Fraudulent Warmist Conspiracy Theorizing

[Jack Hays]

Here we have the NY Times at its most fraudulent. It is fake news like this that leads some weak-minded warmists to believe there is some sort of anti-AGW conspiracy.


Botched reporting- A Reply to The New York Times on “How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches”

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory.
Continue reading →

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory. It’s regularly publishing fake news. A NYT piece that appeared on December 29, How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches, mentions me, my website DefyCCC, and WUWT, and I take this opportunity to reply. In November and December 2017, I experimented with distributing the climate realism message using advertising options on Google and some other platforms. I will report on the results of this experiment in a separate article. Apparently, some of my Google ads caught the attention of the NYT. On December 4th, a NYT reporter named Hiroko Tabuchi interviewed me for 45 minutes in preparing for the above NYT piece.
In the interview, I attempted to convince the reporter that the NYT got science wrong, that real scientists are against climate alarmism, and that other countries build coal power plants and more. The reporter was honest in telling me that the NYT piece would be about the ads, not about the climate debate (I hope NYT does not fire her for this act of honesty, unfit for its organizational culture), so I already knew what to expect. However, the piece weaves lies, half-truths, and trivial facts so seamlessly that it elevates fake news into an art form. I will comment only on some falsehoods related to me. . . .

 

[Grand Mal]

Here we have the NY Times at its most fraudulent. It is fake news like this that leads some weak-minded warmists to believe there is some sort of anti-AGW conspiracy.


Botched reporting- A Reply to The New York Times on “How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches”

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory.
Continue reading →

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory. It’s regularly publishing fake news. A NYT piece that appeared on December 29, How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches, mentions me, my website DefyCCC, and WUWT, and I take this opportunity to reply. In November and December 2017, I experimented with distributing the climate realism message using advertising options on Google and some other platforms. I will report on the results of this experiment in a separate article. Apparently, some of my Google ads caught the attention of the NYT. On December 4th, a NYT reporter named Hiroko Tabuchi interviewed me for 45 minutes in preparing for the above NYT piece.
In the interview, I attempted to convince the reporter that the NYT got science wrong, that real scientists are against climate alarmism, and that other countries build coal power plants and more. The reporter was honest in telling me that the NYT piece would be about the ads, not about the climate debate (I hope NYT does not fire her for this act of honesty, unfit for its organizational culture), so I already knew what to expect. However, the piece weaves lies, half-truths, and trivial facts so seamlessly that it elevates fake news into an art form. I will comment only on some falsehoods related to me. . . .

Yawn.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If you're right and the world's scientists are wrong, publish your findings and have them challenged by the scientific community. That's how science works. Science is not you cherry picking **** from a blog you found on the internet.

You're on a debate forum because you know you lack the credibility and knowledge to actually contribute to the field. You're as bad as the 9/11 truthers and flat earth conspiracy theorists. All accusations and fear, no facts, evidence or science.

 

[Aristaeus]

Here we have the NY Times at its most fraudulent. It is fake news like this that leads some weak-minded warmists to believe there is some sort of anti-AGW conspiracy.


Botched reporting- A Reply to The New York Times on “How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches”

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory.
Continue reading →

The New York Times remains a slave to climate alarmism even after its miserable failure in Paris on December 12, and continues to push the fossil fuels conspiracy theory. It’s regularly publishing fake news. A NYT piece that appeared on December 29, How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches, mentions me, my website DefyCCC, and WUWT, and I take this opportunity to reply. In November and December 2017, I experimented with distributing the climate realism message using advertising options on Google and some other platforms. I will report on the results of this experiment in a separate article. Apparently, some of my Google ads caught the attention of the NYT. On December 4th, a NYT reporter named Hiroko Tabuchi interviewed me for 45 minutes in preparing for the above NYT piece.
In the interview, I attempted to convince the reporter that the NYT got science wrong, that real scientists are against climate alarmism, and that other countries build coal power plants and more. The reporter was honest in telling me that the NYT piece would be about the ads, not about the climate debate (I hope NYT does not fire her for this act of honesty, unfit for its organizational culture), so I already knew what to expect. However, the piece weaves lies, half-truths, and trivial facts so seamlessly that it elevates fake news into an art form. I will comment only on some falsehoods related to me. . . .

