Behold (below) yet another “smoking gun” delineating the bias and lack of objectivity and integrity of the New York Times. The paper is the very model of a modern “dishonest waiter”, for all of its double standards, contradictions and hypocrisy goes one way: to advance progressive agendas and Axis propaganda. See?
Yet for years now, self-banned commenter “A Friend” has comment section-bombed Ethics Alarms with defenses of the New York Times when it is criticized here, usually with posts beginning with “Come on, Jack!” These get sent to EA Spam Hell when they show up as soon as I see them of course, each one putting “A Friend” even deeper on the black list than he already is.
Today, however, to show my love for all of this blog’s readers, even the trolls, deranged and assholes, I will offer a symbolic temporary suspension of “A Friend’s” ban, if he offers a sincere, rational, defense of the Times’ “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” performance in this case.
Can he (or anyone) rebut my conclusion that the Times, forever allying itself with climate change confirmation bias victims, has proven that it will contrive an argument that literally any occurrence, statistics or phenomena is proof of the dire effects of climate change according to “scientists,” which often means to the Axis media of which it is a charter member, “some old guy with a duck on his head holding the Bozo Chair in Chemistry at Itawamba Community College that we found after searching for a week.”?
The offer will stand for 48 hours.
I’m expecting great things.
Ethics Alarms 
i think the issue is a misunderstanding of the issue
Climate change raises the planet’s overall temperature, but it also messes with air patterns like the jet stream. So you can get odd warm winters some years because the baseline is hotter, and you can also get brutal cold snaps when Arctic air gets shoved south due to a wobbly atmosphere. One is the long-term warming trend, the other is short-term weather swinging around on top of it.
No, it’s a problem of stating theory and speculation as fact, and not accepting that weather and cliamte are distinct. Climate change fanatics used to say citing weather to disprove climate change was ignorant, but when people kept doing it, they pivoted to making the same arguments in reverse. In truth and logic, an anomaly doesn’t prove anything. This cold winter doesn’t prove the climate change is bunk, but “scientists” who try to argue that it proves the opposite just show how corrupt and untrustworthy they are. And people who rush to accept such crap prove how ignorant and gullible THEY are.
Pretty gross response Marissa. Sad.
Valid science is falsifiable. If a theory is not falsifiable, it is also unprovable. Climate science has rendered itself unfalsifiable by claiming that all possible permutations of weather are caused by climate change. Climate science is therefore unprovable and not a serious scientific theory. People who believe in anthropogenic climate change do so based on faith, not science. You have a right to believe in anthropogenic climate change, just as everyone else who believes in faith based beliefs. What you don’t have is a valid scientific theory for that faith. Attempting to force your beliefs on other people is just as wrong as trying to force any other faith based belief system on other people.
Falsifiability, not just a problem for practicing science on the climate but also for replicating claims of molecules to monkeys evolution.
Various elements of evolutionary theory are absolutely falsifiable. You can watch single cell organisms evolve under a microscope. The real difference between the two theories is how they are used to force others to do an ideologies’ bidding. No one is using evolutionary theory to impose mass taxes on the population so far as I am aware. No one is claiming that evolutionary theory is going to end life on earth if everyone doesn’t agree to bow down and kiss the believers’ asses. Believe, don’t believe, I don’t care.
Splendid, N.P.
It is either a serious misstatement or a serious misunderstanding to state that “Valid science is falsifiable” and that “Climate science has rendered itself unfalsifiable”.
Science is a field of study. Within that field, there are many theories (or hypotheses) and it is those which must be falsifiable to be considered valid. It generally is understood within science that theories cannot be proven, although there can be an accumulation of sufficient evidence that they are all but proven. And, they can be disproven.
Climate science is not a theory, nor does it have agency, so it has not rendered itself anything, much less unfalsifiable.
Within the field of study of climate science, there are a number of theories, and it is worth taking a look at some of them while considering falsifiability.
Consider, for example, a statement that the planet is warming. We have the ability to gather evidence both for and against this, and the evidence seems to be that it is warming. As an aside, often overlooked in popular articles about global warming is that we are in an interglacial period, and that over long time periods, there is an oscillation between glacial and interglacial. Also often overlooked is the evidence that the last interglacial period was warmer than the one we are in now.
