Global Warming: NYT, Time consistently inconsistent, but always Chicken Little

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
At Least They're Consistent
Posted by Mithridate Ombud on May 23, 2006 - 12:59.

Courtesy of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, following are some of the Chicken Little writings of the New York Times and Time Magazine over the years.

Time, Sept. 10, 1923: "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjecture of the possible advent of a new ice age."

NYT, Sept. 18, 1924: "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age."

NYT, March 27, 1933: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise."

Time, Jan. 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time, June 24, 1974: "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

NYT, May 21, 1975: "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."

Time, April 9, 2001: "(S)cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

NYT, Dec. 27, 2005: "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming."

Anyone who says the Earth with get (circle one) hotter/colder is right, given enough time. We've had ice ages, little ice ages, as well as warming periods. None of them were caused by humans.

Why is this any different?
 
fossten said:
Anyone who says the Earth with get (circle one) hotter/colder is right, given enough time. We've had ice ages, little ice ages, as well as warming periods. None of them were caused by humans.

Why is this any different?
Click to expand...
You are correct, we have and will go through warming and cooling trends. It is different this time because the causes of the warming trends appear to be evident, and the causes are creating a warming trend that is faster than in the past, which in the way nature does, will cause a much quicker cooling trend/ice age.
 
raVeneyes said:
You are correct, we have and will go through warming and cooling trends. It is different this time because the causes of the warming trends appear to be evident [still only theory] , and the causes are creating a warming trend that is faster than in the past, which in the way nature does, will cause a much quicker cooling trend/ice age.
Click to expand...

I am also correct in that scientists don't really have any definitive proof that humans cause global warming. This has been documented on numerous occasions.
 
fossten said:
I am also correct in that scientists don't really have any definitive proof that humans cause global warming. This has been documented on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...
Scientists have definitive proof for a lot of things, but being scientists they're not ever going to say "This is the absolute right answer". This is that whole argument about scientific theories versus the common definition of "theory".

Does ozone (O3) get destroyed by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)? Yes, simple fact it does. Is the human release of CFCs and Methane (CH4) affecting the upper atmosphere's ozone layer? There's proof that it is. Does ozone block a percentage of the Sun's UV rays for a given thickness and density of the gas? Yes there's also proof of that.

The theory comes in to play when you say that the human release of CFCs and CH4 and the consequential destruction of the ozone layer is in fact heating the planet. Scientists can not be sure that the system works that way, but they *can* point to evidence, such as the death of sea surface plankton, the melting ice caps, and the higher than average rise in temperature curve of the atmosphere to get to that theory.

Also we've never lived through the onset of an ice age, but scientists can point to different combinations of factors to theorize the ways in which one will happen.
 
The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling... We are still coming out of the last Ice Age...

Oh and wasn't Ice Age II funny... sorry just had to add that...
 
raVeneyes said:
Scientists have definitive proof for a lot of things, but being scientists they're not ever going to say "This is the absolute right answer". This is that whole argument about scientific theories versus the common definition of "theory".

Does ozone (O3) get destroyed by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)? Yes, simple fact it does. Is the human release of CFCs and Methane (CH4) affecting the upper atmosphere's ozone layer? There's proof that it is. Does ozone block a percentage of the Sun's UV rays for a given thickness and density of the gas? Yes there's also proof of that.

The theory comes in to play when you say [shouldn't it be: When you PROVE?] that the human release of CFCs and CH4 and the consequential destruction of the ozone layer is in fact heating the planet. Scientists can not be sure that the system works that way, but they *can* point to evidence, such as the death of sea surface plankton, the melting ice caps, and the higher than average rise in temperature curve of the atmosphere to get to that theory.

Also we've never lived through the onset of an ice age, but scientists can point to different combinations of factors to theorize the ways in which one will happen.
Click to expand...

Note the parts in bold. Now answer this: What about the FACT that scientists have admitted, however reluctantly, that our attempts to CLEAN our atmosphere have resulted in less smog(which has a filtering effect on the sun's UV rays as well), which is, in FACT, causing MORE GLOBAL WARMING?

No matter what we do, we still get global warming.

Explain why Jupiter and Mars are experiencing global warming at the same time as Earth. Are we causing that too?
 
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002540514
Tierney of 'NYT' Rips Al Gore's Global-Warming Film

By E&P Staff

Published: May 22, 2006 11:00 PM ET

NEW YORK With Al Gore’s much-ballyhooed movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"—the toast of Sundance and Cannes—about to open, the New York Times’ John Tierney, who once mocked global warming horror stories, launched a critical hit in his Tuesday column.

