Past performance is no guarantee of future results:
In 2000, the New York Times sniffed, “it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
Today, as Mark Steyn writes, “Global Warming Assumes Room Temperature:”
As readers may know, National Review and I have an impending court date in Washington with Dr Michael E Mann, creator of the global-warming “hockey stick” and self-proclaimed Nobel laureate, for the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel prize recipient“. (You can contribute to our legal defense fund here; also, the TV rights to my forthcoming white Bronco chase are still available – we’ll be using a hybrid, of course).
Forced by circumstance to take an interest in the latest developments on the climate-change “consensus”, I was interested to see this story, in which The New York Times belatedly acknowledges that for the last 15 years it’s been all quiet on the warming front:
The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.
The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.
Jim Treacher gleefully piles on to that last quote:
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle couldn’t have concocted a trickier conundrum. Call it: “The Mystery of the Endangered Federal Funding.”
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau.
No, I might not imagine it. I simply can’t conceive of someone actually questioning this rock-solid science that’s probably really, really, really super-wrong.
And then blah blah blah, BS BS BS. It’s the NYT. What are they gonna say, “We were wrong”? Of course not.
No, but we can check their archives, as in the 2000 story above. Speaking of which, this is the second time in a week that the Times has airbrushed a story involving a prominent Democrat. First the Gray Lady touches up Obama’s credibility, further destroying whatever is left of its own, then an Anthony Weiner story is deemed to have arisen on the site prematurely and is tucked back into its (file) drawers. Or as John Nolte quips, “New York Times Yanks Weiner Story.”
(Headline via an unintentionally classic 2000 headline from the London Independent.)