h/t Schrodinger’s Cat How much of a climate deplorable are you? NYT has published an offensive climate quiz, apparently aimed at helping readers discover whether they should ever buy another copy of the New York Times.
Trump Has Choices to Make on Climate Policy. What Would You Do?
By TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG FEB. 2, 2017
Donald Trump and his cabinet have sent mixed signals on some big environmental decisions they face. Take this interactive quiz and see where the different possible choices lead.
…
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/science/donald-trump-global-warming-quiz.html
Apparently I’m a climate deplorable – after completing the quiz, NYT provided the following in my opinion deeply offensive comment about my choices.
You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.
On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).
Well done New York Times – in the unlikely event that you still have any climate skeptic readers, this quiz should help ensure they dump your publication.
Why are you even surprised at this?
On climate matters, the NYT’s motto is “All the News That Fits we Print,” and you know precisely what they are “fitting” to!
All the News that Fit to Proselytize
I consider my results upon taking this quiz to be a badge of honor:
“You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.
On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”
Holy cow! That piece was 100% agitprop. Not to mention fiction; “human emissions are the major cause of climate change?” Where, in Michael Mann’s bathroom?
For me.
“””””….. How Did You Do?
You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.
On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?). …..”””””
Put your NYT CPP where the sun don’t shine but the wind does blow !
g
This whole hand-wringing over climate change by the “Grey Lady” is ready-made for a Trump-special, art-of-the-deal, kumbaya-booger resolution:
-In particular, the federal government merely needs to comb social media, academic publications, MSM news archives, political speeches, and the like, to identify those hive-tool thought-leaders who maintain that antrhopogenic CO2 “KILLS BABIES!!!” and “KILLS POLAR-BEARS!!!”
-President Trump can then immediately put those, so identified, on the “no fly list” and justify that action for the most basic and readily understood of security reasons: namely, those who deliberately engage in conduct that, in their very own minds, and by the standards of their very own sincerely and firmly held system of beliefs, “KILLS BABIES” and “KILLS POLAR-BEARS”, self-identify themselves as cull-crazy, berserker, slithering, nerd-pit-spawn Malthusian-maniacs of the most atrocious and repellent sort, who should not, for that reason, be allowed to board aircraft, in these perilous times, and thereby threaten the safety of the flying public.
Voila! Reduced carbon and the spastic-dork, gibbering-weenie, smarty-panties-in-a-bunch, exploding-head-genic-zit-pus-and-brain-matter-splatter-rich, freak-out, quality-time, schadenfreude-normative, popcorn-friendly entertainment-spectacle that will inevitably be delivered by our greenwashed, complete-bunch-of-phonies, carbon-piggie betters, as they pass through the various stages of grief, in the process of their coming to grips with the reality–the “HORROR!!!”–that they must practice what they preach, for once, almost as if they were one–the “DOUBLE HORROR!!!”–with us despised, coolie-trash, herdling-nobody, cull-fodder, expendable peons. A win-win for all!
P. S. Nothing will do more to spark a panic-attack flight from the Gaia-hustle, by the hive’s good-comrades, than for our nature-boys and girls to be suddenly presented with the loss of their current, much-coveted, brazen-hypocrite, jet-set, private-jet, frequent-flyer, unlimited, carbon-indulgence pass, as the price to be paid for their impassioned, and, heretofore, but no longer, self-serving, trough-magnet convictions.
erm…my previous comment, to make sense, should have read “…who engage in conduct, like using fossil-fueled aircraft for their travel needs,…”
Annndd, the author decided to not allow comments.
Not a surprise really. I am sure she can go to her favorite echo room and get all of the love she believes she deserves.
Making it also obvious that neither the author nor the NYTs really wants to hear feedback on their shameful reporting from one sided pure bias positions.
They think they are so smart that they’ve blindfolded and deafened themselves.
I read recently that Oprah Winfrey is now going to have a role on 60 minutes.
They are taking the final step from being an organization that only pretended to the news, to an organization that abandon’s all pretense at being a news organization.
