Categories
Climate Change English New York Times Omnologos

Climate Chaos at the New York Times

Follow up to my “ANTI-SOON CAMPAIGN GOES SMEARING WHOLE CATEGORIES OF SCIENTISTS” post, I can now show how Somebody at the NYT noticed exactly what I pointed to, and tried to change history but ultimately failed in the process.

Yesterday I had noticed that casual readers would only get the message that a climate researcher was somehow involved with undeclared corporate interests. This is because the online article was titled “Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate-Change Researcher” with no reference to the outside-of-the-consensus position of Willie Soon, who found himself representing literally any climate scientist.

Given what happens with politicians, it would then be expected that the same casual readers would conclude some form of corruption be endemic to climate science. Not exactly the Narrative favored by the New York Times.

Turns out the same online article has since been changed, at least in the title, that now reads “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher“. Apart from the dramatizing use of “Deeper”, the important bit is the addition of “Doubtful” – removing at last the apparent smear against all climate scientists of every opinion.

A last-minute correction following a blog post? It’s not so simple. Here’s the story as I can see it now

1. The original article (“Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate-Change Researcher“) appeared online before 2AM EST Sunday Feb 22, as per Wayback Machine. It was timestamped “3:05PM”, presumably Saturday Feb 21

Wayback Machine
Wayback Machine

 

2. The same title appeared on the official Facebook NYT pages, timestamped 12:53AM Sunday – AFAIK, that’s GMT, or in other words, 7:53PM Saturday EST

Facebook
Facebook

3. Same title got propagated by various news outlets and blogs

Google Search
Google Search
Google News
Google News

4. Then something happened. The printed (US) edition of Sunday showed the new title (“Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher“). I do not know if more than one printing is done on Sundays: assuming it is not, the change was made in a real hurry as one can only presume 2AM is already a little late for the printers

NYT Sunday A1 page

5. Whoever ordered the change, forgot to distribute it in full. So the International New York Times, printed for delivery on Monday, still carried a version of the old title (apologies for the small size of the picture)

International New York Times Feb 23
International New York Times Feb 23

6. Both versions of the article are visible on the International NYT archive – in fact I am not aware of any material change in the text between one title and the other

International New York Times search
International New York Times search

7. Yesterday I then noticed that the original “Ties” version was on the NYT website – another misdistribution of the correction. But by sometimes in the AM GMT, the online title was changed to the new “Deeper” version too.

On past performance, this is yet another heavy handed intervention by Somebody High Above at the NYT to correct a climate article that had gone astray, just as for this 2010 article, dramatically changed between the IHT printed edition and the NYT website.

(yes I have imagery demonstrating the changes)

In that case, the newspaper of record made Judith Curry disappear, to be replaced by a nobody from the UCS with zero climate science background. And Gavin.

 

Categories
Omnologos

Anti-Soon Campaign goes smearing whole categories of scientists

Whatever one thinks of Willie Soon’s stupid idea of concealing corporate funding – and even admitting the story is not yet another Greenpeace half-baked job – for some reason the NYT has titled the article “climate change researcher” (not “skeptic” or “denier” or “contrarian”) in the website and “climate researcher” in the printed international edition.

In the website the link Soon/denial (of risks) is at the 9th line. Not sure how many went that far.

This means that in the eyes of casual viewers (who would have only read the title) the entire category of “climate change researchers” has now suffered ignominy.

Partially-interested viewers (those who only read the title and the end of the article) will be given the impression that science publications don’t work too hard on enforcing their own standards. Once again, a collective smearing job.

Never say a climate change alarmist is any good for science.

Categories
Italiano

#Schettino, uomo d’altri tempi

Come ricordato da un lettore della London Review of Books (19 Febbraio 2015), pratiche di navigazione che consideriamo il minimo indispensabile (capitano che affonda con la nave, donne e bambini i primi ad entrare nelle scialuppe) sono una tradizione moderna, comparsa nel XIX secolo.

Nel 1782, invece, i capitani abbandonavano 400 marinai a un triste destino, e poi venivano pure celebrati per il loro coraggio. Ad esempio, Capitan John Nicholson Inglefield perse la nave HMS Centaur, ma non la vita. E guadagnò un quadro per la posterità.

 

Categories
Climate Change English New York Times Omniclimate

Remember when the @nytimes promoted skepticism?

Wednesday, May 5, 1897, page 4

“PROMINENT MEN.
Some of the Leading Scientists Agree Upon an Important Subject.
It is not only natural but just that proof should be demanded by the public for every statement or claim that is made to the public”

The piece continues:

“When, therefore, it is asserted that a certain article is not only pure and palatable, and a most delightful beverage, but also that it possesses qualities almost invaluable for the human system, people are right in demanding the proof.”

Say what? Actually, it concludes so:

“Do not be persuaded by any druggist or grocer to accept anything but the pure, the real Duffy’s malt.”

