New York Times in climate denial, still

The New York Times has published a partisan political editorial that is beyond parody. They have alighted on the issue of global warming/climate change in order to attack the Republican party in an attempt to distract people from the US going to hell in a handcart under Barack Obama. It is the kind of trash that one would expect to be issued by Bob Ward and his fellow travellers. But then the lobby is so incestuous they almost certainly share notes and punchlines to use. It’s been a while since a fisking by the Mind, so here are some of the choice bits…

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.

Err, that is because it is a consensus assembled around a belief rather than facts borne out by evidence.

The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized.

Perhaps because there is no logical basis for carbon pricing, it costs consumers a fortune for no good reason and is abused by large corporations to make huge sums of money without even having to reduce their emissions. It is a redistributive scam.

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.

Damn those pesky Republicans for wanting some kind of standard of proof before accepting the assertions of the climate change lobbyists.

A few may genuinely believe global warming is a left-wing plot.

Well, actually, most believe it is nothing more than the continuation of natural climate variation with various influences such as solar activity.

In one way or another, though, all are custodians of a strategy whose guiding principle has been to avoid debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence — or at least by diminishing its importance.

It would be easy to clear this up in seconds if the New York Times and the ‘scientific consensus’ produced evidence that man is largely responsible for the changes in climate on this planet. Perhaps the problem is that they cannot produce such evidence, which is why they focus on attacking all counter arguments and steering clear of their own flimsy position.

Nothing, it seemed, could crack the administration’s denial — not Tony Blair of Britain and other leaders who took climate change seriously; not Mrs. Whitman (who eventually quit after being undercut by Mr. Cheney, who worked for the energy company Halliburton before he became vice president and received annual checks while in office); and certainly not the scientists.

No good climate change lobby smear is complete without painting someone as holding their view because they have been bought off by Big Oil or an energy company of some description. But it is so unoriginal and its repeated flawed use demonstrates the paucity of the lobby’s argument. What really makes me laugh is the ignorance of the NY Times, which fails to point out Halliburton cites two of its major areas of focus to be Carbon Capture & Storage and Unconventional Gas. Halliburton has a financial and strategic interest in the warmist argument so it can cash in on the kool aid to make money for its corporate shareholders. How thick is this NY Times editor?

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its most definitive statement on the human contribution to climate change,


Mr. Cheney insisted that there was not enough evidence to just “sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that’s going to try to solve the problem.” To which Mrs. Whitman, by then in private life, said: “I don’t see how he can say that with a straight face anymore.”

Well, if its good enough for Mrs Whitman then it has to be good enough for us, right?

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.

Strangely enough the change in Republican attitudes has coincided with greater awareness of the flaws in the climate change lobby claims and factors such as Climategate. One would have thought that with all its investigative brilliance even the NY Times could work that one out. But perhaps they already have and just don’t want their readers to be better informed about the facts of climate change rather than the hysteria. And we thought the BBC was bad.

1 Response to “New York Times in climate denial, still”

  1. 1 Tufty 18/10/2010 at 3:45 pm

    Good piece. One problem with climate change is how to discuss it. The issue is so obviously political and the science so poor, that it isn’t easy to comment on climate change propaganda coming from bodies such as the NYT. Don’t they recognise flaky propaganda? I’m not sure that they do.

    Output like this seems automatic because it probably is. The climate change PR machine is evidently well-funded and there seem to be few journalists who are prepared to do more than funnel it onto the page. It may be that the job of the journalist has been deskilled. What they do is pass on the narrative. Output is a product, sourced from the standard suppliers. Analysis doesn’t come into it.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: