New Video : Climate Doublethink At The New York Times

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to New Video : Climate Doublethink At The New York Times

  1. Basil says:

    Hi Tony, Thank you for yet again exposing the double standards of the USA press. The British BBC is just as bad as the New York Times, virtually every day one of the news items or programs refers to ‘The climate emergency’. It really gets me down the way propaganda is foisted on us like this.

  2. Phil Beckley says:

    The adherence to the human caused global warming narrative seems widespread among Anglophone mainstream media, certainly here in the UK. In today’s “Daily Telegraph” (30th October) there’s an article by the Education Editor, Camilla Turner, headed “Scientists issue mass call for career breaks to save the planet.” The story starts: “Academics have demanded career breaks so that they can save the planet from climate change as they warn that “humanity is on a precipice.” Nearly 800 British professors and lecturers have signed an open letter to vice-chancellors and research-funding chiefs warning that “the very future of life on Earth is in question” if climate breakdown is not addressed.” The story continues in a similar vein. The reference to research-funding chiefs may be significant. The story ends with a reference to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluding that global warming is now irreversible thanks to ocean temperatures crossing a “tipping point”. (All quotation marks are as in the original text. It’s possible the quotation marks are meant to demonstrate scepticism. I think a real sceptic would have binned this stuff immediately.)
    On a brighter note, thank you for the landscape and music videos: they are great.

  3. MGJ says:

    It goes way beyond just lying about the climate of course.

    I think the BBC is worse than CNN etc. because it still manages some element of subtlety rather than the unmissable in-yer-face bile of its US counterparts. This allows it to claim innocence while dripping its poison gradually into the minds of its audience.

    Framing, blanket censorship of inconvenient facts, free passes to those they agree with and absurd hit pieces on anyone who dares disagree have their effect.

    Many people have never known any different and consider it the norm. Hey, it’s on TV all the time, look everybody agrees – it must be true.

  4. Petit_Barde says:

    Let A := “Climate change”
    B := “More Cold snaps”
    C := “Polar vortex appearing outside Arctic more frequently”.

    So we have, according to the climate “scientists” :

    From the first sentence :
    – A implies (no B).
    From the second sentence :
    – A implies C
    – C implies B.

    Hence, according to the climate “science” :

    Taking the contrapositive of “A implies no B” we have :
    – B implies (no A).

    By transitivity, “A implies C” and “C implies B” give us :
    – A implies B.

    And so we have :
    – A implies B,
    – and : B implies (no A).
    Thus (transitivity) :
    A implies (no A).

    Or using the climate “science” jargon :
    – Climate change causes no climate change.

    Those clowns are really funny.

    • MGJ says:

      Nicely done! It’s fun to apply critical thinking analyses to assess arguments logically. I also enjoy ticking off the argument fallacies. ‘The results are in: we’ve got 3 ad homs, some framing, a floating abstraction and a tu quoque!’.

      It’s a shame the cAGW brigade cannot provide some slightly more challenging examples though.

  5. -B- says:

    If nothing was happening, that is there is no climate change, only cyclical patterns at most, one would expect the number/frequency of record lows and record highs to decline as the duration of the data set grew larger.

    • James Latta says:

      The data I’ve seen published on record lows and record highs is actually data on record highs and lows set or matched which solves the problem of less records being set as more data points accumulate.
      I think Tony’s observation that nighttime lows are increasing is critical to understanding what’s going on. Humans have done a lot over the last 100 years to make the US climate more humid; building dams and reservoirs, wetlands restoration, farm ponds, contour plowing, much more irrigation, building water retention features into roadways, shopping centers, housing developments, etc, more lawns, more trees, and more plant growth overall due to increased CO2 levels. We’ve raised dew points and have thus raised nighttime low temperatures.

  6. Palaver says:

    I am a big supporter of the debunking of junk science but don’t like the historic record highs and lows chart. The frequency of record statistic occurrence is dependent on the amount of recorded statistics. In the first year of recorded stats circa 1870, it would be easy to create a new record. As time progresses, records would become less frequent due to the increasing size of comparison statistics. The chart would show a downward trend chronologically even if average temperatures were increasing.

  7. Palaver says:

    Oops just noticed my point was mentioned in the previous post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.