The NYT is allegedly covering the Heartland conference with a variety of speakers pointing out the numerous problems with global warming hysteria. Of course in one of the very few events of its kind, the NYT spends more than half the article refuting the claims by those presenting. When you get sick of the NYT, Anthony Watts has a nice post on the first day of presentations HERE.
The always balanced NYT article Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other
Like always, I get wound up over this stuff. I shouldn’t read the news.
More than 600 self-professed climate skeptics are meeting in a Times Square hotel this week to challenge what has become a broad scientific and political consensus: that without big changes in energy choices, humans will dangerously heat up the planet.
This is the first line in the article. Proclamation of scientific consensus. Well I’m not convinced yet and nearly everyone who reads the Air Vent knows a dozen reasons why there isn’t a scientific consensus as many of them are scientists and engineers themselves. If you’re stopping by for the first time, my readers consist of a wide variety of professionals fully qualified to read an interpret climatology science including engineers, climatologists, biologists, college professors, informed laymen and others. How is it that so many people can’t seem to locate this alleged consensus?
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Well at least the times got the part about a broad political consensus right. As laid out by European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus and summarized by professor Bob Carter at WUWT.
The President commenced his talk by commenting that little change had occurred in the global warming debate since his talk, 12 months earlier, at the Heartland-1 conference. He likened the situation to his former experience under communist government, where arguing against the dominant viewpoint falls into emptiness. No matter how high the quality of the arguments and evidence that you advance against the dangerous warming idea, nobody listens, and by even advancing skeptical arguments you are dismissed as a naïve and uninformed person.
The reporters of the NYT article then turn around and do exactly what the President was claiming occurs, he attempts to marginalize and segregate skeptics.
But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of the recent warming was a result of human influences, global warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.
This is like the third paragraph represents nothing to do with reality and is at best is propaganda. Skeptics have always shared common views on these points. Many see problems in different areas and interpret the results differently. Unfortunately for the NYT’s know nothing reporter ANDREW C. REVKIN, this is not a sign of weakness but rather of the healthy debate amongst scientists.
