NYT: A River Still Runs Through It — of Denial
Published on: February 16, 2010
show comments
  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: The New York Times’ river of denial. What’s missing in today’s Science Times?…()

  • Hmmm. Walter, did they by chance have a story on how the sea levels were higher by a meter 60,000 years ago or so when CO2 levels were much lower than today?

  • 5th Level Fighter

    “The cascading difficulties of both the IPCC and the East Anglia CRU?”

    Not to mention NASA’s involvement in the manipulation of data. Though, they were actually rewarded for their part in the fraud with a budget increase of hundreds of millions of dollars, specifically to study “global warming.”

  • That’s pretty funny, since the frog story originally ran in February of 2008 and was covered by the BBC. It can be found here

  • TheGeezer

    The descent into irrelevance continues…

  • kcom

    Jimpithecus, I hopped on over to your link and checked it out but are you sure you’re not jumping to the conclusion that the NY Times hasn’t broken some startling new development in the story of a 70 million year old frog. Personally I find the whole topic ribbeting.

  • Jack

    Clearly, reading the NYT leaves you less informed.

    Propaganda always does.

  • John Blake

    Not since the early 1980s have U.S. print or TV mass media dealt honestly with substantive issues of the day. “Bias” is far too mild a term. Censorship, propaganda, skewed ideological agendas invariably promoting a crypto-fascist Corporate Statism are their stock-in-trade. No-one of decency or common sense, neither a conceited elitist nor a peculating special-interest rentier, has any business crediting these bumwads with any objective rationality whatever.

  • Ben Blankenship

    Suprised by no mention of the global warming mess in the NYT? None can be found for the past couple of days in the always relevant
    Huffington Post. Tallk about boycotts!

  • Orson

    I gave up on reading the NYT in 1999 – when Clinton’s impeachment was all about the nasty Republican’s moralistic aversion to sex, and yet the Bill of Impeachment never mentioned ‘sex’.

    As the old Soviet era joke went (and WRM remembers better than I), there is no Pravda in Isvestia (sp?), no Isvestia in Pavda.

  • Con Michael

    The rigors of scientific discipline demand,inter alia,that a theory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are checked against the facts.If something occurs that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.The principal AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.Einstein said that it would not take 100 scientists to prove him wrong.One fact alone would suffice.The defeat of the Emissions Trading Scheme in the Australian Parliament clearly demonstrates that the public has had enough of the lies,cheating,filibuster,spin and obfuscation.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.