment, are really that important? If the price for the control of land resources is but the deflection of the winds of political fashion, the available wealth to support, defend, and nurture the land is minimized. What ends up forgotten in the political acquisition of "commons" is the need to maximize the economic value of these goods to the land. With the declining public perception of marginal benefit is a declining marginal value of the land itself. You can plot the price on a graph, as you will see in Part II.

Ecological issues are seldom simple. They vary considerably with different situations and over time. They often involve enormous costs to a few individuals and have public benefits that are difficult to measure. The enormous economic value to those individuals who would gain political control of private resources provides motive to invest in making the political sale regardless of the technical or ecological compromises. It thus becomes unlikely that, in the heat of political and legal battle, the solutions offered will adhere to the principles of the scientific method.

Any democratic system is manipulated by the politically dominant. It comes as no surprise that the ownership systems the politically dominant propose are to be "collectivized" among the people, but administered by an agency dedicated to their interests. Under such a system, that frightened mob may well get the environmental crisis that they so greatly fear.

Emphasis added. That was from page 19. Sigh.
18 posted on 07/09/2002 2:11:06 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
Well I've been here ten years and the winters seem longer and colder each year!

kelly IN alaska

19 posted on 07/09/2002 2:14:55 PM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
Here is the actual response on the ACRC website. While the temperature change is not as large as the NYT reported, there is a clear change, especially in the northernmost point, Barrows.

.

.

In response to the New York Times Article of 16 June 2002

The article "Alaska, No Longer So Frigid, Starts to Crack, Burn, and Sag" written by Timothy Egan, stated that the average temperature has risen seven degrees in the last 30 years. This statement was repeated in an editorial by Bob Herbert of 24 June 2002. This statement is incorrect. The correct warming for Alaska is about 1/3 of the quoted amount for the last climatological mean 1971 to 2000 (see table below). It should be pointed out that the table presents data from first class weather stations, which are professionaly maintained and generate high quality data. The three stations, Barrow, Fairbanks, and Anchorage, represent a cross section of Alaska from north to south. Further, Barrow, situated in Northern Alaska, which gave the largest temperature increase, is the only long-term first class meteorological weather station in Northern Alaska. All changes are based upon the time period 1971 to 2000 and are compiled from a linear trend.

Station
Barrow
Fairbanks
Anchorage
Nome
Latitude/Longitude
71 degrees 18' N, 156 degrees 47' W
64 degrees 49' N, 147 degrees 52' W
61 degrees 10' N, 150 degrees 1' W
64 degrees 30' N, 165 degrees 26' W
Change in Mean Annual Temp.
+4.16°F
+1.07°F
+2.26°F
+2.28°F
Compiled by Brian Hartmann and Gerd Wendler

24 June 2002

 

 

If you have any questions, please contact Prof. Gerd Wendler at gerd@gi.alaska.edu

Return to the Alaska Climate Research Center


20 posted on 07/09/2002 2:16:26 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
From the ACRC website:


21 posted on 07/09/2002 2:22:44 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Right-on Dave !!

Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, earth-is-warming-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

22 posted on 07/09/2002 2:25:06 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Carry, you can ignore the $ impact of the Opecker Princes on the enviral and legislative processes since the 1970's all you want to. Eventually this $ impact will come out.

Here is where you are wrong. You can do all the talking you want, but WHEN YOU CHECK OUT THE MONEY ACTUALLY DONATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, IT COMES FROM AMERICAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS.

You can call my statements equivalent to your "Opecker Princes" assertions all you want. The documentation speaks otherwise.

None of these Opecker Princes are the evil Americans in Big Oil!

Show me their donations to environmental groups. I can show you the donations from American foundations in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Does that mean that Big Oil is innocent in this enviral mess. NO!

The oil companies themselves aren't the players here. That would be too obviously illegal. It's the 501c(3) tax exempt foundations who own stock in those companies that are pulling the strings.

I for one would love to have about 10% of the ad $'s paid just to the NY Slimes by the Saudis to push their PR Image as good guys. Since the days of the first oil crisis. Hell, I could do very well on 1%.

Chicken-feed.

You need to buy and read Undue Influence, by Ron Arnold. When you get that done read his other book, Trashing the Economy. Ron'll show you the money trail in an irrefutable fashion. I know it's hard to accept that the very American citizens most blessed by our system of free-enterprise would be this evilly destructive to that system, but you have to understand the truth. It's their stupid kids who've been brainwashed by the universities and don't know how to build wealth that are on the boards of these foundations. They are Communists, for the self-interested reasons I cited above.

Once you can accept that, then you'll be ready for my book.

Remember "Native Salmon," Dave?

23 posted on 07/09/2002 2:28:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Thanks for the ping, Grampa Dave...and the much-needed shot of sanity from the press. (^:
24 posted on 07/09/2002 3:26:05 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Now Ernest, please pick up your text book and turn to page 18.

Love it. Absolutely love it.

25 posted on 07/09/2002 5:58:09 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gordgekko
OK, Now, ban dry ice. That oughta do it.
26 posted on 07/09/2002 7:02:19 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Grampa Dave
. It comes as no surprise that the ownership systems the politically dominant propose are to be "collectivized" among the people, but administered by an agency dedicated to their interests.

You, sir, are good. Freep mail me the website again and I will order tomorrow.

Sorry, its late and I can't remember where I stashed it.

Nice quote Gramps, the more I read, the more you guys post, the madder I get.

27 posted on 07/09/2002 7:54:42 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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