New York Times Blasts Global Warming Scare Tactics

Global Warming Scare Tactics

OAKLAND, Calif. — IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to New York Times Blasts Global Warming Scare Tactics

  1. Gunny G says:

    Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:

  2. bubbagyro says:

    When we are done in Nevada, we will HUNT YOU CLIMATE HERETICS DOWN, and tase you or worse. Be afraid,,,be very afraid.
    – Obama’s Amerikanische Sturmabteilung and Environmental Police

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is ironic that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, the WTO and other ‘Progressives’ have been fighting so hard to design an ‘Interdependent’ world and now Putin is using it against them.
      …The simple fact is that with interconnectedness comes interdependence. In order to protect the global commons, world leaders must pursue shared solutions as inclusively and efficiently as possible – a process that can be accomplished only through international institutions. Failure to do so would threaten the tremendous progress that globalization has facilitated in recent decades….

      They were so busy looking at the glorious vision of a world government under their control they did not heed the warnings given at the time that the WTO was created and Clinton was getting ready to ship US military and trade secrets to China. “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations,” International Security, Vol. 20, no.4 (Spring 1996)

      • omanuel says:

        No, this is all staged for TV.

        Reality is that world leaders joined together in 1945 to take totalitarian control of society to save themselves, and the world from global nuclear destruction. They

        1. Formed the UN on 24 Oct 1945
        2. Hid the source of energy in cores of
        _ a.) Heavy atoms like Uranium
        _ b.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
        _ c.) Destroyed the integrity of science
        _ d.) Ultimately sealed their own doom

        So fear not. The pulsar that controls planet Earth is just one astronomical unit (1 AU) away.

  3. Don E says:

    I recall reading the Hidden Persuaders many years ago. About that time there were many studies showing that fear does not sell products. The insurance industry learned that a long time ago.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      I read that also. Regardless, I think fear can work can work to some degree under the right circumstances. The real problem for the fear mongers is that they have been spouting their bs scary scenarios for so long and it’s hasn’t been coming true, not anywhere even close to true, just completely off the mark. The public isn’t stupid. It parallels the Cry Wolf fable very closely. But that is what these people are: fear mongers. Their own words tell the story. They think that it is through fear mongering that they are going to win over the public. Well, not anymore. The NYT for once has a point. The public has wised up to the despicable tactics of the Chicken Little Brigade. The warmists better think of another way, based on reasonable and rational and truthful discourse, to convince the public.

      “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Envinronmental Studies, UCSB
      “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
      “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
      “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
      So we get THIS: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989

  4. Andy DC says:

    They seem to think that the problem is related to a poorly framed message. Their real problem is that the global warming or climate change at worst is a very small problem, which does not require immediate, massive and economically destructive changes to our way of life.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They lost control of the message, at least in the USA with the economic collapse in 2008.

      With ~25% of the population unemployed or underemployed feeding their families became first priority. Finding out the Banksters intentionally are shoving people out of their homes and that the US government is giving them tax payer money via AIG to do it did not make the US government look concerned about the guy on the street. That was followed by the bankrupting of Green Energy Companies and the loss of MORE tax payer money down the Wall Street 1%er hole. MORE of scandals like Fast and Furious and Benghasi and now we have Obummercare.

      The only reason Obummer isn’t a nationwide laughing stock is because the Bankster owned MSM has been propping him up while he is out playing golf….

      • Send Al to the Pole says:

        The main problem now is that since the CON failed, they are turning to totalitarian means to FORCE de-industrialization and a faux carbon economy on the USA.

        I’m afraid the most peaceful solution that could be hoped for may be a military coup.

      • Gamecock says:

        Gail Combs says:
        April 11, 2014 at 5:34 pm

        With ~25% of the population unemployed or underemployed feeding their families became first priority. Finding out the Banksters intentionally are shoving people out of their homes and that the US government is giving them tax payer money via AIG to do it did not make the US government look concerned about the guy on the street.


        More of your stupid “bankster” comments. What language are you using? Are there any “banksters” in the USA? Pls provide evidence that “‘Banksters’ intentionally are shoving people out of their home.”

