New Video : Climate Fraud At The New York Times

8 Responses to New Video : Climate Fraud At The New York Times

1. GCsquared says:

   September 2, 2018 at 8:02 pm

   Well-done! It’s wonderful to hear your sane reporting each day.
   BTW, do you know if the NYT fraud is based on the usual hidden “adjustments”, or if there’s a comprehensible method used here to achieve the (attempted) deception?

   Reply
   • GCsquared says:

     September 2, 2018 at 8:27 pm

     Never mind; I found Windsong’s reference to Ryan Maue “bonkers” characterization, where he included the NYT magic formula:

     “For each day, the count of days 90 or above reflects a 20-year rolling average. Temperature observations for your hometown are averaged over an area of approximately 625 km2 (240 square miles) and may not match single weather-station records.
     The time series is based on historical data for 1960-2000. The 2001-2020 period relies on a combination of historical data and future projections. After 2020, the data uses a mixed climate model that captures a broad range of extreme temperature responses. The “likely” future range reflects outcomes with 66 percent probability of occurrence in the RCP 4.5 scenario.
     We do not include locations with fewer than three 90-degree days per year on average throughout the entire time period, or for selected other regions where day-to-day variation in maximum temperature is underestimated by the model.”

     So the last 20 years are corrupted by adding modelled data, and cooler locations are rejected from the 625 km2 averaging by the 90 degree requirement. Even so, I find it hard to believe that this can cause so much distortion. Maybe that’s the point.

     Reply
2. Anon says:

   September 2, 2018 at 10:22 pm

   Tony,

   Thanks I can really use this!

   One other VERY INTERESTING thing I gleaned from your video was that the NYT predicts that in 2089, after 150 years of anthropogenic carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere (1930 + 159 = 2089) the number of days over 90 degrees in Mount Vernon, Illinois will be about ~70.

   That is the same number of days as in the 1930s. Which means all the CAGW proponents are doing is measuring and tracking normal climate variation and reporting it as warming (when they can get away with it).

   Thanks, a very insightful look at this!

   Reply
3. garyh845 says:

   September 2, 2018 at 11:06 pm

   There’s not a chance in the world that they NYT’s, nor any of the alarmist ACC scientists – nor pundits – would appear opposite you and debate this. So telling.

   Just wondering – sent this tip to MM late Friday afternoon. Whether you got it that way or some other, I knew that you’d go after it. Great work, Tony.

   Reply
4. JPinBalt says:

   September 3, 2018 at 2:06 am

   The link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html
   Says …
   “Temperature observations for your hometown are averaged over an area of approximately 625 km² (240 square miles), and may not match single weather-station records.”
   – So an average of a close-by weather stations over a 8.7 mile radius centered from your location or hometown.
   “The 2001-2020 period relies on a combination of historical data and future projections.”
   – Are 2001-2017 “a combination of historical data and future projections” or is just 2018-20 the projection? Why include a statement like this? So, 1960-2000 is historical data, 2001-2020 is not when they have 2001-17 data at hand.
   “We do not include locations with fewer than three 90-degree days per year on average throughout the entire time period ..”
   – OK, aha, they truncate any weather stations with low over 90° says for year, then average (not to mention cherry picking post 1960s data).
   So, if I roll a die and then omit rolls when it comes up 1, I get an average cast of 4 (=.2x(2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6)) , and can put in a data book for others to see the truth (newsspeak), brilliant, shear brilliant, mathematicians at NYT, they can bring up the average cast of fair die without it being weighted by just omitting low rolls. Mathematical genius. Just like magic to read. Do they do fancy horoscopes too?

   Reply
5. Anon says:

   September 3, 2018 at 4:04 am

   Here is Daily Caller debunking the NYT climate tool:

   So, why is there a difference between the observed record and what TheNYT reports?

   One reason is because TheNYT uses a “21-year rolling average” to tell readers how many hot days they could expect the year they were born — not the actual number that were observed.

   The second reason is because TheNYT’s data past 2000 is blended with a climate model tuned to future climate projections. After 2020, TheNYT notes, “the data uses a mixed climate model that captures a broad range of extreme temperature responses.”

   http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/02/new-york-times-global-warming/

   Absolutely unreal…

   Reply
6. feathers says:

   September 3, 2018 at 7:52 pm

   Tony – another great video, thanks!

   Sarah Sanders should start every press conference for a month with one of Tony’s videos – could you imagine!!!

   I’ve often wondered why Tony always shows us the historical daily temps, but it’s clear now. Its a reminder of the history the MSM (like the NYSlimes) is trying to delete.

   Reply
7. sam says:

   September 6, 2018 at 7:31 pm

   They do all the news like this at CNN,NYT etc. Like now they are saying that Syria is going to use ‘chemical weapons’ when they conquer Idlib from US backed islamic terrorists. The US military recently admitted that thousands of civilians have died by US bombing in Iraq and Syria just in the last year or so, yet if a few dozen are killed by ‘gas’ then its this big drama and they have to risk WWIII with Russia to ‘retaliate’.. not to mention that the recent Douma gas attack was exposed as a fraud, no traces of sarin were found at the Douma site, no bodies have been recovered as K by gas and the people in the video used by the media to show a gas attack came out and said it was staged.. but all that is ignored and they live in their own reality.

   Reply