ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 14, 2013

A failure in mass propaganda

The New York Times gives up on the global warming scam:
The New York Times will close its environment desk in the next few weeks and assign its seven reporters and two editors to other departments. The positions of environment editor and deputy environment editor are being eliminated. No decision has been made about the fate of the Green Blog, which is edited from the environment desk.
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but we've been hearing less and less about "global warming" and "climate change" over the last year.  It's not too hard to figure out why the New York Times suddenly decided that riding the AGW/CC charade in support of its big government ideology wasn't going to work any longer, as James Delingpole's victory dance on the corpse of the Met Office's scientific credibility demonstrates:
Was there ever a government quango quite so useless as the Met Office?

From its infamous ‘barbecue summer’ washout of 2009 to the snowbound winter it failed to predict in 2010 and the recent forecast-defying floods, our £200 million-a-year official weather forecaster has become a national joke.

But of all its recent embarrassments, none come close to matching the Met Office’s latest one.

Without fanfare — apparently in the desperate hope no one would notice — it has finally conceded what other scientists have known for ages: there is no evidence that ‘global warming’ is happening.
When the predictive models fail, as all of the global warming and climate change models have, it is clear that the science behind it, such as it is, is junk.  Now, the various bureaucracies that have been formed and funded to address the nonexistent problem will fight furiously to survive and maintain their existence, (which is to say their government funding), but the verdict of history is already clear.

There is no man-made global warming.  There is no anthropogenic global climate change.  The skeptics were right and the "scientific consensus" was completely wrong.  Remember that the next time an interlocutor attempts to appeal to a scientific consensus.

Labels: ,

48 Comments:

Blogger Heuristics January 14, 2013 5:21 AM  

>"but we've been hearing less and less about "global warming" and "climate change" over the last year."

I stay away from the media as best as I can so I haven't noticed. But I did spend christmass being exposed to it (location: Sweden, source: the government owned channel SVT). One of the first news stories I heard then was the reporters complaining that some swedes were taking vacations to spain during winter and they had some people on saying that we couldn't possibly deal with global warming if people use airplanes! It reminded me quite well as to what my reason for staying away from the news was, they just try to scare people and pit groups of people against one another (here they pit the jealousy of people stuck in freezing sweden during winter against people going to spain, swedes are world champions at jealousy).

Anonymous daddynichol January 14, 2013 6:08 AM  

It doesn't help the AGW cause when its King, Al Gore, sells out his Current TV to Qatar's Al Jazeera network for nearly a half billion dollars. Qatar is one of the world's largest oil exporters.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 6:15 AM  

There will be a few AGCC proponents about for a while yet to torment. All is not lost.

Anonymous TheExpat January 14, 2013 6:20 AM  

It doesn't help the AGW cause when its King, Al Gore, sells out his Current TV to Qatar's Al Jazeera network for nearly a half billion dollars. Qatar is one of the world's largest oil exporters.

No, but it helps Al Gore, which is what it was all about in the first place.

Blogger Joe A. January 14, 2013 6:34 AM  

Wow. Pretty much every comment on the Delingpole link is attacking him. Conspiracy theories galore, too.

Anonymous DrTorch January 14, 2013 7:02 AM  

NYT has one last gasp

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/science/earth/extreme-weather-grows-in-frequency-and-intensity-around-world.html

Where they aren't so explicit about being man-made, but in context that's what I see them selling. However, w/ admission that the jet-stream is influencing the weather, and that's not where AGCC has its impact, it seems that when they're honest, they've conceded the fight too. They just won't be up-front about it.

Anyway, I wouldn't say all of this is "junk science". The modeling and observations are decent, and have improved greatly. It's "incomplete science." The junk is the exagerrated claims and portents of doom.

Anonymous Flinders January 14, 2013 7:19 AM  

They are still droning on about global warming in Australia because of all the bushfires. The problem with that is, that even though I am only 29, bushfires have been as much a part of my summer as swimming. And they have always been a danger even before colonisation.

Something to take away from this is that whenever there is a particularly cool summer or a total lack of bad weather, the agw crowd will said "weather isn't climate" but whenever the weather suits their propaganda, they'll be happy to use it, as they are now.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 7:37 AM  

Gun grabbing is just an easier/cleaner/faster way to power. Easier to shame. Plus existing purge lists on govt file.

Blogger James Dixon January 14, 2013 7:42 AM  

I have a working hypothesis that Gen-Xer's and later, who grew up with television, are developing a relative immunity to advertising, and (probably to a lesser extent) other forms of propaganda. Having been lied to continuously by the mass media since they were kids has to have some effect, after all.

