Sunday, November 07, 2010

'Climate Alarmism at the New York Times.' Singer, American Thinker

  • The NY Times in spite of everything, still holds all the cards. If it told the truth about the 'climate' industry, going back before the 1993 'BTU Tax,' the whole mess would come crashing down.
11/7, "The New York Times editorial page has been persistent in publishing alarmist editorials on climate change. The latest one appearing shortly before the November elections accused politicians of
  • being in "denial" about climate change. What nonsense! Climate is changing all the time; it has been doing it for millions of years -- without any human intervention. And politicians are simply trying to stay in step with the public.
There is no credible evidence at all that human activities have had any appreciable influence on global climate changes during the last century. While many scientists still believe in a major human contribution, the number of skeptical scientists has been growing steadily as the evidence against AGW [anthropogenic global warming] becomes ever more apparent.
  • Just ask yourself: what evidence is there to indicate that any warming over the last century is due to human influences? Not even the UN- supported IPCC has been able to point to any solid facts in favor of AGW.
  • The latest science debate revolves around "finger prints" in the climate record. Do the observations of temperature change in the atmosphere show a certain pattern, which is characteristic of greenhouse warming? The answer is a resounding No.
Without any scientific evidence to support AGW, it is wasteful, counterproductive -- and foolish -- to institute regulations that limit the emissions of CO2, restrict the use of energy, and misdirect energy policy into such areas wind farms, solar projects, and biofuels like ethanol. For economic survival,
The mid-term elections have pointed up the public skepticism about AGW. Supporters of misguided policies to control emissions of carbon dioxide, through "cap and trade" and fuel standards, went down to defeat almost everywhere.
  • California provided the big exception and now faces an economic disaster....
The NY Times may be seriously out of step with its own readers, At least that's how I would judge the results of a survey of readers of Scientific American, a magazine that has been just as alarmist about AGW as the Times:
  • **77% believe that current climate change is caused by natural processes
  • **68% think we should do nothing about climate change, are powerless to stop it
  • **90% approve of climate scientists debating the issue in public forums
  • **83% believe that the UN-IPCC is corrupt, prone to groupthink, and has a political agenda.
The New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers and to the US public in stoking unreasonable fears not based on solid science."
  • 'Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service'
American Thinker, 11/7, "Climate alarmism at the New York Times," by S. Fred Singer
  • "American Thinker" is mentioned in at least one ClimateGate email as
  • "American Stinker" by
a ClimateGate emailer, 10/5/09: ""First, conquer the organs of propaganda" said Karl Marx." Result, no free press.


Stumbleupon StumbleUpon


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home