tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2764347995326613151..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Bret Stephens lowers the bar for intellectual honesty and more @NYTimesSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5174159972949387602017-05-15T03:51:56.755+10:002017-05-15T03:51:56.755+10:00Jeesh, the NYT has now doubled (trebled?) down. Th...Jeesh, the NYT has now doubled (trebled?) down. The note from the publisher to those who cancelled their subscription is incredibly offensive and inane. I can't imagine that drivel winning back many, if any, subscribers. My favourite line:<br /><br />"This does not mean that The Times will publish any commentary. Some points of view are not welcome, including those promoting prejudice or denying basic truths about our world."<br /><br />Really!? Sulzberger and Bennet, like Stephens, are clearly deluded.Albatrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14444036939651524737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10637430753698260622017-05-10T11:45:40.017+10:002017-05-10T11:45:40.017+10:00I feel very lucky that Australia
has dedicated art...I feel very lucky that Australia<br />has dedicated articulate science journalists like Robyn Williams,<br />amongst other notables.<br />Stuff opinion. I want journalism.Li Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80158106773063709642017-05-09T23:54:15.040+10:002017-05-09T23:54:15.040+10:00I think I have finally managed to make "sense...I think I have finally managed to make "sense" of GSW's viewpoint. When he says "everyone" he refers only to people who work for the fossil fuel industry. The rest of humanity simply does not count for anything to him.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59878420346521667242017-05-08T23:56:28.815+10:002017-05-08T23:56:28.815+10:00"Everyone else has managed to work out the re..."<i>Everyone else has managed to work out the reported DOOM has been greatly exaggerated.</i>"<br /><br />Haven't looked at Millicent's link yet so it might say pretty much the same thing, but in terms of the the impacts of global warming, just about every manifestation to date has been worse that what scientists projected. GSW is simply bending the facts into a pretzel in order to avoid the slow motion train wreck that is the Anthropocene.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31002117624318272752017-05-08T10:24:40.967+10:002017-05-08T10:24:40.967+10:00My subscription did not last a month. I too was su...My subscription did not last a month. I too was supportive of the NYT as they were annoying the angry pumpkin. The defence of Stephens by the newspaper was the worst part of the sage, along with the silly response from their subscription department about "courage to test our own assumptions". Bloody hell, I test my assumptions all the time. If Stephens had anything worthwhile, novel, or factual in his climate pieces, then I would be all ears. Regurgitating factoids is not "testing assumptions"Anthony Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513872551156179165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66834151062770647342017-05-05T01:29:58.790+10:002017-05-05T01:29:58.790+10:00No point in talking to GSW, folks. He's too st...No point in talking to GSW, folks. He's too stupid to understand what you are saying. Sou knows :-)BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17738741295508899422017-05-04T21:10:10.510+10:002017-05-04T21:10:10.510+10:00"Everyone else has managed to work out the re..."Everyone else has managed to work out the reported DOOM has been greatly exaggerated."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XRgBXnIZsM" rel="nofollow">Meanwhile, back in the real world.</a>Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37571028771841930372017-05-04T17:56:21.327+10:002017-05-04T17:56:21.327+10:00OMG, we may have peer reviewed science on our side...OMG, we may have peer reviewed science on our side, but he's got a tweet!Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16908947197983409702017-05-04T15:47:18.984+10:002017-05-04T15:47:18.984+10:00I suspect those figures are lagged by at least sev...I suspect those figures are lagged by at least several weeks. jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77868472516901970972017-05-04T12:07:48.954+10:002017-05-04T12:07:48.954+10:00Per tonight's Nightly Business Report, NYT dig...Per tonight's Nightly Business Report, NYT digital subscriptions are up by a substantial amount (I'm thinking 5%, but that might be the jump in the stock price.)<br /><br />Print subscriptions are down, but I gather not by an equivalent amount.Chris_Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14664395947020918727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29130747327506066952017-05-04T11:03:06.523+10:002017-05-04T11:03:06.523+10:00"It's just twaddle, GSW."
