Friedman of the NYT Mumbles Weird Songs about Global Weirding. Propaganda at its Finest as he Defends Junk Science.

Abstract: Friedman of the New York Times plays the simple bait and switch propaganda game with his loyals by contrasting little easily refutable quotations and fluff from the opposition with his sculpted version of Global Warming while failing to address the cancerous core problems that infect his environmental experts: sleaze, lies and subterfuge.  The cabal of phony scientists who couldn’t force their models, even with manufactured data,  to predict the decrease in surface temperature on the earth were embarrassed when their antics were unexpectedly  exposed to the world, but their nasty grams and other e-mails are not even mentioned here. Tommy scurries to the rescue. Some ethereal form of faith apparently binds together this sticky mass of socialists while they diligently grunt and grab for more taxes and political power and that is all that matters.  The tax revenues from the phony Cap and Trade Tax Scheme are now in jeopardy as many corporations exit the ph0ny cabal of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)[1]. So, he mumbles and tries to claw back some support from the rubble. The NYT is true to any fault if it means keeping the leftist fires burning for a while longer or until they go bankrupt.

The New York Times Propaganda Machine:

The word tautological[2] would be quite obscure in the political lists if not for biased propaganda machines like the New York Times and some of their sorrier sisters like The Guardian, Washington Post, L.A. Times, The Nation and others. The NYT writers[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and staff[11] thrash about in an ideological gala to vie for who might be voted noble enough to match the elegant essays of their honored Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty.[12] They analyze the news and reports and comments of the political masters but somehow always manage to morph all this into at best a diminutive caricature of their honored Weird Walter. They just cannot seem to sniff the right rugs and scrape out the essence of their best times while supporting the Soviets and their understandable gulags. But, little fingers are busy on little keyboards with little minds plunking the keys in hope of a chance for greatness. Today we get to read one of these amusing attempts.

The current chum chucker:

One of their less-stellar wordsmiths, since the Old Red Lady [13] is apparently off today, is Tommy Friedman who begins his slow but valiant grind uphill toward the lower fringes of literary mediocrity with a hackneyed political diversion valiantly supporting the humiliated Global Warming Follies in his op-ed. He is trying his best to cover Dowd’s coveted chair in her welcome absence. He begins by employing the proper propagandistic theorems, which are dutifully orchestrated in the stale manner of setting up the reader for a fall by pointing out some selected inane nostrums from the enemy, and then noisily offering sophomoric criticisms thereof:

Krugman’s Festival of Nonsense in his own terms:

“Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.”[14]--Global Weirding Is Here By Thomas L. Friedman Op-Ed Columnist Published: February 17, 2010 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

How petty. Nobody has made a firm stance on this subject lately because of the bad press so Friedman looks foolish with this bluster and fluff. Now, he cleverly plays the propaganda game by first offering a concession to give the appearance of being ‘objective’ and later in the same paragraph offers this strange conclusion:

“The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”-- Global Weirding Is Here

Friedman acts as if he was recently demummified in a big jar of Chardonnay and has not read the citations used by his beloved  ‘experts’ on such matters as the melting of the Himalayan mountains[15] now regrettably retracted.[16][17]

Comments and criticisms like this that describe the ‘science’ in this project seem to be everywhere:

“Margaret Wente in The Toronto Globe & Mail on Feb. 5. [wrote]  "Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snake pit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.

"But the claim (made just prior to the recent climate change summit in Copenhagen) was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the World Wildlife Fund.""[18]—Tom Ward - Inconvenient truth [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

This is all very sleazy but acceptable ‘science’ to the drooling left who dream of getting tax monies to fund their continuing ‘research’ on important political matters.  Apparently, if you are even of moderate scientific strength you are supposed to keep mum when your ‘peers’ make outlandish statements about Global Warming and corrupt your selected slice of  science if the prize is leftist political success or more grant money.  Places like Salon.com’s Table Talk are awash with True Believers who will support any form of sloppy 0r insulting science if it attacks the right or can punish capitalism.[19]Friedman’s support of junk science[20] is almost as dedicated as his colleague Paul Krugman’s are for deficit spending and massive debt here and abroad.[21]

Undaunted by all this news and phony science our heroic Friedman now offers some ‘points’ he would like to stress:

“1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes.

Why not avoid the word science when some of these guys speak?

2) Historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly, going from Ice Ages to warming periods, driven, in part, by changes in the earth’s orbit and hence the amount of sunlight different parts of the earth get.

That is very enlightening but the Sumerians knew that. What do you know?

3) Those who favor taking action are saying: “Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit — because this insurance will also actually make us richer and more secure.”

A circular essay that would make Aristotle proud to restate his errors in science.

4) Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry.”

 Even if it isn’t true we need to spend the money on our little political projects anyway.

How phony! How silly!

Where is the data, the reference to the climate model that predicts the current 15 years or anything else substantive? He offers this offal?  He might as well have consulted the fresh pigeon droppings on 5^th Avenue and Lexington Avenue in the city for a superior rebuttal.[22] There are many who blindly support any leftist cause and ignore the facts.[23] Phil Jones of East Anglia now admits “… that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.” Wasn’t he the Big Enchilada what done drove this project? Michael Mann of Hockey Stick Fame is under investigation at Penn State for his alleged part in this mess.[24] I wonder if Tommy reads anything else but the New York Times.

Friedman seems to be ecstatically ignorant of the blatant scientific subterfuge operating underground in the past few years  that consisted of fudging data, excluding critics and conveniently ‘losing’ critical data that might used to reconstruct some of these phony computer models that predicted this mess. The current ‘science’ in the GW arena is a silly as the famous and phony ‘computer study’ conducted by MIT in 1970 and published in a book title: Limits to Growth [25] whose sophistical computer models clearly predicted, with ringing praise from the ‘scientists,’ that we would run out of oil, copper and lead by 1992 by and natural gas reservoirs by 1993.  Much of this junk science resembles the political works of  Carl Sagan (big time pot smoker) who was twice refused AAAS membership because of his sloppy, inaccurate, sophomoric and juvenile articles about the “Nuclear Winter” he submitted in the respected scientific journal Science. His ‘computer model’ was analyzed and shown to be a farce by respected scientists. Any high school algebra student could have defeated Sagan’s phony hypothesis. It was found that very small changes in parameters and numbers into his math model would convert the predicted ‘winter’ into an instant sauna. The math model waxed hot and cold like a flopping fish on the pier with small changes in inputs. It is numerically unstable and any undergrad math student would be given an F on this rubbish by any respectable university except, perhaps, for Cornell or Harvard or now Penn State. There was a grand political point to be made so they could afford to neglect the defects.[26]

Phil Jones is not mentioned in this op-ed today nor is Mike Mann  or Wei-Chyung Wang of SUNY Albany[27] who are all in trouble on professional grounds for potentially corrupting science or their professional ethics.

There are no firm data, no believable reports, lots of sleaze and the political rants of the sordid criminal and bribe-taker Al Gore all plastered up in the walls in this sordid dung heap, but the NYT can always identify some stooge who will pop tall and endorse any political point on any subject while ignoring whatever is necessary that might defeat the topic as in this case or any other tax scam. Anything for money for the left it seems. And, that is understandable as they have difficulties making money on their own.

Lysenko would be proud to read this.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com