NYTimes sings budget blues for climateeers

If only Michael Mann got more money to waste.

The New York Times editorializes today:

Is there a connection between last year’s extreme weather events and global warming? The answers might be a lot clearer if the Republicans in Congress were less hostile to climate change research.

So what happened to the $50 billion or so spent over the past 15 years?

And then, precisely what sort of research would be conducted?

After all, everyone agrees weather is not climate. A corollary to this reality is that bad weather is not climate change.

If all we would get from more spending is yet another trumped up conclusion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are the root of all weather misfortune, we’d rather just concede the inevitability of that conclusion and save the money.

6 thoughts on “NYTimes sings budget blues for climateeers”

  1. I’m sure that nice, juicy, multimillion dollar, 5-year grants looking at last year’s extreme weather and global warming would begin to show the connection about the time for grant renewal.

  2. There is a huge problem in logic and fact with stories like this – dogooding left leaning hypocrites who drive SUVs and use private jets – they point to the drastic effects of “global warming”.

    But there has been no, or almost no global warming, in the last fifty years.

    Maybe 1/2 of a degree (especially if the temperature researchers changes the numbers).

    The drastic effects of global warming are forecast in the future (notwithstanding the rhetoric of alarmists) and even then with models.

    The drastic events cannot be blamed on global warming. We don’t got none.

  3. It is the journalists who tell us journalism is a high calling.

    K. If they’ve replaced used car salesmen . . . . How can you tell when
    a journalist has lied to you?

    A: His lips moved.

  4. The problem is they don’t really care – just look at the deliberate lies and and criminal actions in the British newspapers – and I suspect that every country has a section of ‘so called’ journalists to whom truth is non essential when writing anything that will sell more papers and thus more advertising – they have well and truly taken the top spot away from the longtime berated, ‘used car’ salesmen

  5. It just makes you wonder how such a well-regarded rag as the NYT can print such gibberish. And who reads and believes this stuff? If that editor had one iota of curiosity about the controversy, he would have googled the subject and found an entire civilization of scientists who disagree with the whole global warming scam. Do you really have to be such a one-note idiot to write for the NYT?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.