- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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. . . .
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?
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
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 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.
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?
It is fake news like this
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.
Really Jack? I thought better of you than for you to sink to the moron Trump level.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Publish your findings, collect your Nobel prize and become exceedingly rich and famous. What's stopping you? Prove them all wrong.
Publish your findings, collect your Nobel prize and become exceedingly rich and famous. What's stopping you? Prove them all wrong.
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.
Really Jack? I thought better of you than for you to sink to the moron Trump level.
Yes, one can imagine that toxic carrots and tomatoes could be genetically engineered.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.
That's why the United States has the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) otherYou can't make a black and white, yes or no statement that all of them are safe.
Who denies climate? Do they deny day and night? Just wondering.Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective.
And as far as that statement goes, it's not an issue.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.
What isn't nonsense is resisting the claim that climate change constitutes a loomingIn either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the
Republicans that push this nonsense
Democrats fear monger about nearly everything. Years ago Al Capp's "Li'l Abner" comic stripand the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should ... cut it out for the good of the nation.
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>
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?