Anonymous anon123 January 14, 2013 7:58 AM  

The end of this nonsense is welcome but it will not halt the run on "carbon tax" legislation and other such money grabs in the name of saving the planet.

Anonymous Jason January 14, 2013 8:07 AM  

The reporters and editors are probably being reassigned to cover the new hotness in gov't propaganda, gun control.

Anonymous aero January 14, 2013 8:07 AM  

The damage is done. There are laws and regulation that we will have to follow. The EPA will get bigger. The government will spend money on energy programs that will never be able to supply the energy needs of the people.

Anonymous JartStar January 14, 2013 8:18 AM  

You may not hear as much about Global Warming, but I hear more and more calls for the carbon tax or other regulations. Time will tell if Obama will bother, but today is always a good day to tax for a democrat.

Anonymous aero January 14, 2013 8:28 AM  

The New York Times is in trouble like most news papers that are in print. The only thing that will save these news papers is when the people need the news paper to keep warm.

Blogger Joshua_D January 14, 2013 8:34 AM  

But but ... we're having such a warm winter here in western NC!

Anonymous Weak January 14, 2013 8:35 AM  

Jason nailed it. AGWCC has fallen down the memory hole. It's Forward to grab the guns now. The interesting question is what will be next up once the big gun grab of 2013 fails. Homeschooling? Beef?

Anonymous paradox January 14, 2013 8:38 AM  

Joshua_D January 14, 2013 8:34 AM

But but ... we're having such a warm winter here in western NC!



Yea, no kidding... maybe they shouldn't have said it was going to be a very cold and very snowy winter.

Everyone knows guns now cause climate change.

Anonymous Bob Ramar January 14, 2013 8:40 AM  

I am at work right now and on the drive in it was foggy, rainy, about 55 degrees. We (Northwestern North Carolina) just had two very warm days for January with 70 degree temps and a number of high temperatures for the day broken (some going back to the 1890's. However, the forecast for a week plus one day from now (January 22) is for single digit high temperatures and sub-zero low temperatures. This will go on for at least two weeks.

I have seen three of these 'polar express' phenemona. All were preceeded by extremely warm temperatures and wet (rainy) conditions. This will be the fourth. Local folks of the greenie persuasion are babbling on about 'manmade global warming'. Me, I spent three hours yesterday afternoon splitting and ricking up firewood in preparation for next week. For my part, two aphorisms come to mind: "Only fools and newcomers try to predict the weather." and "This is how you get averages."

Blogger Joshua_D January 14, 2013 8:41 AM  

OT: I finished ATOB last night. I enjoyed it very much. I hope you're well on your way with the next book.

Anonymous aero January 14, 2013 8:47 AM  

The liberals in the government and in the entertainment media have been telling our children for years that their parents and grandparents have been destroying the planet. They have no future.
They have a behavioral problem with children in the schools. They drug them to control them. The violence that is happening is because they have destroyed their future with lies.

Anonymous Poli_Mis January 14, 2013 9:01 AM  

As much as I would love to celebrate this, I feel that celebration is premature.

We are talking about people who NEVER give up on an agenda. Since this fiction on weather (and then climate) was all about statist redistribution and draconian laws, NYT and other propaganda organs need to re-prioritize in the face of declining revenues.

I agree with the above, that the new push will be for evisceration of the remaining rights that hold back unfettered tyranny. They know that the day of total government edict is not far away -- thus achieving all of the same goals.

They are fighting the same war. Merely shuffling a few troops to another front or mission.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 14, 2013 9:03 AM  

Great, so now can the Feds stop spraying chemicals into the atmosphere?

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 14, 2013 9:22 AM  

Great, so now can the Feds stop spraying chemicals into the atmosphere?

Just thinking that before I got to the comments. Fat chance though. I doubt it has anything to do with the weather.

And remember, those are contrails.

Anonymous aero January 14, 2013 9:35 AM  

Great, so now can the Feds stop spraying chemicals into the atmosphere?
The problem I have with spraying is it

would effect everybody

Its done at such high altitudes they have no Idea where it is going or it effect

It should be done like crop dusting at a very low altitude above the object they intend.

MPAI when it comes to weather and aviation. Like GW/CC they are given a little truth that misleads them to believe the lie that GW/CC is true. In the court of law this is called leading the witness.




Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 9:36 AM  

I don't think that the actions of the NYT are anything other than proof the NYT can't run a proftiable business by doing coverage that no one cares about, or more importantly, will pay to subsidize. It's cost without an increase of readers. The people who will read this section and content are already subscribers. It's like if you added a "Guns of America" daily photo section to your website. Same audience.

Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 9:39 AM  

> The liberals in the government and in the entertainment media have been telling our
> children for years that their parents and grandparents have been destroying the
> planet. They have no future.

It's pretty much true that they have been deostrying the planet - with over consumption and not being willing to pay their own way. That's essentially the same story as the debt-fueled bubbles. The boomers want to consumer now, and pass the future costs onto their kids and grandkids. When they use mountaintop removal to extract coal, and then cost-shift the cleanup onto the government and future taxpayers, that's exactly what they are doing. Stealing from their kids to get something below cost today.

I often wonder when the real battle against geezers will start.

Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 9:42 AM  

Where they aren't so explicit about being man-made, but in context that's what I see them selling. However, w/ admission that the jet-stream is influencing the weather, and that's not where AGCC has its impact, it seems that when they're honest, they've conceded the fight too. They just won't be up-front about it.
Any given article that the NYT publishes isn't often all that bad. Often they are well done, if not over generalized, and generally reported well. Since the whole Jason Blair thing, their sourcing has tightened up as well. And since they helped sell Iraq invasion, they've cut down a lot on "anonymous government sources".

The problem with the NYT isn't a single story, but the decisions of which stories to run, and which ones not to run, and the spin which is laid onto them when they do series and other advocacy articles.

Anonymous dan January 14, 2013 9:48 AM  

Now we should bring back DDT.

Anonymous aero January 14, 2013 10:03 AM  

dh

It's pretty much true that they have been deostrying the planet - with over consumption and not being willing to pay their own way. That's essentially the same story as the debt-fueled bubbles. The boomers want to consumer now, and pass the future costs onto their kids and grandkids. When they use mountaintop removal to extract coal, and then cost-shift the cleanup onto the government and future taxpayers, that's exactly what they are doing. Stealing from their kids to get something below cost today.

I often wonder when the real battle against geezers will start.

It is impossible to get any resources for free. Where ever there is consumption there will always be waste. This is what the earth in balance idiots fail to understand.
solar and wind energy systems on a mountaintop create more waste then a product that is consumable. The problem is not consumption it is spending and borrowing money on foolish energy programs like solar and wind.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 10:05 AM  

If you hear someone use the words 'science' and 'consensus' in the same sentence, put your hand on your wallet and back out of the room.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 10:08 AM  

It is difficult for propagandists to write anything other than inconsistent garbage, and even the left tires of such nonsense eventually. Let's hope the rest of the Times follows in the footsteps of the environment desk with haste.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 10:10 AM  

What kind of heating do you use in your home, dh?

Blogger Doom January 14, 2013 10:13 AM  

While I often seem to cast stones at science over this issue, truth be told, it was in written and verbal communications with real climate scientists, ones who weren't drinking or selling the kool-aid, that brought me to my conclusion, and very early into this scandal. So, science isn't dead, it is just prone to parasites of the political and "economic" (broken windows) varieties on it's public face who do and will attempt to use peer pressure and the general public ignorance to "win", because it has "tiger blood" or something. Then again, religion is fraught with heresies. Go figure that the child is just as susceptible as the parent? :p

Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 10:25 AM  

What kind of heating do you use in your home, dh?

I am fortunate enough that I don't have to heat my home. I have a heat pump in case, but I typically use it once or twice per year. My main power source is solar. There is a company that started near where I am, but I think is either public or working on going public, which leases you a rooftop or free-standing solar system. The lease plus the base fee that the electric charges for grid hookup runs me about $1000 a year.

(All this is given that I have what most people would consider a rather small home).

Why? I hope you didn't take my comment about mountaintop removal as a dig against coal. I have no problem with people in coal rich area extracting the resource and making a living doing so. I think ideally the entire cost of the operation should be priced into the coal; socializing the future cleanup costs is pretty crappy to do to future tax payers. The same goes for oil and natural gas et all.

Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 10:26 AM  

Now we should bring back DDT.
This would save a lot more lives than magically disappearing all the guns in the world.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 10:37 AM  

"Great, so now can the Feds stop spraying chemicals into the atmosphere?"

/facepalm

This is the conspiracy theory that makes conspiracy theorists look like total morons.