        • Gail Combs says:

          Pls provide evidence that “‘Banksters’ intentionally are shoving people out of their home.”
          I am evidence that the Banksters tried to trick us out of our home. One of the guys is now in jail. BTW

          We will leave out the fact that ALMOST ALL BANK LOANS ARE FRAUD. Since there is no ‘Consideration’ that is a thing of value exchanged by the bank the mortgage contract is null and void. This was proven in a court of law then the judge was killed and the case law created swept under the rug. (wwwDOT)

          In my case there was a bait and switch. We agreed to a higher interest mortgage to guarantee a fixed rate. The clerk disappeared with the papers after signing and returned a bit later and hand us our copy. It wasn’t until later we discovered why he had left the room with all the copies. He had added a check mark next to variable rate.

          Then came the foreclosure mess and the ” Obama mortgage-aid program’ What no one ever mentioned was it was to aid the BANKS in tricking people into foreclosure. Given our very high mortgage rate and financial bind we applied.

          The Obama counselor lowered our rate and we spend the next 18 months sending paper work which was never correct to the bank. Finally after 18 months of back and forth the bank told us we did not qualify and owe all back money we had not paid due to the lower interest on the mortgage, PLUS penalties. PLUS handling fees, PLUS lawyer fees. This was well over twenty thousand dollars and if not paid in 30 days they would foreclose. We beg, borrowed and sold and came up with the money but the bank would not TELL US THE EXACT AMOUNT OWED!!! We had to hire a G*^& D(&* lawyer and spend the next six months trying to pin that F*&^King bank down so we could pay their blood money.

          Is it any wonder the news stories say: Nearly 50 percent leave Obama mortgage-aid program
          “Obama mortgage-aid effort is struggling to stem the rising number of foreclosures in US” What a load of horse feces. Those people didn’t “leave’ the program they got screwed out of their homes.

          So what was going on behind the scenes? WHY did the banks want to FORCE PEOPLE INTO FORECLOSURE?

          How the AIG Bailout Could be Driving More Foreclosures
          Senior investors, who are typically financial institutions, own the AAA tranches that are insured against default by AIG, and they WANT to foreclose on the Middle Class so that insurance payments kick in. Conversely, the junior tranche investors want workouts with homeowners because their investment is not insured.
          “To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?

          “Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”

          “A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties,” says Wikipedia. “The buyer makes periodic payments to the seller, and in return receives a payoff if an underlying financial instrument defaults. CDS contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if one of the specified events occur…

          Instead of cars or houses, credit default swaps were used to guarantee mortgage-backed securities (MBS), a safe bet according to the best-available mathematical models. Why? Because most homeowners pay off their home loans with the certainty of an ATM.
          The is no reserve requirement with CDS because there’s no government regulation. Each insurance company can set aside as much — or as little — as it wants for reserves. In fact, a company could set aside nothing for potential losses without violating regulatory requirements.
          The money NOT set aside for reserves can be invested in high-risk securities to create a larger cash flow for the insurance company. This means that with CDS, insurers expected not only premiums but also bigger investment returns then would be possible with regular insurance products.
          CDS premium revenue is not restricted to those who might have actual losses or real assets to protect. You can bet as much as you want and create as many CDS as you want….

          In other words there maybe more than one CDS insuring a mortgage and therefore it is much more profitable to collect the multiple payoffs than to refinance the mortgage.

          This month, the Congressional Oversight Panel, a body charged with reviewing the state of financial markets and the regulators that monitor them, published a 337-page report on the A.I.G. bailout. It concluded that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York did not give enough consideration to alternatives before sinking more and more taxpayer money into A.I.G. “It is hard to escape the conclusion that F.R.B.N.Y. was just ‘going through the motions,’ ” the report said.

          About $46 billion of the taxpayer money in the A.I.G. bailout was used to pay to mortgage trading partners like Goldman and Société Générale, a French bank, to make good on their claims. The banks are not expected to return any of that money, leading the Congressional Research Service to say in March that much of the taxpayer money ultimately bailed out the banks, not A.I.G.

          ….the newly released Congressional documents show New York Fed officials deferring to bank executives at a time when the government was pumping hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the financial system to rescue bankers from their own mistakes. While Wall Street deal-making is famously hard-nosed with participants fighting for every penny, during the A.I.G. bailout regulators negotiated with the banks in an almost conciliatory fashion.

          One of the regulators’ most controversial decisions was awarding the banks that were A.I.G.’s trading partners 100 cents on the dollar to unwind debt insurance they had bought from the firm. Critics have questioned why the government did not try to wring more concessions from the banks, which would have saved taxpayers billions of dollars.
          Mr. Geithner, who is now the Treasury secretary, has repeatedly said that as steward of the New York Fed, he had no choice but to pay A.I.G.’s trading partners in full

          But two entirely different solutions to A.I.G.’s problems were presented to Fed officials by three of its outside advisers, according to the documents. Under those plans, the banks would have had to accept what the advisers described as “deep concessions” of as much as about 10 percent on their contracts or they might have had to return about $30 billion that A.I.G. had paid them before the bailout.
          Had either of these plans been implemented, A.I.G. may have been left in a far better financial position than it is today, with taxpayers at less risk and banks forced to swallow bigger losses.


