Some things aren’t. In keeping with its familiar journalistic standards, the New York Times presents fact-free opinion in a place (page 1, top of the fold) usually reserved for news, this time in its July 26-27 International Edition. Headline: “Ignoring the planet is now illegal.” First two sentences: “The science on climate change has long been settled. Now the law is, too”. (It’s behind a paywall; I would publish the article if I could.)
If only it were true.
First, as Daniel Markind points out in Forbes, the “ruling”, from the International Court of Justice (a suggestion box in robes) is binding on absolutely no one, not even those countries who acknowledge its “jurisdiction” and in particular private citizens who were not involved.
Second, is science ever “settled”? The American Council on Science and Health posits that “settled” does not mean “proved”, and use of the term is often based on ignorance (in both directions).
Website Ponderly ponders the question. Consider the “yes” side of the debate and make you own conclusion about whether climate “science” meets the standard.
Now, opinions, facts and observations challenging climate alarmism. Don’t take my word for it, Read and decide for yourself.
David Blackmon reports in the Daily Caller on the politicalization of the allegedly neutral International Energy Agency, and Irina Slav reports on her Substack its “forecasts” that the world is moving toward renewable energy are being abandoned because they are based on ”nothing”.
Anthony Watts challenges the Guardian’s attribution of heat waves to operations of 14 fossil fuel companies.
Judith Curry, respected climatologist, comments on the negative feedback on the DOE Climate Reassessment Report .
Stephen Heins in his substack corrects the record on alleged heat spikes in the UK (I wish the headlines wouldn’t scream “sensational”.)
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore explains how the climate change movement is based on false narratives.
More truth-telling about deception regarding coral reefs from Bjorn Lomborg, Danish economist and political scientist and author of a number of books and articles casting doubt on climate hysteria and the unwise policies resulting therefrom,
Doug Sheridan, commentator and frequent responder to false narratives, describes the uncertainty of measuring climate change. The post is 18 months old but is still relevant, especially in light of the NYT headline.
On our blog, search “climate change” for posts featuring scientists, economists and others who oppose climate alarmism.
Football fans: Five weeks into the season, is this your musical interlude? You’re smug because it’s not? Just wait. The season is long. Your dream is a bad game plan, bungled officiating, turnovers, or overall terrible play away from being crushed by the football gods.
[View source.]