Can you give me a believable reason why every government in the world and 98% of climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy theory for the past 40 years and what do they stand to gain?

Why are governments spending money on combating a thing you claim they invented?

 

[Crovax]

Can you give me a believable reason why every government in the world and 98% of climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy theory for the past 40 years and what do they stand to gain?

Why are governments spending money on combating a thing you claim they invented?

Look at the opposite side of the coin. The scientific consensus for GMO's being safe is much stronger than climate change yet the left pushes their agenda, creates nonsense laws and claims there is no consensus on that

Its just about political agenda

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Look at the opposite side of the coin. The scientific consensus for GMO's being safe is much stronger than climate change yet the left pushes their agenda, creates nonsense laws and claims there is no consensus on that
Its just about political agenda

Climate change denial and GMO skepticism are not on the same level of crazy. GMO is an extremely broad category covering millions of different possible combinations of changes in our food. Some will clearly be bad and some will be good, but yes the current level of GMO hysteria is wildly over-hyped and they are mostly quite safe. You can't make a black and white, yes or no statement that all of them are safe.

Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective. Do the actions of human beings effect the climate? The scientific consensus overwhelmingly says yes and there are mountains of evidence and peer reviewed studies to prove it. This is an objective, measurable fact.

In either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the Republicans that push this nonsense and the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should both cut it out for the good of the nation.

 

[code1211]

Can you give me a believable reason why every government in the world and 98% of climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy theory for the past 40 years and what do they stand to gain?

Why are governments spending money on combating a thing you claim they invented?

The battle to combat Anthropogenic emissions involves western, developed countries paying the under developed-developing countries billions of dollars.

The folks arranging this are politicians who seek to accept bribes.

We cannot prove that the science is correct, but proving that politics is corrupt is a gimme.

Does this help your understanding of why the policy is so widely endorsed by politicians?

Regarding the science, our scientists cannot agree on what the global temperature is, what the rate of change might be, what the climate was in the past or what the climate will be in the future.

What is it that you think 98% of scientists agree on?

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[code1211]

If you're right and the world's scientists are wrong, publish your findings and have them challenged by the scientific community. That's how science works. Science is not you cherry picking **** from a blog you found on the internet.

You're on a debate forum because you know you lack the credibility and knowledge to actually contribute to the field. You're as bad as the 9/11 truthers and flat earth conspiracy theorists. All accusations and fear, no facts, evidence or science.

We are asked to believe that the Anthropogenic emissions have altered the climate to the point that we are now seeing unprecedented, radical departures from previous climate.

This is wrong.

In every one of the previous interglacials, the climate was warmer and was warmer absent the cause we are now told to accept without question.

Historically, the correlation between the rise of CO2 and the rise of global temperature has always shown that that CO2 rises as the effect of temperature, not the cause.

Excuse me if I call BS on the recent panic mongering for profit and ask for a rational explanation.

climate4you welcome
<snip>
The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
<snip>

 

[wellwisher]

Can you give me a believable reason why every government in the world and 98% of climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy theory for the past 40 years and what do they stand to gain?

Why are governments spending money on combating a thing you claim they invented?

If we assume that there is manmade global warming, and this is caused by green house gases, the government will have an excuse to to use fear, to control all of industry and then all the citizens since we all contribute carbon. This is a prelude dance to a socialist paradise.

The reason they spend so much on combating this invention is called crony capitalism and kickbacks. The scam is in place to help justify the money going to cronies. It is a money laundering scam, where tax dollars end up in crony capitalist loops, which then kick back a percent, as campaign contributions to Democrats. When President Obama gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the solar industries, they kicked back millions, of this tax payer money to democrat candidates; money laundering. Then they went bankrupt and the money evaporated into private funds; money laundering.

The Democrats were attempting to expand this into a carbon credit scam, where one can pollute all you want, if you pay to do so. The middlemen, like Gore, who stood to benefit, were supposed to kick back a percent to the DNC charity and slush fund.