More honesty—that’s a good thing. 60 minutes admits they are entertainment and should not be taken seriously.
I’ve never found them entertaining.
Will there be an audience carefully selected for their skillz at whoo-ing and ‘you-go-girls!’ as well as credulous, non-critical acceptance of everything she says?
I believe the last time I watched sixty minutiae was way back when they faked the GM crash gas tank fires.
When the folks who caught them blow the tank showed the spark and initial explosion, before the truck hit.
Baad timing and really stupid choice. They probably helped the gore guy and his little idiot helper, the anti-science guy, do the CO2 trick bottles and thermometer goofup.
AtTheoK at 4:53pm:
Reluctant to defend 60 Minutes, but it was NBC that faked the GM crash test.
The NY Times — the piper of record.
I’m actually surprised about this level of stupidity, even from the NYT. Incredibly stupid. Or, is it that they are just lazy and out of options in the propaganda game, AND stupid?
They believe the United States ratified the Paris agreement and parts are legally binding.
😎
I noticed that too.
Maybe they’ll let us in on the little secret as when the Senate actually voted on it, let alone ratified it?
President Obama’s word had the authority to make an international agreement legally binding?
They wish. (I think they’re still smarting over the the US not joining the League of Nations that President Wilson inspired and promoted.)
Whatever authority Obama had to enter into an international agreement without Senate ratification, Trump has the same to say …uh… “6-21-3-11 that!”
I think you need to read their words very carefully. Notice that they did not call it a “treaty”, they called it an agreement. Since agreements do not require any ratification by Senate, they can say whatever they want – after all since Obama agreed to it it probably could be argued it was “ratified”
Udar, she said “… United States have ratified …” Not “Obama agreed to it.”
Udar, please!
If the Senate did not ratify it, the US is not bound. If Obama agreed to it, it still was not RATIFIED.
Since you didn’t seem to read and think about all I said, IE “I think they’re still smarting over the the US not joining the League of Nations that President Wilson inspired and promoted.” (I probably should have said “agreed to” rather than “promoted), I repeat:
Where did I say that US is bound to anything? All I say is that they had been very careful with their language to on one hand create impression that it was a treaty that was ratified while actually not saying that.
Another words, she did not make a mistake – she is very cleverly lying by omission.
Remember the time…
“And now it’s all right, it’s okay
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand
The New York Times’ effect on man
Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother
You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive” – Bee Gees
Is it a ***Quizz*** when I get chastised after every answer that doesn’t suit the NYT’s editorial policy?
Or is it another from of ***propaganda***
I stopped reading that rag years ago, but I keep hoping that their slow self-destruction accelerates.
Hope they have a few good tenants lined up to keep renting all the floors in their building they’ll soon be vacating–they’re gonna need ’em!
Hopefully NASA will soon have a New York property for rent: And the Goddard Institute return to innovative rocketry.
I’m not clicking that link…….
Same here.
I stopped clicking any links to the NYT, because they earn revenue with each visit to one of their pages.
Could you use AdBlocker?
If the add is just a picture, than ad-blocker will usually let it through.
I clicked it…the quiz is thinly veiled excuse for another fact free rant on the certainty of CAGW, and equating CO2 with environmental destruction.
Given the low rates per reader as shown at http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/selfservice/help.html#cost I wouldn’t worry about helping them much. At $8.00 per thousand impressions, your page view might generate less than a penny for the NYT. The high quality demographics of WUWT readers might produce somewhat more, but still …
Also see http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/newspaper_subscription_revenue.php for information on deteriorating newspaper industry economics. As you sow, so shall reap.
I agree, clicking the link in some tiny way may help the No.1 fake news site..
Only on one article for one day. You can’t know what the propagandists are up to if you never check.
” I’m not clicking that link……. ”
Ditto …
I think the NYT limits you to 10 free articles a month. I like to use all 10 and then ignore them.
I’ve read that if you clear your cookies, you can get another 10 free articles.
However they still get ad-revenue for every view.
You can read as many as you want on their site and many others if you google the article and click on the link at the top.