Another theory stated sometimes, more by politicians than scientists, is that climate change is existential. As a theory, it is unsatisfactory because the term ‘existential’ is not monosemic; on the contrary, it has multiple meanings, and scientific theories require precision, not ambiguity.
Finally, “People who believe in anthropogenic climate change do so based on faith.” Well, yes, if the belief is that humans cause climate change. But, a more accurate statement of the theory is that humans have an impact on climate change, and for that, it is possible to accumulate evidence both for and against, and the evidence seems to be that humans do have an impact.
As to why the anthropogenic impact gets the most attention, the answer should be obvious – we cannot do anything about the cycle of glacial-interglacial, but we can do something about anthropogenic, some things that may actually ease the impact of warming. And, more importantly, there is money to be made and power to be gained by focusing our attention on this aspect of global warming.
“there is money to be made and power to be gained by focusing our attention on this aspect of global warming.”
Do tell; to wit:
TRILLION$ in “solutions” financed by ‘taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.’
Why did the Maldives (rapidly sinking into the Global Warming enhanced rising seas) take a half a BILLION in “Climate Reparations” and use it to build golf courses and airports to promote tourism (Fly-In golfers?) rather than move all their $#!t to higher ground?
Why was the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), comprised of a veritable Who’s Who of Climate Criminal Lefties; (Fat Albert Gore, Maurice Strong, Frank Raines, George Soros, the Lefty Foundations, et al) SHUTTERED? Because it failed to fulfill the one reason for its existence: Lining the pockets of Gucci-slippered Carbon Traders and rent-seeking corporations?
Expected to generate trades reaching into the 14 figures, it would have been a Freeloading Statist’s (forgive the redundancy) wet freakin’ dream!
“At its founding in November 2000, it was estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion. That estimate ballooned over the years to $10 trillion.”
That’s some serious jack for trading what amounts to thin air.
The kind of people are drawn to those type of astronomical payouts? Not Sunday School teachers or Boy Scouts.
PWS
That PWS thing throws me every time. I don’t have your address, so, Please Write Soon may be a nice thought, but I can’t follow through.
WordPress has fought me every step away in my arduous efforts to post under Paul William Schlecht rather than my nom de plume; I just gave up trying.
PWS
The…um…focused NYT made this…er…offer not quite eight (8) years ago (Spring 2018): They don’t do things halfway…they go ALL THE WAY AROUND the flippin’ World!
NYT Charters PRIVATE JET To Warn About Devastating Effects Of Fossil Fuel (NOTE: this trip has been dutifully memory-holed; perhaps A Friend might be of some assistance?)
For a mere $135 large (double-occupancy & carbon footprint be damned) Nicholas Kristof & assorted Climate Hypocrites will help you (bolds/caps mine throughout):
“CIRCLE THE GLOBE on an inspiring and informative journey by PRIVATE JET, created by The New York Times in collaboration with LUXURY TRAVEL PIONEERS ABERCROMBIE & KENT. This 26-DAY INTINERARY you beneath the surface of some of the WORLD’S MOST COMPELLING DESTINATIONS, illuminating them through the expertise of veteran Times journalists.
”Travel in a group of JUST 50 GUESTS, joined by some of THE TIMES’ MOST TRUSSTWORTHY JOURNALISTS and local contributors, who offer FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCES on the people and places that shape our world.
“Join a DEDICATED FLIGHT CREW aboard an EXCLUSIVELY CHARTERED BOEING 757 WITH FIRST CLASS, FULLY LIE-FLAT SEATS, accompanied by A&K’s top-notch Tour Directors and local experts, for AN AROUND-THE-WORLD-ADVENTURE LIKE NO OTHER.”
Can’t speak for anyone else….but they had me at FIRST CLASS, FULLY LIE-FLAT SEATS.
PWS
ERRATUM: Found a LINK and apologize for some misinformation.
It wasn’t $135,000 per person, it was $150,000.
PWS
“Can he (or anyone) rebut my conclusion that the Times, forever allying itself with climate change confirmation bias victims, has proven that it will contrive an argument that literally any occurrence, statistics or phenomena is proof of the dire effects of climate change ….”
I don’t think this conclusion is susceptible to proof or disproof, since it is an opinion and it deals with what an organization will do [not likely to do] in the future.