Trump is changing the rules of the game. He is not going to give billions of US tax dollars to sure up this cronyism scam in other countries, which will then contribute to the Democrat golden parachute fund. The Clintons already skimmed from that slush fund under the guise of a world charity. Where do you think these countries got that money to give?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

It is fake news like this

Really Jack? I thought better of you than for you to sink to the moron Trump level.

 

[code1211]

Climate change denial and GMO skepticism are not on the same level of crazy. GMO is an extremely broad category covering millions of different possible combinations of changes in our food. Some will clearly be bad and some will be good, but yes the current level of GMO hysteria is wildly over-hyped and they are mostly quite safe. You can't make a black and white, yes or no statement that all of them are safe.

Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective. Do the actions of human beings effect the climate? The scientific consensus overwhelmingly says yes and there are mountains of evidence and peer reviewed studies to prove it. This is an objective, measurable fact.

In either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the Republicans that push this nonsense and the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should both cut it out for the good of the nation.

The measurable in what you present is not the actual effects of the emission on the climate. The measurable is only the number of grants sought to conduct the studies.

ALL previous interglacials have been warmer, warmed at a faster rate and started to cool into the next Ice Age with CO2 at the highest level achieved in the interglacial.

ALL of these points are not in question and all undermine the basic ideas supporting the basic "Science" of AGW.

The evidence that Supports AGW is a very tiny sliver of data since 1880 beginning at the coldest point in this interglacial. We are commanded by our scientists endorsing AGW to not consider any other data than the instrument record of Global temperature.

That record is comprised of data that is constantly adjusted, changed, replaced by other data and discard for data that is more to the liking of the scientists.

To say this is rigged to achieve a pre-determined conclusion is stating the obvious.

 

[code1211]

Really Jack? I thought better of you than for you to sink to the moron Trump level.

I think it's interesting that people think that the news "reporting" is an accurate presentation of the day's events.

It represents a spectacular naivete.

 

[Gaztopian]

Warmists? Oh dear; now I've seen it all.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

We are asked to believe that the Anthropogenic emissions have altered the climate to the point that we are now seeing unprecedented, radical departures from previous climate.

This is wrong.

In every one of the previous interglacials, the climate was warmer and was warmer absent the cause we are now told to accept without question.

Historically, the correlation between the rise of CO2 and the rise of global temperature has always shown that that CO2 rises as the effect of temperature, not the cause.

Excuse me if I call BS on the recent panic mongering for profit and ask for a rational explanation.

climate4you welcome
<snip>
The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
<snip>

The measurable in what you present is not the actual effects of the emission on the climate. The measurable is only the number of grants sought to conduct the studies.

ALL previous interglacials have been warmer, warmed at a faster rate and started to cool into the next Ice Age with CO2 at the highest level achieved in the interglacial.

ALL of these points are not in question and all undermine the basic ideas supporting the basic "Science" of AGW.

The evidence that Supports AGW is a very tiny sliver of data since 1880 beginning at the coldest point in this interglacial. We are commanded by our scientists endorsing AGW to not consider any other data than the instrument record of Global temperature.

That record is comprised of data that is constantly adjusted, changed, replaced by other data and discard for data that is more to the liking of the scientists.

To say this is rigged to achieve a pre-determined conclusion is stating the obvious.

Publish your findings, collect your Nobel prize and become exceedingly rich and famous. What's stopping you? Prove them all wrong.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Climate change denial and GMO skepticism are not on the same level of crazy. GMO is an extremely broad category covering millions of different possible combinations of changes in our food. Some will clearly be bad and some will be good, but yes the current level of GMO hysteria is wildly over-hyped and they are mostly quite safe. You can't make a black and white, yes or no statement that all of them are safe.

Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective. Do the actions of human beings effect the climate? The scientific consensus overwhelmingly says yes and there are mountains of evidence and peer reviewed studies to prove it. This is an objective, measurable fact.

In either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the Republicans that push this nonsense and the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should both cut it out for the good of the nation.

You are 100% correct - humans do affect the global climate by our environmental damage. That is an undeniable truth. Now one must decide if limiting the growth in the number of humans or the amount of CO2 produced by each human that can be most effectively used to limit the environmental damage. Even if we could reduce the CO2 emissions per person by 40% (far above the current targets) if we also double the number of humans on the planet we still see a net increase in human caused CO2 emissions.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I think it's interesting that people think that the news "reporting" is an accurate presentation of the day's events.

It represents a spectacular naivete.

That's wasn't my point.

The term 'fake news' was my point. People who spew that out now about any news they don't agree with sound like lemmings, reminds me of that Orwellian '1984' Apple commercial showing a brainwashed line of people walking single file into a theater to watch their savior on the screen, but nowadays while they are marching they will all be chanting ..., FAKE NEWS....FAKE NEWS.....FAKE NEWS... in unison.

Still waiting for that woman with a hammer though.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Climate change denial and GMO skepticism are not on the same level of crazy. GMO is an extremely broad category covering millions of different possible combinations of changes in our food. Some will clearly be bad and some will be good, but yes the current level of GMO hysteria is wildly over-hyped and they are mostly quite safe. You can't make a black and white, yes or no statement that all of them are safe.

Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective. Do the actions of human beings effect the climate? The scientific consensus overwhelmingly says yes and there are mountains of evidence and peer reviewed studies to prove it. This is an objective, measurable fact.

In either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the Republicans that push this nonsense and the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should both cut it out for the good of the nation.

Nobody who is not mad disagrees with that.

 

[code1211]

Publish your findings, collect your Nobel prize and become exceedingly rich and famous. What's stopping you? Prove them all wrong.

Prove them wrong?

You imply that they all agree. In truth they do not all agree.

In truth, they all disagree.

The proof that they are wrong is only that they disagree.

The fact that you deny that they disagree seems to be revealing of something. Can you guess what that might be?

The cause they seem to agree on does not do what they imply that it should do and does not act consistently year in and year out.

The effects they predict to be the outcomes of the increased anthropogenic emissions were more dramatic in the past interglacials when the cause they cite was absent.

I don't need to prove them wrong. They have already proven themselves wrong through their disagreement, their data and the conflicting, inaccurate predictions.

The whole world understands this now and the entire topic has become a punchline.

If everyone else is laughing. You might start to wonder why. I'm guessing you won't. The very committed faithful cling bitterly to their faith.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Publish your findings, collect your Nobel prize and become exceedingly rich and famous. What's stopping you? Prove them all wrong.

You cannot get a paper published on the bleeding obvious.

For a paper to be published it has to be novel and new. It does not have to be correct, just interesting.

 

[wellwisher]

Man made global warming is a magic trick. The hidden wires for this trick can be explained with an example. Say I went to a local high school and asked all the students from the science department to help me with an experiment. What I need them to do is bring their cell phone and digital cameras, next weekend, to record all the birds in the local park. We get together, form teams, and cover the entire park over the weekend.

After the group of students are done, I compile all this photographic data, in a controlled and scientific way. I then make the claim that there are now, more birds in that park, then at any other time in the history of the park.

This claim is not something I can conclusively prove. However, it is not easy to disprove or refute, either. The reason is, no other time, in the history of that park will have the same amount of hard photographic evidence. The reason is nobody thought to do this before. The old timers might be able to present some old pictures and some antidotal evidence; ice core samples. But this is easy to discredit, since inference does not not compare to gigabytes of hard photographic evidence the students have generated. We have the preponderance of the hard data and therefore, by default, according to the philosophy of science, that gives us one up; consensus. No scientist will fight against the preponderance of the data.

To test this theory, that is subject to debate, the government decides to run our test again, but now with experts from the local university. To do this right, they will have access to much better cameras and even night vision tools. Because this team is much more thorough, due to their bird expertise, and their state of the art equipment, the numbers of recorded birds will go up, more.

Now we conclude, not only is this the most birds of all time, based on data weight, but there appears to be a trend, with the number of birds still increasing. If this trend was to continue, by the year 2525, the weight of the birds will break all the branches of the trees. There is a call for a third trial, to help better target the break-date. The more money you invest, for a third trial, and the more skilled people we have working on the task, the more data will we have, allowing the rising bird trend to continue.