The Real Clear Politics site uses links to google searches for their articles on such sites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Go on, you know you want to! 😉 I had great fun imagining some Snowflake monitoring site traffic and their head exploding as I clicked on my answers.
Exactly why I took the “quiz”
I did, just to see for myself how low the NYT is. They are just as bad as they’ve ever been. Holodomor, et tu Brutus?
Oh dear they don’t like my choices either I must be a very bad man or maybe I’ve read up on some of this stuff and can see through the hype! Hay-ho. As a Brit I’m maybe allowed a bit of leeway as we voted to get out of the EU so that shows we are a bit unbalanced.
James Bull
I took the George Mason University’s Center for Climate Communication’s quiz several years ago. I was rated as “Dissmissive” complete with a graphic of a gauge pegged out at zero. I was so proud of myself I used the graphic as my Facebook profile picture. Sadly, they no longer offer it, but it was the usual clap trap.
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/
My result? It’s worse than I thought!….. “You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.
On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”
At least they think it’s a silver lining that you support Trump, unless that means that you should be denied a vote.
How about the response after the first question. “The planet won’t like that.” Can you be any more egotistical, naive, and ignorant than pretending to speak for a planet. I could one up them and claim the universe wants them to wear concrete shoes and go swimming in the deep end, but that would just be so liberal of me.
I started to take the quiz but the choices are insufficient to make rational decisions. They equate pollution with CO2 and do not differentiate between real pollution such as smog, and aerosols. If you want to give a quiz it must be unbiased or it is useless. I could go on and on but will leave it there.
“… but the choices are insufficient to make rational decisions.”
They don’t want rational decisions.
They’ve chosen for you, just trying to sway you to accept.
I noticed the exact same thing: First ask a leading question and then give only 2 choices, neither of which is a logical answer.
This is the disingenuous scenario that the modern media concocts. The erect a false straw man position (in this case by not allowing rational responses) then knock apart the ludicrous effigy while denigrating the reader. This is religious proselytizing not news, and surely not even convincing.
Disappointingly annoying at best.
Having been involved in religious proselytizing, I would say the NYT is violating the first rule of evangelism: Don’t be a jerk.
say rocket–I think that’s why so many wuwt readers have gotten the same diagnosis–only logical choice of the two was the wrong one according to the times algorithm
Second rule: Have good news. 🙂
… and it doesn’t matter which click you hit on the third question … you get a smoggy cloud either way.
Classic black and white thinking, the curse of climate, and all good science. Things are rarely so simple.
Implicitly claiming that your camp has a monopoly on “good” science and never engages in black and white thinking, with that instantly recognizable pretentious tone of unearned authority. Nice.
As if we haven’t seen a hundred times what happens when inconvenient science gets in the way of the prog-lefty’s agenda. All that vaunted complexity and detail just go out the window and they start sounding like a job interview for inquisitors.
According to the quiz I “did a very bad job of protecting the environment.” Oh well, I guess we’re not all perfect, like readers of the NYT’s.
Correction (if I may): “I guess we’re not
all perfectignorant of science facts, like readers of the NYT.”CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR EXCELLENT SCORE, ERIC!
It is in comment “debates” on NYT blog that I abstracted :
The hallmark of the “progressive” is the nexus of arrogance and ignorance
And I lived by the old Fulton Fish Market for 2 decades .
Why, in the name of Glory, was he proud?
(Keats in “The Pot of Basil”)
Did the smell of the Fulton Fish Market remind you to buy the Times every day?
Buy a newspaper ? I just went for free corner tabloids like the Manhattan Libertarians’ SerfCity I wrote a number of articles for : http://www.cosy.com/Liberty.htm#LoL .
Must say cobble stone streets are no place for a fish market , tho : http://cosy.com/godzilla/godzilla.htm . Odd how it stopped stinking so much after a few years .
“agnorance”
The sad thing is that they confuse “protection of the environment” with “feel good living in western world”. With our tax dollars and the money fossil fuel industry has put forward for environmental protection, we have protected and maintains parks, regulated hunting, clean waters, etc. Send all those who did NOT do a bad job in the quiz over to Ghana, Kenya, or Botswana and check out environment and wildlife – let alone water quality. And – more important – most kids over there cannot do homework at night because they have no light. I am talking about millions of people – and if you look at India – a population double the US has NO fridge to keep food safely stored! Pathetic approach by NYT!
