Part 2 Of Today’s New York Times Mind-Blowing Fraud

In today’s New York Time article they discuss the 1974 CIA global cooling report, and say that the CIA warned about CO2 induced warming.

In 1974, the C.I.A. issued a classified report on the carbon-dioxide problem. It concluded that climate change had begun around 1960 and had “already caused major economic problems throughout the world.” The future economic and political impacts would be “almost beyond comprehension.”

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change – The New York Times

It is difficult to imagine journalism more Orwellian than this. The 1974 CIA report was discussing global cooling and a new ice age. They said the world was returning to its normal cold state, and that it was natural climatic change. Everything in the New York Times article was the exact opposite of reality.


The cynicism and fraud at the New York Times has gone off-scale.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Part 2 Of Today’s New York Times Mind-Blowing Fraud

  1. arn says:

    At that time this people had no clue about how the economics relate to climate in most of those countries ,
    nor could they as they had almost no data about climate of most countries and especially no long term data.

    How “right” they were has the constant economic growth shown
    since then by proving Paul Ehrlich predictions absolutely wrong.
    Until those countries did not let the IMF ‘help’ them
    or their governments being overthrown by the US deep state they performed real well.
    Seems the climate was perfect in the last 44 years and is going into the right direction if we use economics to measure them((until they are not stiffled by overregulation).

    The only problem climate has is that a certain group of people is paid very well
    to have a specific opinion-Paid consens.

    • Johansen says:

      Yes, to continue your train of thought, crops failed in the USSR because of Marxist ideology and *central planning* which cannot possibly create the incentives, equipment, and capital to feed even its own people. Imagine half of all food in the country grown in small private backyard plots, with the rest grown on big collective farms with broken-down crap for equipment

      • Johansen says:

        It takes 20,000 people – all serving their own self interests with a surprising lack of top-down coordination – to bring bread to market. Fuel, truck drivers, chemicals, banks, road-builders, machine-makers, and so forth….
        No central planning bureau on the face of the earth can think of all those factors of production and “make” it happen, and produce an acceptable market supply/demand equilibrium like the private sector can

      • arn says:

        in the ussr 97% of agriculture was owned by the state
        and 3% by private people.

        Those 3% produced about 40% of food in the USSR.
        When you are outnumbered by 1:33 and still manage
        to produce almost as much as all of them combined,
        than either you are superman or the system the other 33 work for is completely dysfunctional.
        And that is exactly what it is,as those 3% of Land were not even farmed in a capitalistic way(noone got rich nor had the chance) but simply
        managed the way it should be.
        But this is something those psychopathic technocrats can not and will not understand as they spent their whole life
        in an intellectualised abstract idealistic bubble where everything has be managed by some sort of elite far away from reality and they have absolutely nothing in common with average people nor are they able to understand things that can not be quantified or expressed with numbers

  2. Anon says:


    How I understand it (actually I read it somewhere) is like this:

    CNN, despite its low ratings, compared to Fox News, is actually more profitable than Fox News. How could that be?

    That is because advertisers are willing to pay more to advertise on CNN than Fox because of the net worth of people watching CNN. This means that if you want to sell BMWs you advertise on CNN. If you want to sell Ford Fiestas you advertise on Fox.

    Because of this, CNN (ditto for NYT and Wapo) is in a situation where it must deliver news that its audience WANTS TO HEAR to maintain its advertising revenue. And that means pumping out outrageous headlines, TRUE or NOT that support and confirm the world view of its viewership. It is all about getting clicks and eyeballs,not about reporting the truth. As a result, even the most minor story, that can easily be debunked with a little research, will be exaggerated and twisted – just to get high net-worth individuals to click and watch.

    So, the Democrats may think that the MSM is actually helping their cause, however elections are won by numbers (viewership) not by advertising revenue.

    This goes a long way to explain why Trump’s MSM press coverage is so bad (needed to generate the advertising revenue), but his popularity continues to climb (among voters who are not in the upper crust of society).

    Just something to ponder…

    • Anon says:

      If you want to learn more about this, here is a reference, you can start at the 7 minute mark, to get to the CNN vs Fox, ratings, revenue and viewership section:


      But the whole thing was very informative and worth playing in the background.

      It is really what drives a lot of the “CAGW News”… comfort food for liberals.

    • Arex says:

      In modern journalism we trust…

    • Johansen says:

      That’s a great picture, there. Looks like she’s leading them in some type of prayer, bring the races together. Nice lady…

      • arn says:

        She has obviously parkinson and the pills she is taking cause ‘interessting’ side-effects on her body and brain.

        During her visit in india she slipped 2 times within few seconds downstairs-
        and again 2 men were next to her to cover it up somehow.
        They know they need more than 1 guy next to her when she walks.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Obviously the pills make her so strong that she can hold two grown men at arm’s length while carrying them up a flight of stairs. What a woman!

          Sorry about that “what a woman” sentence . I meant to say, “What?! A woman?”


          • Johansen says:

            Jason, that’s really offensive. She has been the butt of too many wides cracks. You bare leave her alone now

        • Johansen says:

          Arn… or she is paying the price from years of drug abuse. The Clinton’s were big drug users (and importers) way back in Arkansas; that’s been documented over and over. It eventually takes a toll on your central nervous system

    • gregole says:

      I get your point about their target audience, but it goes to show how much of a bubble they’re in. Maybe now it’s gravy, but eventually the bubble implodes.

