4 thoughts on “NYTimes shows invisible CO2 as smoke, smog and steam on front page”

  1. Well…..Y’know…..The per unit greenhouse effect that’s produced by molecules of H2O is slightly greater than that of molecules of CO2, y’know. And on top of that, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is more than 100 times greater than the amount of CO2. So…..Would showing pictures of water vapor not be the right thing to do when discussing and writing about greenhouse warming? I mean, virtually all of the planet’s atmospheric greenhouse effect is attributable to water vapor (H2O), don’t y’know. And did you know that when a gallon of gasoline is used it adds more “new” water than CO2 to the environment? I doubt that the cumulative added amount since the use of fossil fuels began has been enough to measurably increase sea level, though. Don’t you have similar doubts?

  2. Ah, yes, the old snake oil sales trick. Basically, it’s lying without lying. Showing this picture along with an article about CO2 causes the ignoramuses (and there are many) to assume CO2 is what they’re seeing, all without the article saying so. The same tactic is used in every TV special you’ve ever seen and many newscasts about global warming. While the commentator is speaking, they invariably show on screen, the age old, natural process of glacial “calving,”(huge chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean), leaving the ignoramus viewers (and there are many) believing it is caused by global warming, without the commentator saying so. So, you see, lying without lying is a primary tool for those who are adept at ignorance manipulation (IM).

    People who are to damn lazy to find the truth on their own, but instead, prefer to blindly accept someone else’s opinion as their own truth will be the death of us all.

  3. If the public did not hear news about the climate that is inspired by recieving more funding, they would not know there is warming. After all we are talking about 0.1 deg C increase per decade.

Comments are closed.