Ok. Similarly, one cannot state that if you are put in a cage with a Grizzly bear it will kill you. That’s just an opinion, but it is certainly an opinion based on irrefutable facts, such as past conduct. Is there any evidence at all, given its willingness to claim diametrically opposed data is evidence of the same phenomenon, that it is trustworthy on this topic?
I suspect the sample size of persons being put in a cage with a grizzly bear is pretty small. It may seem intuitive that the bear will kill the person, but intuition is not proof. Likewise, the sample size of The NY Times articles here is small. And, both articles attribute the statements about climate change to others. Sure, selection of what to print and what to skip can be influenced or even governed by bias. But, for us non-readers of The Times, we will have to accept or reject your claim based on belief, not knowledge.
I look back on my college years, and I see the indoctrination much clearer now, but the sad thing about it all is that it’s not really an organzied, nefarious plot. It’s exactly like this New York Times piece, full of people who are convinced of outright lunacy.
There are English composition instructors who would allow students to cite the TImes, but if they cited your blog (even for an argument about a topic), they would be told it’s not a “reliable” source.
Your open that you are making an argument, and you present your evidence. These people pretend to be presenting “facts.”
While I don’t believe journalists are the “enemy of the people” (Trump’s phrase), they are fundamentally distorting reality. I have multiple people in my life who aren’t hardcore lefties getting on the crazy train.
When you see how the Times frames climate change as an existential threat, what’s the right response if that is actually true? It’s driving people to despair.
1 – Yes there is identifiable and sometimes maddening mainstream media bias. I often say so at the beginning of email messages that you brag you don’t read. Your repetitive sarcastic slogan “Nah there’s no mainstream media bias” is a straw man that blocks out any nuance. It also forces all of your allowed commenters into a strict news silo of their own.
2 – With regard to climate change, I asked you two years ago to take one simple step: Ask your own vendors in your own neighborhood. You know, the landscapers, lawn mowing crews, other contractors and so on. In my heavily wooded area of Northern Virginia they repeatedly bring this up without prompting. The tree expert in particular says climate change has clearly changed his work. He’s a white guy from an outlying area of Northern Virginia who’s never been to college. Are you afraid to ask, Jack?
3 – Your citation of two New York Times stories that you claim are contradictory is a classic error in the discussion of climate change, exactly as Marisa described. You then repeat the error in this very comment thread, essentially claiming that two extreme weather events, one cold and one hot, cancel each other out. I think you heard the simplistic term “global warming” (which is just an overall average) once fifteen years ago and then decided to block everything else out so you don’t understand the subject.
4 – There are not just two policy choices here – a) “there is no such thing as climate change” b) “Greta Thunberg.” She is essentially a one-world-government totalitarian who, based on her actions in the Middle East, is essentially an antisemite as well. Your own denialism of a more sophisticated exploration of the science here does not follow from that at all.
5 – You constantly read the New York Times way too fast. In what I actually agree was a weak column by their ethics guy essentially excusing an immigrant neighbor of uncertain status of running an auto repair shop out of his driveway, you claimed that the hesitant, permissive neighbor who brought it up was a “typical” New York Times reader. Had you simply taken a few extra seconds to open the New York Times’ own reader comments, you would have found out you were dead wrong. Their readers almost unanimously blasted the immigrant neighbor and criticized the column’s permissiveness. This has happened several times before on subjects like DEI and the plagiarism scandal at your alma mater, where you don’t even know what New York Times readers thought of it, in your own race to post.
6 – Axis, Axis, Axis, Axis. This is a different subject but equally key to the success or lack thereof of your blog, which I am genuinely trying to help. The universally accepted current meaning of “Axis” is the Axis of Iranian Influence, in other words, the alliance of Middle Eastern terrorist groups that are attempting, and failing, to wipe out Israel. You’d think you’d be sympathetic to this usage, given what I agree with you is the vast and unfortunate misunderstanding of events post-October 7 by the American political far left. Your obsessive alternate use hasn’t been taken up anywhere else, won’t be adopted anywhere else, and my saying so is related to all the other ways I am trying to advise you. God forbid anyone around here genuinely try to help. Have a nice day.
Offer accepted and acceptable. Thank-you.
Bye!
Good to hear from you! I hope more of your comments get to see the light of day.