Oh wait. It’s just an ad. Of course. Why, it’s the same New York Times that on Sunday, April 28, 1912, page 43 told its readers that, according to “the leading microbiologists of the world”,

“To take a bath only leaves one’s skin in a dirtier condition than before, from the medical point of view. “

Asinine deference to mad scientists long predates the climate change scares. Unless there is some whisky to sell.

Categories
Climate Change English Omniclimate

A Day in the Life of a #climatechange Alarmist

By commenter Parma John on Steven Goddard’s “Dana Nuttercelli Says There Never Was A Global Cooling Scare

I wake up in the morning to one temperature, only to find that it goes up and up during the day. Naturally extrapolating the day’s progression I have a nervous breakdown around 3PM, and I’m incapable of speaking as the rest of the afternoon confirms that we will all boil to death before the week is out.

Then evening rolls around, and just as things are returning to a stable state the temperatures plunge inexorably toward (and sometimes beyond) freezing. By the time I hit the sack I can’t close my eyes, since my calculations tell me we will surely all be lifeless blocks of ice before the next day’s end. Exhausted and paralized by fear I finally pass out until the cycle starts over.

Then there are those pesky seasons….

Categories
English Science

Mother Jones vs Science

Unsurprisingly asinine piece on Mother Jones purportedly in defence of Science (confirming the saying…”with friends like these”..etc etc).

Anti-vaxxers are stupid but the answer “trust the scientists” is just as unscientific. “Scientists are a special group of people” is risible to anybody who’s ever been one.

Never mind the problem of who’s uttering that stuff. Why should we believe a paleontologist telling us to believe in what astronomers say, when the paleontologist is just as alien as anybody to the matters of astronomy?

There is no point in arguing that we should believe in the Most Optimal Caste of Science Priests instead of in google searches. Obviously we should believe in neither and be scientific ourselves.

Eg if A is true then B is expected so if B isn’t observed then A is unlikely to be true. In this case A is the anti-vaxxers propaganda and B is children falling into autism in the millions worldwide. This approach doesn’t depend on scientists being Good People. And that’s another characteristic of a scientific approach.

And by the way, MJ’s description of Climategate is just plain wrong. As usual, and forever.

Categories
Climate Change English Global Warming Skepticism

About the Holocaust and Climate Change skepticism

A comment posted at the SoD and Keith Kloor‘s blogs:

Sad isn’t it when both SoD and Kloor find it necessary to go for brownie points, and clarify, clarify and clarify again that they ARE part of the Good Guys Brigade indeed, and have NO DOUBTS about the greenhouse effect, or the fact that increasing anthropogenic GHGs has been a significant contribution to rising temperatures of the last 100 years.

You are missing a very important point.

I have been labelled a D many many times. I have even collected all the insults received during a brief period in the Greenfyre blog

http://omnologos.com/the-agw-debate-challenged-game-1-word-list/

The insults haven’t gone away…they just resurface whenever I say anything in “warmist” blogs.

What’s the issue? The issue is that in my About page there is a text from 2007 where I clearly state that I have no doubts about the greenhouse effect, or the fact that increasing anthropogenic GHGs has been a significant contribution to rising temperatures of the last 100 years.

It’s from eight years ago. Yet the “concerned heretic watchers” would not and will not accept my membership of the Good Guys Brigade.

And who wrote that text? Why, Willis Eschenbach of WUWT fame. This should obviously and clearly and definitely destroy Kloor’s defense. WUWT is not the Very Bad Place he tried to describe in order to get brownie points.

Know what, the vituperated Bishop Hill has a blog owner who I suspect would subscribe to the same – that is, he has no doubts about the greenhouse effect, or the fact that increasing anthropogenic GHGs has been a significant contribution to rising temperatures of the last 100 years. There is a category of self-style Lukewarmers: Ridley, Lomborg, Lawson among them.

However, as seen countless times and for at least seven years and again in this thread, and about Ridley and Lomborg and Lawson, this does not matter. The people who utter the D word do not care about what the objects of their ires actually think: because the issue is not one’s opinion on the GHG properties of CO2, and not even what the temperature record says, or what the equations may indicate, or how good the numerical solutions we call Models are.

The issue for those who want/need to use the D word has been indicated by the Guardian some time ago: a skeptic is somebody who thinks at least some of the alarming claims made about climate change are exaggerated.

Conversely, a Believer is somebody who thinks no alarming claim is exaggerated.

In other words, a Believer does see the world as destined to a fiery and burning death. With the catastrophe approaching, anybody who doesn’t agree we’re a few years away from total collapse of civilization and more, is put in the D category.

You guys, (SoD and Kloor) are hovering about, almost ready to fall in the B camp. Maybe you should make it clear to yourselves and to your readers.

Are some claims of what is going to happen about global warming and climate change, exaggerated?