What to call a ‘doubter’ asks Justin Gillis. NY Times agitprop: is namecalling ‘scientific’?
What to call a “doubter” asks Justin Gillis. NY Times agitprop: is namecalling “scientific”?
Welcome to “science journalism” at The New York Times where climate forces are not so much about sunlight and cloud cover, but about “deniers”, “doubters”, and “disinformers”. While our climate is supposedly the crisis the world must face, the NY Times solution is not to investigate and debate the leading ideas, but to ask what names we toss at Nobel Prize winners who don’t endorse the approved establishment line. Pravda would be proud. Most surveys and polls show 50% of the population are skeptical. A real newspaper that was leading and shaping the public debate would find the most informed views from both sides and put them forward shaping and hammering out the public debate. Instead, the NY Times solution is to discuss petitions pushing namecalling. Justin Gillis asks: What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change? What indeed, I wonder? Does any single real person doubt that the climate can change? I have not met such a person, though many believers of the dominant government endorse paradigm seem to think the climate was stable and perfect before emissions of man-made CO2. The UN redefined the boring obvious term “climate change” to be a coded shorthand for “man-made global […]Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
— gReader Pro