And when I say the NY Times, I mean the paper itself, as the editorial board offers up consensus
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has to be smiling. With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
Cheney? Who dat? The guy who has been out of office for almost two years……didn’t I do this in my last post? Anyhow, there’s that word “consensus” again. When you start talking about consensus, it means it isn’t science.
The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy.
Exactly how many problems were found in the IPCC reports? Glaciers, sea level in Holland, the Himalayas, the Amazon, poor computer models, and Antarctic sea ice, among others. Then you had the East Anglia emails, which showed collusion to manufacture and spin the data. There are peer reviewed reports after peer reviewed reports showing that anthropogenic global warming is, at best highly exaggerated, if not complete bunk.
Some candidates are emphatic in their denial, like the Nevada Republican Sharron Angle, who flatly rejects “the man-caused climate change mantra of the left.†Others are merely wiggly, like California’s Carly Fiorina, who says, “I’m not sure.†Yet, over all (the exception being Mark Kirk in Illinois), the Republicans are huddled around an amazingly dismissive view of climate change.
Let me post a question: under FEC regulations, could this editorial be considered an “in kind” contribution? This editorial does have value to Democrats, and, in particular, those running against Angle and Fiorina. Those who make up the board were compensated for writing it (though not by a campaign).
According to Congressional inquiries, White House officials, encouraged by Mr. Cheney’s office, forced the Environmental Protection Agency to remove sections on climate change from separate reports in 2002 and 2003. (Christine Todd Whitman, then the E.P.A. administrator, has since described the process as “brutal.â€)
The administration also sought to control or censor Congressional testimony by federal employees and tampered with other reports in order to inject uncertainty into the climate debate and minimize threats to the environment.
Funny that the Fish Wrap doesn’t mention the Obama administration putting pressure on scientists working for the government. But, really, the info on Cheney was years ago, and is relevant to today how, exactly? But, if they want to go there, how about I mention that the Democrat controlled Senate voted against joining the Kyoto Protocol, and President Clinton agreed with them?
Nowadays, it is almost impossible to recall that in 2000, George W. Bush promised to cap carbon dioxide, encouraging some to believe that he would break through the partisan divide on global warming. Until the end of the 1990s, Republicans could be counted on to join bipartisan solutions to environmental problems. Now they’ve disappeared in a fog of disinformation, an entire political party parroting the Cheney line.
Ah. I get it. They are trying the old “Darth Cheney, Lord Of the Sith” route. Except, AGW is not an environmental problem. Clean air, water, and land are environmental issues. Clear cutting is an EI. Land use and habitat fragmentation are issues. Waste is an issue. Species extinction is an issue. Man induced global warming is not an environmental issue. It is a political issue, revolving around junk science, a cult like fervor, with designs on controlling people’s lives.
But, hey, if we want to talk about environmental issues, what about those from publishing a newspaper? The large amount of trees required to be culled (around 95 million per years). The pulping process, which is very dirty. And then there are the “climate change” issues. The CO2 from distribution. The effects on landfills. And “The pulp and paper industry is the 4th largest emitter of greenhouse gases among U.S. manufacturing industries. (check the link for some interesting climate alarmist facts).” And then there are all the issues from having the paper on-line (interesting article on this all at Slate). Oh, my, perhaps the NY Times should simply shut down in order to negate their high environmental and climate footprints.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU. Re-Change 2010!
Perhaps the NY times should shut down because of the excellent examples that they are a state news paper propaganda machine for the Liberal Admin.
Right about that Tobias. Along with the Washington comPOST.
What is with all this anti-Cheney stuff? Is he out there campaigning for Republicans? Is he out there campaigning for anti-AGW?!?
Get over it you Socialists. You are the ones in charge now and are now the ones in the hot-seats. Take some responsibility for a change. But then, you wouldn’t be Socialists then, would you?!?!?!?
Of course, without the media like the NY Times, blogging wouldn’t be as fun.
Including Cheney is simply an attempt to make the unbelievers into evil people. Interestingly, the Times forgot to actually include any, you know, science. They went with strawman and ad hominem attacks.
The chief climate denier in the Senate says the earth is only 6000 years old. Now that is science.
As Nov. 2 approaches, expect the storm of bullshit to increase to near-hurricane proportions.
Hopefully, to to full “Grand Ah-Whoom” status.
John,
Science also believes that life came from NOTHING. If Christians can believe in an almighty GOD creating life from his spoken word, how is that different than you believing life came from NOTHING?
“The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence.” — National Academies of Science
Brad,
I am glad that you linked to the science article. It is a good example of why this whole concept is one massive fraud. That is not what you call a scientific article. The nature of the article is to say to the reader that we, the superior individuals, feel that warming is occuring and that you, the unwashed, are too ignorant to understand the data accumulated and make your own decision. Our betters have determined that warming is occuring and that it is secondary to human activity. But they will not provide the raw data and will not answer simple questions, such as how a very small amount of CO2 is responsible for such a large chane in the environment. One of my daily activities is to read scientific articles and determine if there is really truth to them. To date, I have not been able to find a single article on the climate that meets the necessary information to evaluate the climate or anything else other than the authors desire to destroy our economy and leach money from the government.
John,
Isn’t it amazing how someone with so little knowledge in science as to believe that the earth is just 6000 years old can determine that the climate data is a fraud. It shows you the power of the human mind and the fact that this fraud is so transparent that anyone can see the nature of it if they open their mind.
That’s interesting, Brad. The article offers no evidence other than their say so, and, before I forget, an attempt to sell their report for $67 a pop.
Meanwhile, over 37,000 US scientists have signed a petition calling AGW bunk. IPCC members have been abandoning that institution for a long time, including some lead authors in the past few weeks.
Climate models by believers tend to avoid pesky issues like the Sun and water vapor. The “Hockey Stick” has been completely discredited. Actual science shows that global temps tend to jibe more with solar activity than CO2 forcing. If CO2 was so darned important, why did temps go down during the 40’s-mid 70’s, despite a continue increase in CO2? Why have the past several warming periods over the past several thousand years been warmer?
And, let me pose five questions to you, Brad:
1. If anthropogenic global warming is such a danger, why do all the treaties, legislation, etc do almost nothing to fix the issues?
2. If AGW is such a danger, why do the leaders and proponents of it not change their behavior to match their rhetoric?
3. If AGW is such a danger, why do the proponents have to offer lies, distortions, and overblown scare stories, instead of simply the facts? (several alarmists have said it is OK to lie, including Gore)
4. Why do many scientists who push AGW refuse to show the raw data?
5. Why does AGW seemingly cause everything? Hot, cold, snow, rain, ice, earthquakes, volcanoes, drought, you name it, AGW seems to cause it. Does that sound like science, or like a cult like movement?
OMG.. Teach. Don’t do that. Don’t ask questions. How dare you.
I know, I know.
I also know that none of the true believers can actually answer those questions.
I just remembered I did that twice before, twice (look under Favorite Posts in sidebar), and they alarmists didn’t do to well answering.
[…] The editors at the NY Slimes are still searching for Manbearpig. Read the whole post as always. Amplify’d from http://www.thepiratescove.us […]
[…] posted here: Fish Wrap Has A Snit Fit Over GOP Climate Deniers » Pirate's Cove This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged charge-now, climate-change, decade-ago, […]
Nice Teach, great questions.
Also great is the fact that John has a new little friend to play with here. Hi Brad! Welcome to this small slice of sanity in a world of crazy!
Thanks, Trish.
I’m still waiting for Brad, or perhaps John, to answer them.
I hear crickets!
Wow. You are good. I don’t even hear the crickets.
