New York Times Says That Weather Is Climate

The experiential part has to do with a drumbeat of climate-related disasters around the world, all actively reported by the news media: hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts and wildfires, extreme heat waves and equally extreme cold, rising sea levels and floods. Even when people have doubts about the causal relationship of global warming to these episodes, they cannot help being psychologically affected. Of great importance is the growing recognition that the danger encompasses the entire earth and its inhabitants. We are all vulnerable.

The Climate Swerve –

All common weather related events are now “climate disasters”

About stevengoddard

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

23 Responses to New York Times Says That Weather Is Climate

  1. Hugh K says:

    Haven’t heard much from Andy Revkin lately. Has he finally seen the light or still spoon-feeding the old gray lady?

  2. “All common weather related events are now “climate disasters””

    It’s been in the 40’s or 50’s every night for the whole month of August where I live. Never in my life have I seen this before. The farmers have no corn this summer, it’s too cold. Are the climate geniuses saying all this cold is caused by heat?

  3. omanuel says:

    The New York Times was once a respected source of information, as were many other newspapers, public and national TV news media.

    Our whole nation lost its moral compass as journalists, scientists, politicians, et al. joined with capitalists in putting our own selfish interest ahead of our responsibility to society.

    We skeptics probably need to let go of the idea of blame and work together to get this once great nation back on track.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…Our whole nation lost its moral compass as journalists, scientists, politicians, et al. joined with capitalists in putting our own selfish interest ahead of our responsibility to society….”


      The CEOs of large corporations are not Capitalists and never were. (SEE E. M. Smith’s very good explanation of why the corporate CEOs are socialists – the fascist variety.)

      A simple definition of Capitalism:
      Capitalism is the reinvestment of wealth (your labor and resources) to create more wealth. A mandatory precondition is all individuals must be free individuals with society’s recognition of individual rights, including property rights and the government’s protection of those rights. A second precondition is that wealth not be driven out of the market by fiat money, valueless paper printed on the spot. Adam Smith, whose “Wealth of Nations” had a great influence on the USA founding fathers, referred to what is now called capitalism as a “system of natural liberty.”

      The third critical point of capitalism is incentive:

      Incentive is the key word. Incentives matter so much that economists James Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee begin a marvelous little book with the declaration, “All of economics rests on one simple principle: that incentives matter. Altering incentives, the costs and benefits of making specific decisions, alters people’s behaviour.”10 Where profits are denied, entrepreneurship and innovation are stifled and all our lives are the worse for it. Beneath the definition of capitalism is the realization that we are never so efficient and effective as when we pursue our own reward.

      That article also brings up the fourth key point:

      Why do some people make more than others under capitalism? There can be any number of reasons from the differing skills of workers to their differing age and experience to the supply and demand relationship between employers and employees. Moreover, those who assume more risk inevitably earn dramatically more or dramatically less than those who assume less risk. Whatever the case may be, however, income in a capitalist economy is earned not through “selfishness” but by helping others.

      In a Socialist/Fascist society the government demands that the serf must buy the products of favored businesses. Think twisty light bulbs. seat belts, helmets, car, house and medical insurance. In a capitalist society the consumer is free to buy or not buy a product at a price agreeable to him.

      Today an approximation to capitalism is seen in small business because Small Businesses are Self-Financed. Of course thanks to Red Tape they do not meet the first precondition of freedom. (Also see: COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: CAUGHT UP IN RED TAPE: THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES AND CONTRACTORS and the government – corporate revolving door.)

      Once the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed, it allowed the looters to confiscate the wealth created by the productive members of society. The 1980’s leveraged buyout feeding frenzy turned well run debt free corporations into debt burdened walking corpses. Banker fiat monopoly money was used to buy up stock and transferred the REAL wealth accumulated over generations to the looters in return for worthless paper money.

      Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980’s were hostile. The 1980’s also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.’s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988… THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers…. In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America…. THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another’s.
      Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 New York Times (wwwDOT) New York Times

      Objectivist Definition of Capitalism

      Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

      The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

      You can also see the World Socialism Definition of “Capitalism” which as usual is a definition twisted to mean something entirely different.

      ….Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. [The system has been dead for over on hundred years, fractional reserve banking and government regulations killed it] Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class….
      [The only reason business is owned by a small minority is because red tape, insurance requirements and confiscatory taxes has raised the bar so high that ordinary people can no longer become business people due to lack of knowledge and wealth.]

      ….The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth…
      [See link for the history of the deliberate driving of Americans into cities to provide the elite with desperate starving serfs.]

      Straight from the pen of Karl Marx:

      “The bourgeoisie [Middle class capitalists], wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

      The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

      The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”
      ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

      As the pro-socialist and millionaire economics textbook author Robert Heilbroner finally admitted in The New Yorker in 1990, “Mises was right.”

  4. Psalmon says:

    I’m in Montana this weekend and we woke up to snow on rooftops cars etc and it was still snowing I have devastating imagery as well. August 24 and winter has started. NYT is right, it’s getting colder.

  5. omanual states: Our whole nation lost its moral compass as journalists, scientists, politicians, et al. joined with capitalists in putting our own selfish interest ahead of our responsibility to society.
    Kinda wish you wouldn’t lump capitalists [capitalism] with those other characters.
    Leap-frogging to “responsibility to society” …society, both individual and collectively, should be responsible for it’s own actions. Just because one, or a group within society, elects to not be responsible for their actions doesn’t mean the rest of us have to enable that action. If, during the era of the development of “Welfare”, we had let a few folks starve to death, the remainder would certainly have morphed into an more industrious entity. We would not have had generations who have grown to exist on the dirty word, “entitlements”.
    Your third paragraph shoots your second one right in the butt. The nation will not work back toward greatness without capitalists. I infer from “our own selfish interest” that you feel profits are obscene and wrong. One has to look at the big picture to realize profits are like a bell curve, the hockey stick left side until others feel they can do the activity better, the roll-over as competition develops and the right side illustrates the activity’s slide back into averageness. New employment opportunities arise from that sense of “I can do that better!!”.

  6. pesce9991 says:

    ” Kinda wish you wouldn’t lump capitalists [capitalism] with those other characters.”

    Yep. I’m sure you would. We all know how socially responsible capitalism is. I see no reason why you would infer that the writer sees profits as obscene or wrong except that that is your reflexive reaction to ANY criticism of capitalism.

    There is Capitalism the idea and then there is capitalism as practiced by human beings. Humans are not perfect and therefore neither is capitalism, politicians, scientists or journalists.

  7. pesce9991 says:

    Just quibbling here, but the NYT does not say that ‘weather is climate’. The NYT says nothing. The author (a psychiatrist not a climate scientist) says that weather is climate-related as in your quote. Please explain why you disagree with this statement. Are you saying that weather is not related to climate?

    • He provides zero evidence, and apparently believes that these things didn’t happen before. The article is pathetic, indefensible and SOP for progressives.

    • Gamecock says:

      “Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.”

      Pesky, your defense of NYT is trashy. The press’s selection of what they print is editorializing. Claiming “the NYT does not say that ‘weather is climate’” is a lie. They are responsible for what they choose to print.

      • How can you claim that a newspaper with layers & layers of fact-checkers & editors are somehow responsible for what appears in their pages? Hell, it’s not like such an august publication as the New York Times would simply uncritically regurgitate Soviet publicity pieces while actively covering up genocide.

      • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

        120 years ago a new term was coined to describe American journalism. That term perfectly describes the editorializing that the MSM engages in today to support the idea of Global Warming. That term is “Yellow Journalism.” An example of Yellow Journalism is if the New York Times reported that Elvis showed up on the Mars rover cameras wearing a thong and strumming his guitar would any of you believe it? I mean it is the NYT the national newspaper of record, don’t you know!