Years ago there was a concern over global cooling into the next ice age. That stopped at the level of the high school students, in our example. It did not get the second and third wave of expensive and thorough science coverage. The first wave was enough to create social hype, but that died as a fad due to no follow up. This time, the magic trick was run, and it worked better, with audiences still marveling at the levitation. Trumps is cutting back on the budget for the fourth world tour of the magic show. As the budget falls and the entourage shrinks, the number of birds will decrease. It will be harder to levitate with fewer hidden guide wires.

 

[code1211]

That's wasn't my point.

The term 'fake news' was my point. People who spew that out now about any news they don't agree with sound like lemmings, reminds me of that Orwellian '1984' Apple commercial showing a brainwashed line of people walking single file into a theater to watch their savior on the screen, but nowadays while they are marching they will all be chanting ..., FAKE NEWS....FAKE NEWS.....FAKE NEWS... in unison.

Still waiting for that woman with a hammer though.

My point is that all news is fake news.

There are no longer impartial outlets of straight reporting; there are only propaganda outlets that slant all coverage to a particular view. This may have always been the case in varying degrees.

It's getting worse on a daily basis.

Joseph Pulitzer was a propagandist of the highest order publishing his rag in the days of Yellow Journalism.

It speaks volumes that the highest award in journalism today is named in his honor.

 

[Jack Hays]

Really Jack? I thought better of you than for you to sink to the moron Trump level.

One reason why DJT was effective is that there is such a thing as fake news.

 

[Steve Case]

Climate change denial and GMO skepticism are not on the same level of crazy.
GMO is an extremely broad category covering millions of different possible
combinations of changes in our food. Some will clearly be bad and some will
be good, but yes the current level of GMO hysteria is wildly over-hyped and
they are mostly quite safe.

Yes, one can imagine that toxic carrots and tomatoes could be genetically engineered.

You can't make a black and white, yes or no statement that all of them are safe.

That's why the United States has the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) other
countries I assume have similar agencies.

Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective.

Who denies climate? Do they deny day and night? Just wondering.

Do the actions of human beings effect the climate? The scientific consensus overwhelmingly
says yes and there are mountains of evidence and peer reviewed studies to prove it. This is
an objective, measurable fact.

And as far as that statement goes, it's not an issue.

In either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the
Republicans that push this nonsense

What isn't nonsense is resisting the claim that climate change constitutes a looming
catastrophic disaster and that we have to change our lifestyles and economies because
of it when the predictions and projections made over thirty years ago aren't coming true.

and the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should ... cut it out for the good of the nation.

Democrats fear monger about nearly everything. Years ago Al Capp's "Li'l Abner" comic strip
made fun of left wingers with "S.W.I.N.E" Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything.

 

[Jack Hays]

If you're right and the world's scientists are wrong, publish your findings and have them challenged by the scientific community. That's how science works. Science is not you cherry picking **** from a blog you found on the internet.

You're on a debate forum because you know you lack the credibility and knowledge to actually contribute to the field. You're as bad as the 9/11 truthers and flat earth conspiracy theorists. All accusations and fear, no facts, evidence or science.

Actually, scientific revolutions usually begin at the fringe. Please see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. As for science and evidence, I refer you to the following. These are notes for a debate presentation at the Cambridge Union. The author is Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

[h=2]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/h]

 

[Aristaeus]

We are asked to believe that the Anthropogenic emissions have altered the climate to the point that we are now seeing unprecedented, radical departures from previous climate.

This is wrong.

In every one of the previous interglacials, the climate was warmer and was warmer absent the cause we are now told to accept without question.

Historically, the correlation between the rise of CO2 and the rise of global temperature has always shown that that CO2 rises as the effect of temperature, not the cause.

Excuse me if I call BS on the recent panic mongering for profit and ask for a rational explanation.

climate4you welcome
<snip>
The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
<snip>

Jeez. You think you can overturn 40 years of almost universal scientific agreement with one graph pasted from the internet?

I mean, do you think climatologists aren't aware of historic temperatures or something?