So is there any shred of doubt left that NYT pushes a particular POV?
Andrew
I used to read the NYT every Tuesday for the past 25 years. Tuesday was the science times, and a while back also a chess column (which they stopped).
As a result of their totally biased over the top support for Hillary, and repeated slant attacking Trump, sent them a snail mail with a piece of the last front page I will every buy from them.
I told them I was never buying their paper again because of biased reporting and they were dying dinosaurs of old media.
No reply of course, but they have had lay-offs and are now renting our floors of their building to raise revenue.
Their building on land cleared by eminent domain .
That’s probably the only thing they do have going for them, a big chunk of Manhattan real estate. So they do have something in common with Trump!
Ironically, they’re under pressure from WaPo, with its superior interface and fresh money from Bezos.
Only if you are unsure as to whether WUWT also does on both a political and scientific basis.
It really seems to bother you that we prefer reality to your pathetic ideologies.
That’s because Progressive ‘tolerance’ is nonexistent, and near as I can tell is simply code for: ‘Just sit there, behave, and let us do whatever WE want, while we criminalize your very existence.’
“And if you have a problem with that, we’ll call you lots of names and come after your job.”
OK, someone had to do it. I was a good boy and answered ‘appropriately’. Here’s my praiseworthy assessment:
“You did a pretty good job protecting the environment and possibly avoiding some of the worst effects of climate change. But there was no way for you to stop climate change in its tracks with this set of policies.
On the downside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress andp many of the people who voted for him may not be happy with most of your decisions.”
So there’s no way to “win”? Why did they print the quiz then? Trying to increase the sales of anti-depressants?
(Great idea to answer as expected!)
Of course there’s no way to win, that’s the entire point of the faith. Much like the Christian dogma of original sin, even the true believers who seek salvation through self abuse must be left with the feeling they aren’t pious enough.
The faith is founded on guilt. Unless the faithful retain that sense of guilt they’ll wander away from the flock. It’s a very old formula.
You should probably stick to science. Your understanding of religion seems flawed.
Catholic doctrine, you mean. “Christianity is Catholic” is a very common misconception. Several Evangelical denominations, as just one example, reject the concept of original sin (if not openly denounce it as false teaching).
For Bartleby and others: each of us is born in original sin. Adam and Eve had a super relationship with God, and would have been immortal. That was the deal: simply follow what God says, and enjoy a life of eternity in the Garden of Eden, whatever that was.
This is how we raise our children. Follow what I say so that things will go well for you. –Not such a stretch to see this – for those of us with kids at or beyond the teenage years.
They chose disobedience, and the price of that was death – really, the opposite of love – selfishness. If you have true love, you would not secretly disobey the beloved.
–There are some among us who have lived in a circumstance where disobedience of some protocol or behavior would likely or surely end up in death. So, to some, this is not so far-fetched.
Humanity could have ended there with Adam and Eve.
But out of love, God added a redemption plan: Adam and Eve would deservedly die, but they would have the capability to produce successive generations – eventually, like any debt or penalty, it must be paid, and that debt has since rested on their descendants. So, Adam and Eve, although doomed to death, were able to produce another generation.
Hence, the genitalia are perceived as shameful: they are a reminder that each of us has been allowed to come into being based on God’s loving intervention for shameful disobedience. And, we are allowed to live under this debt of our original parents.
Once that act of disobedience, the original sin, is redeemed, we get restored to that original state: eternal life of love with God. The crime was: believing that you could ignore and disobey your loving creator and the deal you had with Him, supplanting His rules with your own, but expecting Him to hold up His end of the deal per those rules.
Yes – we live in a universe with justice. Each of us has a natural sense of justice. You eventually will either get justice or mercy. -Redemption is eagerly, lovingly offered. It just takes humility.