Twaddle i...<i>"It's just twaddle, GSW."</i><br /><br />Twaddle is a topic that GSW has specialised in for years, over at Deltoid :(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77008955167326082182017-05-04T10:35:27.116+10:002017-05-04T10:35:27.116+10:00GSW approvingly quotes Bret Stephens:
"much ...GSW approvingly quotes Bret Stephens:<br /><br />"much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly."<br /><br />This is a paragraph so light on substance as to be useless.<br />Stephens does not give specific examples of the much-elseness he claims are 'accepted facts' which are in reality 'probabilities'...<br />He doesn't bother to state who has been making these claims...<br /><br />He frames models as 'sophisticated' but 'fallible'...like some esoteric gimmicky gift...but can't tell you what is sophisticated about them, or quantify any fallibility, or measure it against modellers claims.<br />He's not acknowledging anything honestly, he's attempting to make things more obscure, while projecting some easy confidence about his 'insights' into climate science and the public citing of it. <br />There is nothing there, at all. Stephens has managed to fill a paragraph with words that have no use.<br />It's just twaddle, GSW.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-587852258268230732017-05-04T06:48:50.779+10:002017-05-04T06:48:50.779+10:00And yet not one of the prestigious scientific orga...And yet not one of the prestigious scientific organisations on this planet has "managed to work out the reported DOOM has been greatly exaggerated".Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2930506296581443652017-05-04T03:30:30.013+10:002017-05-04T03:30:30.013+10:00https://twitter.com/shubclimate/status/85976615650...https://twitter.com/shubclimate/status/859766156508397568GSWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81666535885561258072017-05-04T03:27:21.157+10:002017-05-04T03:27:21.157+10:00OMG BBD, I can't beleive you're still bang...OMG BBD, I can't beleive you're still banging your head against (the wrong side of) the wall on this. Everyone else has managed to work out the reported DOOM has been greatly exaggerated.<br /><br />"much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly."<br /><br />Good luck with your loonie environmentalist friends.<br />;) GSWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5532404066272354312017-05-04T01:13:07.321+10:002017-05-04T01:13:07.321+10:00I watched the interview he did with Bill Mayer - a...I watched the interview he did with Bill Mayer - and he seemed to spout all the bullshit bingo deniers use<br /><br />even managing to use the Galileo Gambit!!! yey<br /><br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91819322196937698572017-05-03T05:09:48.884+10:002017-05-03T05:09:48.884+10:00I knew SB was pro nuclear expansion and GMOs but n...I knew SB was pro nuclear expansion and GMOs but not that he was <i>retweeting the GWPF</i> (eek!). That's really very sad. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91810421328491129962017-05-02T16:29:23.148+10:002017-05-02T16:29:23.148+10:00It's subtle. And Lukewarmist is a better descr...It's subtle. And Lukewarmist is a better description. Or even Techno-cornucopian. But just do a fast scan through his twitter feed and the old Google Plus pages to see what he promotes. It's full of re-tweets from Matt Ridley and GWPF. And that kind of mis-information that gets spread about wind turbines, solar power and other green issues. You know the kind of thing. Renewables pulverise and burn birds. Diablo Canyon must be saved. Population growth isn't that bad. Potential Climate change damage is overstated. The reefs aren't dying. Geo-engineering, de-extinction, GMOs will save us all. NeoNics aren't that bad. Increased CO2 leads to global greening. And on and on.<br /><br />I can accept a certain amount of scepticism. But it's important to be able to accept when you're wrong and actually state it instead of ignoring the old holes and digging a new hole to get stuck in. Especially if you write about how accepting you're wrong and moving on is important.<br /><br />https://twitter.com/stewartbrand<br />https://plus.google.com/116951145888391044655Julian Bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01433164802534052728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7149606735004359642017-05-02T16:21:18.286+10:002017-05-02T16:21:18.286+10:00They certainly accept his employment of tabloid &q...They certainly accept his employment of tabloid "logic":<br /><br />1. Trump was given "only" a 25% chance of winning by pollsters.<br />2. In defiance of these impossible odds, Trump won the presidency.<br />3. "Therefore" we should view 95% and greater odds in climate research as ignorable from a policy perspective.<br /><br />Anyone who could accept that "logic" holus bolus is almost surely a tabloid level reader.<br />jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43951996654093856912017-05-02T16:19:29.327+10:002017-05-02T16:19:29.327+10:00Having read the article, my objection to it is tha...Having read the article, my objection to it is that it was, frankly, moronic.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15257732222894405332017-05-02T15:49:46.292+10:002017-05-02T15:49:46.292+10:00Opinion is not supposed to be factual - so it is s...Opinion is not supposed to be factual - so it is satire then?<br /><br />Well if the NYT does not want to be taken seriously, they will get that in spades.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872802685104293884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35256226941982565902017-05-02T10:42:49.655+10:002017-05-02T10:42:49.655+10:00Susan, I disagree. Even Editorial Opinion columns...Susan, I disagree. Even Editorial Opinion columns should be factual - especially in a paper like the NY Times. Alt-facts need to be discouraged everywhere and while the opinion columns may be expected to have a bit more 'spin,' surely not their own facts.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-92032087998784915802017-05-02T02:00:39.356+10:002017-05-02T02:00:39.356+10:00Brand? Stewart Brand? A denier? It's news to m...Brand? Stewart Brand? A denier? It's news to me - he was very much on-side a few years back - anything you can link?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15416851941544124182017-05-02T01:09:33.047+10:002017-05-02T01:09:33.047+10:00It wasn't any of those things. It was just dum...It wasn't any of those things. It was just dumb. If you are a NYT reader, try Readers' Picks: great stuff, and huge votes. The Chinese fishing article was a good job. Most don't get that Opinion is not supposed to be factual, and given the reaction, perhaps that is what the NYT needs to address.Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23481825862354755022017-05-02T00:25:49.868+10:002017-05-02T00:25:49.868+10:00If my memory is correct, the New York Times has a ...If my memory is correct, the New York Times has a long history of requiring fact checking for its Op Eds. I am going to give them a little time to come clean with Stephens. I expect right now there is a lot of internal debate going on about Stephens' misrepresentation of the science. I'm hoping it results in the printing of a very public correction. This same scenario played itself out a few years ago when the NYT hired William Kristol: an error-riddled column followed by a correction. That happened enough times that the NYT quietly dumped him. I'm hoping the same thing happens with Stephens. -- DennisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com