6 thoughts on “NYTimes op-ed calls skeptics ‘crackpots’ — without citing a single, specific point skeptics are wrong about”

  1. Golly, Mr NYT, it wasn’t ideology that started me down the skeptic path, it was two papers in particular, physicist Henrik Svensmark’s Cosmoclimatology article (2007) which led me to “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” (2003) by physicist Nir Shaviv and geochemist Jan Veizer.

    It’s hard to ignore a 540 million year near perfect correlation with galactic cosmic rays and ocean temperatures (something close to a 6C peak to peak signal in the world’s oceans) which dwarfs the CO2 signal in the 20th century but somehow, the IPCC keeps doing it.

    It’s amazing what people won’t manage to understand when their job demands they not understand it.

  2. …..and a zealot is described as “a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals”.

    I’d say that sums up the warmist agenda….. religious, political or other. Just cant predict which it’ll be at any given time.

  3. They really know how to project, huh? Because that’s exactly fits a description of an alarmist.

  4. “Warmist believers seem to not know the slightest about what they believe.”

    This is because when you blindly adopt someone else’s opinion as your own belief, it is not necessary to know why. It is enough to know you are supporting your team (or party, or whatever you follow without question).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.