      You’re a living example…now that you’ve found out about their Klimate Kapers I’m sure you must be asking yourself, “What else are they lying about?” And that’s precisely what happened to me.

      • Snowleopard says:

        I once accepted what they said as true, unless it was proven otherwise. That started to change with the JFK hit. Now I assume they are lying, at least partially, until proven otherwise. They are rarely, in recent times, proven 100% true.

      • Disillusioned says:

        +100 gregole – what happened to me also.

      • Anon says:

        gregole… actually it was the reverse. When Wikileaks broke in 2016, I began to question. Especially since the MSM was not even covering it. Then I was told by CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc that Hillary had a 97% chance of winning and I believed it. The day after the election, I was trying to figure out what had happened and I heard on the web that “Breitbart” was the only news site out there that predicted a Trump victory. I did not even know who/what Breitbart was at the time, but figured since they had seen the truth, I had better start ditching my current news sources and had better start reading them.

        Then, about a month after all of my media evaluation and shifting… the big “Climate Uh Oh” happened. I had heard about Climate Change deniers on the MSM but never took them seriously (I was also teaching CAGW at University), so, not wanting to get caught flatfooted again, I began researching what the deniers were saying. Originally I thought it would take a couple of days to “debunk” the climate denier’s arguments from basic principles… but I could not do it.

        So I am here now… :(

        So, at no point did I ever want to stay in the “bubble”, but just thought nothing else existed outside of it and that I was in possession of the truth. When I realized the truth migrated, so did I… I was just a little is all.

        • Disillusioned says:

          You’re a little later to the party than some of us. But you came to the party nonetheless. Welcome, my Deplorable Buddy. ;-)

        • Disillusioned says:

          Anon said, “Originally I thought it would take a couple of days to “debunk” the climate denier’s arguments from basic principles… but I could not do it.”

          That’s EXACTLY how it happened for me. I began to research to disprove those “deniers'” arguments. I could not. Instead, I got schooled by those ignorant “deniers” and I reluctantly became one of them.

          I started out handing out Al Gore’s DVD to family and friends. Now I’m like an ex-smoker when it comes to this subject. Or worse.

        • Jason Calley says:

          I originally thought CAGW had some basis as well. Two of my friends, both very bright, were convinced of it so I thought I ought to educate myself on the subject. Didn’t take long to see that the CAGW crowd were blowing smoke, but took longer to figure out just how they were slanting things. Needless to say Tony Heller deserves a medal. You might be interested in looking up “chiefio” E.M. Smith”s blog and reading his old posts on CAGW.

      • RAH says:

        When it comes to the old press and most of the cable news and NPR. 95% of the time my default position is if they’re for it, I’m against it, and if their against it, then I’m for it.

        The more adamant they are the more skeptical I get.
        But these days I don’t listen to them much anyway.

    • Kent Clizbe says:


      You may want to adjust your sources of information. While interesting, that theory (Fox News audience is less attractive, therefore they charge less for ads) is nonsense.

      From AdWeek’s column TVNewser, an article from late 2017 on exactly this subject:

      “Fox News now sees $8,286 per :30 spot compared to $7,843 before the election. CNN went from $5,122 to $5,467. MSNBC saw the strongest growth going from $2,553 to $3,139 per spot. This jump in unit cost also illustrates why MSNBC’s growth seems stronger over the past year.”

      Fox’s rates are 50% higher than CNN’s, and 150% higher than MSNBC’s.

      • Kent Clizbe says:

        As for the other part of the theory, “That is because advertisers are willing to pay more to advertise on CNN than Fox because of the net worth of people watching CNN.” that CNN viewers’ net worth is more…

        A quick review of TV advertising reveals that the sweet-spot target demographic for TV news is “adults 25-54, the demo which matters most to TV news advertisers.”

        The first quarter 2018 Nielsen ratings, which determine advertising rates for the next period, show that Fox annihilates CNN in both total numbers, and in the prime demographic.

        “Fox News still managed to claim 14 of the top 20 cable news programs in total viewers and 12 of the top 20 in the 25-54 demo.”

        Full details:

    • Andy Pattullo says:

      You are exactly right. This is why I stopped accepting invites for TV interviews on health topics. The stations asking are usually full of advertising from chiropractors, naturopaths, health food supplement dealers, and the daytime TV shows are rank barely disguised marketing of all sorts of fad diets, cure-alls, mythicall illnesses and self help advice with no scientific basis, but all related to their product placements and advertisers. There is no hope of commercial media giving objective reliable coverage to health stories or environmental and energy issues.

  3. RICHARD BELL says:

    Mind Boggling ……….

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      And little Sulzberger has the cajones to complain about President Trump calling the NY Times fake news.

      Gotta give A.G. a little credit for having brass cajones, but he’s definitely on the wrong side of history.

  4. steve case says:

    You just have to wonder what sort of smirking little graduate of some Journalism school realized that the conclusions of the 1974 C.I.A. Report –

    A Study of Climatological Research as
    it Pertains to Intelligence Problems

    – didn’t say that it was about a cooling trend, and let the reader assume that it was about warming.

    This is like FDR’s Fireside Chat where he said we produced twice as many heavy bombers this year compared to last year. The previous year only two were produced.*

    * Source: My mother

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.