Their unbalanced and partisan position on climate change was what triggered me to end the subscription some years ago already…
Would you buy shares from a corporation whose share history is changing over time? (Looking better and better and smooth increase when in the past it was not such?) If a salesman comes to me and tries to sell me those shares and I find out all those retroactive changes in their shares history….
nope, nope, nope, I do not buy
Would you buy a paper that tries to sell you continuously those shares?
no thank you.
https://realclimatescience.com/the-nasa-temperature-record-is-garbage/
+1!
Me, too: NOPE! 🙂
He’s Approved
Come on guy’s this is BIG Scott Pruitt through committee
Outstanding!
That’s terrific, Russell!
Thanks for the heads up (and, lol, for the clarification — “Who? Huh?”, heh).
Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/02/02/Committee-OKs-Scott-Pruitt-EPA-nomination-amid-Democrat-boycott/2611486056943/
GO GET ‘EM, SCOTT!
That was so funny. Are all their readers 5 year old kids?
Probably not chronologically, however their readers cognitive developmental delays are commensurate.
I had to laugh when the quiz said the planet would not like my answers.
Heh.
— And another thing!
— I am sick-and-tired of you fleas at the NYT spewing out garbage like that!
— BIG THUMBS DOWN!
— Clean up your act, or I’ll give you your own personal climate emergency….
Anthropomorphising the Earth like that shows just how infantile the NYT has become. It can no longer be considered as a paper of record.
These greasers only want your e-mail address, so they can send you advertisements for commercial products or services to the house without asking. This is an old game. The same game is often also with the headings, which do not fit at all to the content of the article. That’s what the Springer-Gazette “Bild” has introduced with us decades ago. If you wanted to match all the foolish and false headlines of the mainstream press, this would be a fake news parade from here to the moon and back.
What a joke. Is the NYT for real?
Sadly, yes.
I took the quiz. Apparently, I did “very bad”. I guess they need to send me to Berkeley for reeducation.
Richard,
Me Too, I am a very bad skeptic in need of training and sleep deprivation. Berkeley looks like a nice peaceful. place for my 1984 reeducation – LOL
Berkley wasn’t too quiet last night.
Apparently the snowflakes decided to burn the campus down because the administration dared to allow a conservative to speak there.
well, first of all it wasn’t the snowflakes and they didn’t burn down the campus.
berzerkely kids don’t have ninja costumes in their wardrobes.
it was paid provocateurs.
the started some small fires, shot off fireworks, smashed some windows and harassed people.
the cops did nothing.
i don’t suppose the head of UC (janet napolitano) would have wanted it known the troublemakers were organized from out of town.
so don’t be lazy. it’s easy to find out stuff. if you overegg it, your overegging can become the topic.
It wasn’t me, it was those other thugs who did it.
Newspapers are commercial organisations. They have a duty to sell their product. Their main product is a uniform readership that can be easily targeted by advertisers.
Imagine if a company aimed an alarmist message at sceptics or a sceptical theme at the alarmed. The advert would actually lose support for the product. Disaster.
Therefore the NYT is very keen to create a homogenous echo chamber of like-minded people. That is what they are selling.
They aren’t part of the intellectual s debate. They are part of the intellectual scenery.
If you’re reading it, its for you.
It will be a lot of rain in California. Jet stream is divided into two branches over the Pacific.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
I use back issues of the New York Times to start my wood stove.
In the UK we use the Grauniad. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/heavy-losses-at-the-guardian/#comments
And at the Telegraph too.
The newspaper and/or free online access model is dead, for any newspaper.
Only paying interns slave wages to trawl the internet is profitable (see UK Daily Mail)
It gets funnier. The begging is in full flow…
Since you’re here…
…we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure.
On most Guardian pages
And if everyone that read the notice sent a penny, they could get their 2 cents worth
For those who are not acquainted with UK newspapers, the Guardian is the main left-wing broadsheet in the UK, and it’s extensively read by all the Left establishment. The BBC gets all of its news from it.
It was famous for the number of spelling errors per page, and once actually spelt the name of the paper wrong on a page heading (Not, alas, the front page…). Ever since then it has bee affectionately know by this mis-spelling – the GRAUNIAD….
