New York Times article “so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read”

Yesterday The New York Times ran an article refuting any ideas that the planet is cooling due to solar activity (or lack thereof). Joseph Kraig provides a wonderful rebuttal.

New York Times article “so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read”

By Joseph Kraig

This article is so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read.

There is no universal ice melt. Though the article says ice is melting world wide and the oceans are rising, it is simply not true. The oceans are not rising and in places where it was supposed to rise it has actually gotten lower. Greenland saw a faster and larger increase in ice this year than ever recorded. The Glaciers in Alaska and California are both getting larger.

While the sun appears the same day after day it is not. There have been major increases in ultraviolet emissions during the 80’s and 90’s, those emissions are now falling, dramatically.

As long ago as the Maunder Minimum it was known that fewer sun spots cause cooler weather. We are now in a time that is bringing us to a Maunder type of minimum or Grand Minimum.

While it is true that temperatures have been rising (and falling) since the end of the last glaciation we are at the end or what should be the end of the inter-glacial period. We should appreciate any warming we can get.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing. Certainly humans contribute to that growth but the percentage of increase due to human industry is minuscule. In fact the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule. It has never been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There are much more effective greenhouse gases in our atmosphere such as water vapor and Methane.

There are other sciences discoveries that are changing the way scientist think about Global Warming. Who would have thought a couple decades ago that the stars sending their cosmic rays to us could affect our weather but they do, especially in solar minimums.

Ignorance rules our newspapers and much of society. The truth is out there for all to see but those who don’t like the truth lie and know because of our unwillingness to spend a little time reading that we won’t know any better. I refuse to believe the lies of the Mainstream press apparatus.

6 thoughts on “New York Times article “so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read”

  1. Well said Joseph Kraig,

    That NYT article was all about averting the public’s eyes from the obvious cooling so the climate con industry can continue to thieve more of your money.

  2. Project Veritas explains what’s happening at the once reliable NYT in their current report called ” American Pravda”.

  3. Carlos Slim multi billion, the largest shareholder of NYT would love to impress immanent domain upon every American. A lot of money made off of fear mongering and false news these days.
    Anyone with ties to the Mexican drug cartels should not be allowed to own stock in anything inside the USA!

  4. The NYT article made pretty good sense to me. As it explained, we can use carbon dating on the additional CO2 in the atmosphere to determine that it’s from fossil fuels. No question about that.

    Are you kidding me with that graph of the sea levels rising? You picked a local minimum when clearly the slope is going up. You can see that, right?

    CO2 isn’t as strong a greenhouse gas as methane, but it’s effects have been proven. Spectral analysis has confirmed that CO2 is reflecting more heat back on the earth and simultaneously allowing less heat to escape the atmosphere, as predicted.

    Meanwhile, the Little Ice Age started 50 years before the Maunder Minimum. It’s fair to say that solar activity has an impact on climate but that surely muddles the causality. And why was it limited to Europe and not a global phenomenon?

  5. Well it great that they are actually responding to the cooling, five years ago they just laughed. That they continue with fake claims about sea level and ice melt is just a matter of their genes. Thief’s steal, murderers kill, liars lie.

  6. Why is it that I can get better news watching RT than the American sources known as the alphabet channels?
    It seems they are all reading from the same playbook.
    You have to wonder if they are being paid to make sure we will be completely unprepared.

Comments are closed.