        Yellow Journalism has been used to encourage United States entry into two world wide wars. The Spanish American War is the first, and the second war is the so called “War to End All Wars” better known today as World War One. In Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and in North America with 911 we are still paying off our WWI reoperations in the dearest form of currency, blood.

        Either way Bear, Pig, Dog, or Man Made Global Warming has just as much scientific proof today as reported sightings of Elvis has wolfing down fried nanner sam-ma-ges on the planet Mars.

    • Duster says:

      It is more defensible scientifically to argue that “climate is weather” than that “weather is climate” and I do not joke here. Climate, classically – as in the Greek and Latin languages rather than physics – was understood to be the temperature plus the plants, animals, rainfall and general conditions that were supported by the weather that one experienced over a life time. It was understood to be a regional phenomenon. We quite literally have no data on “climate” that is relevant to time spans of less than an order of about 1,000 years if you argue convincingly that Daansgard-Oechger Events are climate events. Before we call something climate, it has to persist long enough that we can trace environmental adjustments – long term animal range shifts, changes in tree species distributions, movements of desert and steppe communities etc. Any time scale less than that is simply long term observations of weather.

      Most of the short-term data that is battled over is weather data, collected as weather data, used for meteorological purposes and only secondarily forced into the roll of “revealing” patterns of climate change. Even when you consider tree rings you are simply looking at the record of the growing conditions on an annual basis, just weather. Coral data? The same. And ice-core data too, though over very long spans we actually can see patterns that no one argues are not real. If things are so subtle that folks can honestly debate about whether the weather has changed or not, it is not climate being discussed.

  8. pesce9991 says: Yep. I’m sure you would. We all know how socially responsible capitalism is. I see no reason why you would infer that the writer sees profits as obscene or wrong except that that is your reflexive reaction to ANY criticism of capitalism.
    The term “Social responsibility” seems to be akin to the term “Global warming”. Proponents have a tendency to attach whatever meaning to the terms they feel enhances their argument. Regarding capitalism, I’ll wager if there was no capitalism your standard of living would be in the dumper and you would be devoid of opportunity as would be the populace. I still contend you are off track as to where the responsibility for society really lies. If it makes you feel good giving to others donate to your favorite charity like the rest of us, don’t try to guilt-trip those who work to make a profit into feeling responsible for societies ills in total.

  9. nickreality65 says:

    IPCC AR5’s glossary defines climate as weather averaged over thirty years. Should be millennial average +/- 10%. Global warming would be lost in that data cloud of uncertainty.

  10. rw says:

    1. There’s a drumbeat all right, and this is one more beat.

    2. I suppose if people can fantasize about the earth currently warming, they can fantasize about a “swerve” in public opinion toward acceptance of the idea.(They certainly don’t read many of the comments these days that accompany the beats.)

    (Interestingly, it’s as if these guys are aware of a trend but reverse the direction. Is this a kind of mirror-image agnosia?) (More seriously, I’d say they have an extraordinary ability to filter out any discordant information – and this striking fact about much of our intellectual elite is being thrown into high relief by the AGW hysteria.)

  11. B says:

    Another way of practicing trauma based mind control?

  12. tom0mason says:

    Maybe the people that hate capitalism so much should move somewhere it is not practiced.
    North Korea for instance.

  13. Tel says:

    Strangely, Bill Weir doesn’t seem to be swearing at the NYT over such willful ignorance. Almost as if Bill Weir was some sort of stinking hypocrite.

  14. omanuel says:

    Prior to 1946, the cutting edge of science and spirituality were moving toward a common conclusion that included respect for the dignity of individuals.

    That abruptly changed to antagonism between science and spirituality after 1945.

    Click to access The_FORCE.pdf

    Post-1945 governments show little or no respect for the rights of individuals to control their government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s