I didn’t realize just how vicious and mendacious the Guardian was until the Rotherham scandal was blown open in 2014. The paper did its level best to suffocate the truth and to smear the whistleblowers.
“If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure.”
Wait. I thought that being funded by people who thought a particular way was bad and invalidated anything you might ever say again.
Never mind. I remembered how the world works. Rules are for the little people.
I use the Wall Street Journal to start my wood stove. In fact I find the editorial section especially good at starting fires.
Speaking of toxic smoke.
I got a laugh out of the questions and “wait and see what the cities and states do”. Nope the EPA currently is not allowing that now, are they. If a State wants a shiny new coal fired power plant will the N.Y.T. support them and give its blessing just as it would if a city or State wanted wind turbines. As a matter of fact are there not cities and counties were the local population is fighting against the wind farms? And who is is forcing the development of them in those locations?
“Do as I say not as I do”
When I lived back east I always felt the N.Y.T was at it’s brightest in the Franklin stove.
michael
but no state wants one and no commercial organisation would build one… this is not a question of CO2, but lack of any possible return in investment given cheaper options (shale gas or in some places solar)
Wind and solar need huge subsidies and strike prices to match.
Petrol is down to 1.17/L
How will electric compete with that? It hasn’t a hope.
… in some places solar
In NO places can solar EVER (given known or likely to be known technology) power a first world economy.
Have fun with your little solar-powered clown car — don’t expect the manufacturing sector to come knocking on your door asking for advice….
Solar is only cheaper because government is picking up 75% of the costs.
Janice. Solar is cheaper for satellites. Have you ever priced the cost of running the mains to LEO?
MarkW, I suppose it depends on how long you want your satellite to remain powered. We send up many without solar panels that run off of onboard stored energy. And, these satellites are not powering anything other than themselves let alone a first world economy. Furthermore any maneuvering requires impulse thrusters that aren’t powered by electricity (well the valves are).
True there are niches that renewables fill, but for now they remain far from economical mainstream power generation.
Where are they cheaper? Not on this planet.
Janice,
I can think of 1 single situation where Solar/Wind can compete with Grid Energy
…
Wait for it
…
Where there is no grid energy available
“Off the Grid applications” the only place where Solar costs less
Bryan A: So true. And they are very poor substitutes for the grid. People may report glowingly about “living off grid”, but very few actually enjoy it and few do it for any length of time. It’s labor intensive, expensive and a real pain. A neighbor’s wind turbine was torn apart in high wind, again. He’s had two destroyed by high wind. Controllers burn out, batteries freeze or overheat. Utopia it isn’t.
MarkW: Thanks for the info.. Much appreciated.
(please note, though, that a satellite is not “a first world economy”).
Bryan A, it depends how far off the grid you are. If it’s just a couple of miles, connecting to the grid could still be cheaper.
What were they thinking? Newspapers aren’t thriving. They need all the subscribers they can get. They can’t afford to alienate anyone … but they do this.
The liberal elites are arrogant and out-of-touch to an extent that borders on schizophrenia,
They love their theories and hate reality.
Even by Lewandowsky standards this isn’t remotely a “survey”. It is pure advocacy together with scolding for “wrong” choices.
and it’s laid out like a skinner book.
i don’t know if you ever had those. i can’t find a reference on google.
they have questions on each page and the answer when you turn it.
it’s designed to maximize the formation of associations.
TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG, the writer, is Caroline Kennedy’s daughter.
She doesn’t appear to have a science degree of any sort.
Or a brain
Now that splains alot
Went to Yale, but that writing sounds more like a junior in high school. And clearly she didn’t take any hard science courses.
The way she is saying it makes me think of a kindergarten teacher explaining to her charges the importance of coloring inside the lines. She might be better suited to that career than working for a newspaper which views itself as being for people who are intellectually superior.
How Did You Do?
You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.
May, could, might etc How original
I suppose telling them that supporting global warming nonsense WOULD be worse isn’t going to fly?