Tierney writes that a better title for the film would have been "Revenge of the Nerd" and notes that it based on “a slide show that he inflicts on audiences around the world, to no discernible effect.” Yet it will deserve an Oscar: “Getting anyone to voluntarily sit through 100 minutes of Al Gore and his slides is a historic cinematic achievement.”

While Tierney now admits that global warming is indeed troubling, he says the film is “not really true, and it's certainly not inconvenient for him or his audience.” Gore lays too much on the oil companies and the Republicans--and President Bush for not signing the Kyoto accords, when most nations that did sign “aren't meeting their goals because cutting emissions turned out to be so difficult.”

And, anyway, “Gore's cinematic strategy for rousing them is to present doomsday scenarios and ignore the evidence that civilization may just survive after all. &hellipBut even as propaganda, the film is ultimately unsatisfying. Gore doesn't mind frightening his audience with improbable future catastrophes, but he avoids any call to action that would cause immediate discomfort, either to filmgoers or to voters in the 2008 primaries.”

For one thing, he “doesn't propose the quickest and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse emissions: a carbon tax on gasoline and other fossil fuels,” and also ignores salvation through nuclear power. “A few environmentalists, like Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, have recognized that their movement is making a mistake in continuing to demonize nuclear power. Balanced against the risks of global warming, nukes suddenly look good — or at least deserve to be considered rationally&hellip.

“Gore could have dared, once he enticed the faithful into the theater, to challenge them with an inconvenient truth or two. But that would have been a different movie.”
 
It's amazing how what was almost a normal discussion on global warming is turning into more political "I'm right and your wrong" bull:q:q:q:q.How about having just one discussion that doesn't turn into this crap.
 
crazyman said:
How about having just one discussion that doesn't turn into this crap.
Click to expand...
Your commentary that would contribute to that goal would be truly appreciated I'm sure.
 
Global Warming???

It is my opinion it is happening.

It is my opinion that nature has more do with it than man at this point.

It is my opinion that man also contributes to this phenomenon.

Sun spot activity creating a warming of the earth's core may be the significant event going on now and certainly seems to be contributing to both the Mars and Jupiter warming issues as well.

It is my opinion that United States participation in Kyoto would be a joke. The US will take care of itsefl when it comes to emissions. The emerging economies around the world are the greater risk. These nations and economies are basically where we were 50 years ago. Growth at all costs. These nations and economies such as in China, India, and Africa is where the greatest challenges lie. They don't have the same sense of concern for their people and will certainly sacrifice environmental concerns for easy, quick, low cost growth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no comentary on the subject.I don't know enough about the subject. I am interested in reading the commentary of others and god-forbid, learning something.It sucks to get into what your reading and begin enjoying the thread only to have it turn into what unfortunetly alot of these forums have become.We all know what that is so I'll stop here.
 
crazyman said:
I have no comentary on the subject.I don't know enough about the subject. I am interested in reading the commentary of others and god-forbid, learning something.It sucks to get into what your reading and begin enjoying the thread only to have it turn into what unfortunetly alot of these forums have become.We all know what that is so I'll stop here.
Click to expand...

What you have to take into account is that very few people in this forum take a scholarly, thoughtful approach to political debate. Most of the time, especially on the left side, people tend to spout talking points (lies)instead of real facts, or taunts instead of actual logical debate. Example: The left will call Bush's tax plan "Tax cuts for the rich." This is so obviously a lie that it's almost not even worth debating, especially when you've done it three dozen times with the same person. This becomes frustrating for people on the other side of the aisle, as it's not apparently productive to answer irrational lies with factual answers. This only prompts more taunts and more irrational name-calling. It's difficult to maintain a scholarly approach when you are being called names or mocked by the opposing side of the debate. It's also difficult to debate logically someone who simply cuts/pastes articles filled with glee over the misfortune of others. I admit that I've failed to keep up a calm demeanor when people are so obviously demagoguing the truth.

Keep in mind that most of the time, despite what the lefties will tell you, there IS a right and wrong side of the debate. It's almost ALWAYS lies vs. truth. Very seldom is it shades of grey, and to burst somebody's bubble of lies with facts brings on name-calling.

This is my point of view, but I suspect that somebody from the left will come along and bash me for writing this, which will ultimately prove my point.
 
