{"id":379778,"date":"2025-05-24T21:00:47","date_gmt":"2025-05-24T19:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=379778"},"modified":"2025-05-24T21:00:48","modified_gmt":"2025-05-24T19:00:48","slug":"new-york-times-on-climate-change-two-candidates-for-quote-of-the-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=379778","title":{"rendered":"New York Times On Climate Change: Two Candidates For Quote Of The Day"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over at the New York Times today, print edition, there is a big front-page article documenting how their side is losing the latest battle in the climate wars. The headline is \u201cU.S. Embraces Climate Denial In Science Cuts.\u201d<\/a> (online headline somewhat different). Also, in the Times today (online version) is a feature called \u201cQuote of the Day.\u201d<\/a> Today\u2019s \u201cquote of the day,\u201d as selected by the Times, is taken from the \u201cclimate denial\u201d article just previously linked. Here it is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s as if we\u2019re in the Dark Ages.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This quote is attributed to one Rachel Cleetus, identified as senior policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then, if you take some time to read the article, you come to what I would propose as another excellent candidate for quote of the day. It\u2019s from Brooke Rollins, recently confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture in the Trump administration. Here it is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus of the article is what the Times calls \u201cgetting rid of data.\u201d<\/em> In Times spin, the purpose is to \u201chalt the national discussion about how to deal with global warming.\u201d<\/em> But what kind of \u201cdata\u201d are we talking about here? The article is short on specifics as to which exact data series are being cut back or eliminated, let alone whether those series are accurate or useful. But there is enough to give you a general idea:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent weeks, more than 500 people have left the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the government\u2019s premier agency for climate and weather science. . .. NOAA also stopped monthly briefing calls on climate change, and the president\u2019s proposed budget would eliminate funding for the agency\u2019s weather and climate research. The administration has purged the phrases \u201cclimate crisis\u201d and \u201cclimate science\u201d from government websites.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ah, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). They\u2019re the people who, via their branch called NCEI, put out the so-called \u201csurface temperature\u201d series that have been systematically altered to create a falsely-enhanced warming trend to support regular claims of \u201cwarmest day\/month\/year ever.\u201d This is the subject of my now 33-part series \u201cThe Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me remind you of the basics of the temperature-alteration scam: (1) the surface temperature records as presented by NOAA\/NCEI are not raw instrumental data, but rather have been altered, (2) NOAA admits that it alters the records, (3) NOAA gives seemingly-plausible reasons for altering the records (e.g., to account to station moves and instrument changes), (4) however, the alterations as implemented are not<\/em> associated with any specific issues like station moves and instrument changes, and (5) the alterations systematically enhance the reported warming trend and are used to support the \u201cclimate crisis\u201d narrative. For more detail, go to Part XXXIII of the \u201cGreatest Scientific Fraud\u201d series<\/a>. Here are just a couple of backup points in case you are skeptical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n