          The global economic crisis isn’t about money – it’s about power.

          While Wronged Homeowners Got $300 Apiece in Foreclosure Settlement, Consultants Who Helped Protect Banks Got $2 Billion

  5. Eric Simpson says:

    From the NYT: still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire.

    But that’s the only thing they can link it to, with no warming for 17 years. They can say: “it’s climate change, not global warming, but this climate change doesn’t include tornadoes and hurricanes because those have been going down for the last 10 or more years. We’re talking about the sea engulfing Florida and coastal cities everywhere, that type of climate change. Island nations will disappear! Be very afraid of the sea rising, even if there’s no warming to cause that.”

    Yeah, and even if there has been virtually no discernible sea level rise over the last 4 decades or so despite any alleged warming, and despite there constant predictions to the contrary.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually since the Holocene Optimum glaciers are reforming and the sea level is actually going down, but the CAGW crowd isn’t about to let facts get in the way.

      recently there was a nice study in Quaternary Research that did a study on glacial activity in Norway for the past ~8,000 years….

      This study is not an anomaly either. Any study of the Northern Hemisphere shows this exact overall behavior. The NH was warmer several thousand years ago, even though the CO2 level was lower. There has been a general cooling trend throughout the NH over the past 4,000 years….

      The authors of the study simply state their findings in their abstract.

      We explore the possibility of building a continuous glacier reconstruction by analyzing the integrated sedimentary response of a large (440 km2) glacierized catchment in western Norway… Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~3400, 3000-2700, 2100-2000, 1700-1500, and ~900 cal yr BP.

      The authors simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

      WHAT global Warming? WHAT seal level rise? The Holocene Highstand has been and gone. “A radiocarbon date from the topmost sedimentary facies (upper intertidal mud) indicates that relative sea level was at least 1 m higher than today by 2720 years BP.”

      • Eric Simpson says:

        It’s absolute baloney what they’re saying about sea level. I don’t know about 5000 years ago, but anybody that’s been on a beach 30 years ago, and today, knows that there’s no (zero) detectable change in sea level. They had their run of supposed warming, but the sea remains the same, despite any “data” to the contrary. So even if it does warm a bit, as unlikely as that is, the sea would still, in 20 or 50 years, be the same.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You misread the article.
          It was a lot warmer about 3-5°C during the Holocene Optimum, Solar energy was 9% higher and a lot of the present glaciers were nonexistent. The seas were a meter HIGHER 5000 years ago. Since the temperature is slowly declining and glaciers are coming back the sea level is NOT RISING it is actually over the long term going DOWN.

          In other words geology says CAGW is a real crock of Bupkis.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Gail, I got those points you made, and that’s huge. I was just trying to make a side point related to more recent history. But, I think my point just detracted from the gravity of what you were saying.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Oh, and also, Gail, just in case it was misunderstood, when I said it’s “absolute baloney what they’re saying about sea level” I was talking about the Chicken Littles today saying FL etc is soon going to be under water, not the article you referenced.

  6. rabbit says:

    It is not alarmism itself which is bad. Churchill was “alarmist” about Hitler, but when Germany invaded Poland his credibility rose.

    It’s being alarmist and then nothing much happening. That was always the risk.

    And the response by many alarmist to the obvious failure of climate models to reasonably forecast the climate is to up the rhetoric a few more notches, doubling down on their mistake.

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Not the failure per se of climate models; rather the nonuniquess of climate for GCM with prescribed boundary conditions at the top of the atmosphere, and the most objectionable chosen as the most probable.

      There must be a modeler out there in blog world, let’s hear from you. Your read this, and you all the opportunity to retort here.

      (I was one once)

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Gamecock says: @ April 11, 2014 at 11:52 pm

    I strongly suggest you read:
    Primer on Money by the Congressional COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY. WRIGHT PATMAN, Texas, Chairman

    (Much shorter)
    Appendix E – Money Is Created by Banks Evidence Given by Graham Towers – evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce

    Article on Economics: The Return to Sound Money (part 1 of 6 parts)

Leave a Reply