I hear what what your saying, but my point is less about the conduct of the political discussions and more about EVERY discussion becoming a political argument.
This thread for instance, it was started as a discussion about the NYT and Time and their consistant sensationalism towards the worst case senarios.Good start.From there it turned into a discussion about global warming, which was a natural progression given the topics of the headlines posted.All was going well, until we see a posting of an article ripping A.G.'s movie.Granted, his movie is about global warming but the article had little to do with anything more than how wrong Gore is.Maybe a great posting for a thread about Gore's movie, but it seems like a sure fire way to end any reasonable discussion about Time, the NYT or global warming and start yet another pointless name calling, BS-athon.
 
fossten said:
What you have to take into account is that very few people in this forum take a scholarly, thoughtful approach to political debate. Most of the time, especially on the left side, people tend to spout talking points (lies)instead of real facts, or taunts instead of actual logical debate. Example: The left will call Bush's tax plan "Tax cuts for the rich." This is so obviously a lie that it's almost not even worth debating, especially when you've done it three dozen times with the same person. This becomes frustrating for people on the other side of the aisle, as it's not apparently productive to answer irrational lies with factual answers. This only prompts more taunts and more irrational name-calling. It's difficult to maintain a scholarly approach when you are being called names or mocked by the opposing side of the debate. It's also difficult to debate logically someone who simply cuts/pastes articles filled with glee over the misfortune of others. I admit that I've failed to keep up a calm demeanor when people are so obviously demagoguing the truth.

Keep in mind that most of the time, despite what the lefties will tell you, there IS a right and wrong side of the debate. It's almost ALWAYS lies vs. truth. Very seldom is it shades of grey, and to burst somebody's bubble of lies with facts brings on name-calling.

This is my point of view, but I suspect that somebody from the left will come along and bash me for writing this, which will ultimately prove my point.
Click to expand...


It would have been nice if you hadn't used phrases like "especially on the left side...", "The left will call... ", "despite what the lefties will tell you...". Because all your really doing is bashing and doing the 'I'm right your wrong' that Crazyman complained about.
 
95DevilleNS said:
It would have been nice if you hadn't used words like "especially on the left side...", "The left will call... ", "despite what the lefties will tell you...". Because all your really doing is bashing and doing the 'I'm right your wrong' that Crazyman complained about.
Click to expand...

It would have been nice? How about inaccurate?

Nothing I said was untrue and you know it.

You just proved my point. Nobody can state their opinion on this forum without being attacked by someone else.
 
fossten said:
It would have been nice? How about inaccurate?

Nothing I said was untrue and you know it.

You just proved my point. Nobody can state their opinion on this forum without being attacked by someone else.
Click to expand...

If you say so....
 
crazyman said:
I hear what what your saying, but my point is less about the conduct of the political discussions and more about EVERY discussion becoming a political argument.
This thread for instance, it was started as a discussion about the NYT and Time and their consistant sensationalism towards the worst case senarios.Good start.From there it turned into a discussion about global warming, which was a natural progression given the topics of the headlines posted.All was going well, until we see a posting of an article ripping A.G.'s movie.Granted, his movie is about global warming but the article had little to do with anything more than how wrong Gore is.Maybe a great posting for a thread about Gore's movie, but it seems like a sure fire way to end any reasonable discussion about Time, the NYT or global warming and start yet another pointless name calling, BS-athon.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir.

Look, it's common knowledge what you're saying, but the only thing worse than the conduct you're describing is drive-by posters who strafe this forum with complaints without offering a contribution, and then move on.

How is that productive? If you don't like the direction of the conversation, but you don't want to join the discussion and try to improve things, exactly what are you here for, other than to complain?

I've got news for you: It's the same across ALL political forums. Even the Newsbusters forum has name-calling b/t lefties and righties. In fact, they don't censor it nearly as tightly as Joey and Bryan do here. You might as well get used to it or move on. No offense, pal, we'd love to have you, but taking sniper shots at everybody doesn't help and isn't wanted.
 
Ah, see, it's not that don't wish to join the discussion.In this case, as with some others, I was just enjoying reading other's posts.If I felt I had anything to add I would.As it was I was reading just as someone might do a newspaper.I've taken sniper shots at noone.I mearly stated my opinion as to the direction of the thread.Maybe I should have waited until it was 5 pages of off topic political nonsense.Perhaps I should have brought it up in a new thread.As it is, my opinion has disrupted the thread as much as anything else was or would have, so I'm going to go back to reading now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 119 (members: 1, guests: 118)
Back
Top