And I say that as a moon landing denier.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 14, 2013 10:48 AM  

"Wow. Pretty much every comment on the Delingpole link is attacking him. Conspiracy theories galore, too."

Actually not. If you sort comments by something OTHER than latest, you'll see a marked difference. I think what happened was that someone rallied the AGW/CC internet troops and they were flinging poo for a few hours after everyone else got on with their lives.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2013 10:52 AM  

"And since they [NYT] helped sell Iraq invasion, they've cut down a lot on "anonymous government sources"."

Well, it so happens that since Certain Interested Parties (read YKW) got exactly what they wanted within the first few weeks of Operation Golem Patrol in Iraq, it stands to reason they'd then cut their support and start betraying and undermining the very people who gave them what they want. It's what they do.

If NYT cuts support for redistributionist AGW arm-waving (viz. steal from whitey and give to darky in order to neuter whitey), it only means that they already got what they wanted through some other conduit. What did they want, and what did they get? Circumspice.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 11:47 AM  

Sounds like a pretty reasonable position on energy, dh. Just curious, what part of the world do you live in?

Anonymous Josh January 14, 2013 11:50 AM  

And I say that as a moon landing denier.

Why else would they be spraying all those chemicals, if not to cover up the faked Moon landings?

Anonymous Stilicho January 14, 2013 12:06 PM  

Ah, global warming consensus, we hardly knew ye

Anonymous Athor Pel January 14, 2013 2:36 PM  

" Nate January 14, 2013 10:37 AM

"Great, so now can the Feds stop spraying chemicals into the atmosphere?"

/facepalm

This is the conspiracy theory that makes conspiracy theorists look like total morons.

And I say that as a moon landing denier.
"




Please, share. I'd really like to hear the debunking.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 14, 2013 3:08 PM  

It seems that the popular science writer Matt Ridley is at the very least mildly skeptical of global warming/climate change.

I've long been skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but as I've said before in other places, regardless of whether it's real or not, people will not change their lifestyles. People don't care.

Anonymous kh123 January 14, 2013 3:47 PM  

The AGW agitprops made their way to the comment section in Delingpole's article right on schedule.

I like how one idiot from Liverpool quotes the Met Office's response to Del's article in typical gotcha fashion:

"Firstly, [Delingpole] claims the Met Office failed to predict snow in 2010, but our 5-day forecasts accurately forecast 12 out of 13 snowfall events... Mr Delingpole also says we failed to predict flooding in November last year. Once again, our 5-day forecasts gave accurate guidance and warnings throughout the period... Mr Delingpole then inaccurately states that the Met Office has conceded 'there is no evidence that "global warming" is happening'. We have not said this at any point. In fact, we explicitly say this was not the case in an article..."

And of course, all of that actually is in Delingpole's article:

-The article quotes GWPF's Dr. Whitehouse: "When it comes to four or five-day weather forecasting, the Met Office is the best in the world. The tragedy is that, for the most part, the Met Office thinks weather forecasting is beneath it. Climate change... brings in more money." (For someone from an organization that's directly opposed to the Met Office, that's quite a high compliment).

-Delingpole also quotes directly from Met themselves: "The fact the new model predicts less warming, globally, for the coming five years does not necessarily tell us anything about long-term predictions of climate change for the coming century..."

Anonymous Somers'61 January 14, 2013 6:27 PM  

the cooling trend of the last 8-10 years or so, has mirrored the significant decrease of sunspot activity...we have had many more blizzards than in the late 90's and early 2000's in that time period, and except for last summer, very cool summers as well as winter weather lasting well into the spring. I'm not scientifically literate, but reduced heat from the sun [as in the Maunder Minimum which caused a mini-ice age]makes far more sense than carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. Volcanic eruptions pump far more carbon into the atmosphere than human activity ever could. And we know for a fact from past empirical observation that significant reduction in sun spots leads to much colder weather and it is simply happening again.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 14, 2013 6:49 PM  

Quick! Someone please tell John Kerry...Obamba's nominee for Secretary of State. Kerry says that is one of his big priorities for the immediate future. Only the few environmental fanatics bother to mention global warming anymore.

Anonymous the daily cannibal January 15, 2013 7:34 PM  

"...a scientific consensus." Science is not a democracy. The universe exists independently from our "consensus," even if it relies on our observation for definition.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box January 20, 2013 2:48 PM  

Honestly I think even calling it JUNK Science is a bit of a stretch. It's pure communist/spiritualist propaganda.
It always was.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts