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.
Ha ha ha. There was one telling “slip” in their stupid quiz, in the question that says should we continue subsidies for wind and solar, or say goodbye to those nascent schemes. Of course, without the subsidies those so-called renewables go away completely. No one will invest in them on a level playing field.
Anyway, after the Ebell talk about the “expertariat” and the “Climate Industrial Complex” it could not be more obvious that the NYTimes is part and parcel of that interest group. They feel perfectly justified in trying to indoctrinate us into the “correct” way of thinking. Gray Lady, hell, Demented Biddy is more like it.
Also, characterizing wind turbines and solar as “nascent” is laughably ignorant: they have been around, trying and trying and trying (and failing) for over 30 years.
Wind mills have been around a fair bit longer than that. 😉
Janice, 30 years has yet to produce any single regional utility or grid that can run solely on wind turbines, and until that happens, I thought I could call the industry nascent. Maybe I should have used a different adjective, like pathetic, hopeless or dreamlike. ha ha ha
Hawaii is heading that way Mickey and some regions of northern Germany.
Germany as a whole is 32% renewable, Spain over 40%.
Sweden will achieve 100% in a decade.
Really, one day soon you won’t be able to write that.
It really is amazing how impermeable Griffie’s brain is to reality.
It’s been explained to him dozens of times that the only reason why Germany’s power grid is stable is because they have ties to other countries that haven’t drunk the wind/solar koolaid and can provide power whenever the renewables aren’t.
You didn’t even have to wait for your score at the end. Every “Wrong” answer was followed by a little gotcha Tisk, Tisk sentence immediately before the next question. I presume every “Correct” answer was followed by praise and a participation award! As mentioned above, the questions were phrased in the format “When will you stop beating your wife?”. Needless to say, the “desired” answer was part of the question.
It’s like…, Is the New York Times the problem or only part of the problem! Which is 🙂 TRUE R. R. R
Is the New York Times the problem or only part of the problem?
Yes
No
YES
Liberal Media Climate Activism: Threat or Menace?
a) Threat
b) Menace
c) Fake third option that comments on your cheekiness then repeats the question.
ACTIVISTS MARCH, NOOOT SCIENTISTS. Data clearly shows Activism Prevents Objectivity.
I am not a mean or vindictive man. But when I see the level of religious furor exhibited by CAGW ‘Scientists’ I fear (and the data show that I have a right to) any study done by said persons should be examined and the raw data, methodology and conclusions examined for biases of even, heaven forbid, manipulation.
Activists are by nature biased and have no place doing science in their religious zeal.
I found the whole thing unbelievably arrogant and patronising. But I guess that reflects why Trump became president.
I am a bad person also.
I bet I will kill off all the coral reefs and annihilate oceanic life.
ah well its nice to have goals.
🙂
You’re just a punny name away from being a villain on Captain Planet, you. 😉
Haha hahaha… that was actually fun. Thank you Carlos Slim.
I am the worst possible person for the planet….as far as the NYT is concerned. They should hear what I think of them!
I must admit, I like her name though!
” TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG FEB”
Swiss.
That way, no one is offended.
I read the NYT to quickly glean the “party line” of the idiots who wish to weaken the USA.
Know your enemy
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer
The enemy of my enemy might still be my enemy
It’s supposed to be TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG “FIBS.”
Did Mosher or Nicky Stoaks take the quiz? What were the results?
Andrew
How about a real poll? The New York Times…
⭘ Is an anagram of “The Monkeys Write.”
⭘ Stinks like the Fulton Fish Market.
⭘ Is a propaganda organ of the Demokratisch Partei.
⭘ Has fallen from its former glory.
⭘ Should be eliminated as a waste of trees.
⭘ Is excellent for lining bird cages.
⭘ Is compost-in-training
⭘ Runs a “redder-than-thou” contest with the Grauniad.
⭘ Sucks like a fruit bat on a mango.
Answer: The only objective choice is obviously the first, “Is an anagram of ‘The Monkeys Write’.” The others are all merely opinions.
Needs a
J) all of the above
That was one of the exams that was postponed at Berkeley so that students could get some stress-healing therapy after Trump’s win in November. It must have worked as word is the students scored very high.
Mmmm, … where does the NY Times stand on the issue of climate change? Working my way through that … we’re-gonna-try-to-change-your-mind-to-our-way-of thinking-at-your-every-response, passive-aggressive excuse for a poll (i.e., “survey” – clear throat), I couldn’t help wondering.
Its the print version of a supposedly grown adult dressed as a large vagina in a march, i.e., pretty much guaranteeing a second Trump term.
A really shonky attempt to ‘make it personal’, to instil guilt, shame and worry at a one-on-one level.
The original warfare tactic, smash lots of individual small armies rather than take on one big united army innit?.
and if anyone tries something similar on them, what do we get?
We all know, we’re hit by The Consensus and the appeals to the authority of computer models and satellites.
“My gang’s bigger than your gang” etc and all debate ends there.
pathetic
Advertisement last year from the NY times, looking for a climate change editor to sensationalize and boost circulation:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-climate-change-editor.html
From that link:
“Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.”
Well, darn it! They already missed their opportunity to cover the California drought, much of which has been rained/snowed away.
No problemo. Extreme weather maps for the year 2060 can still be used for at least another couple of decades. Then when the disasters continue to NOT happen, they can use the same maps and re-date them for the year 2100 (-:
Cute Janice.
(It bothers me more then it should that the Latitude and Longitude line on that globe run diagonal. >¿< )
Thank you, s.ree. Heh. (and thanks for the compliment on my appearance, though I doubt that word would come to mind, faced with reality…. “lovely”…… perhaps……. 😉 )
I have to comment on aircraft emissions, and I know a little about them having worked in the industry for 40 years primarily in the area of reducing emissions. Aircraft engine emissions are primarily CO2, CO, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulates. CO2 is fuel burn, the airlines demand the best efficiency possible, and largely make buy decisions on this criteria, so delivering what they demand is the direct route to minimizing CO2. CO and unburned hydrocarbons are products of inefficiency and primarily occur at airports when aircraft are idling and taxiing. The amount of CO and UHC produced are functions of how much fuel the engine is burning, and in these circumstances, it is not much compared to other operating power settings. At cruise conditions, combustor efficiency is over 99.9% and CO and UHC emissions are nil. Planes spend a long time at cruise, and inefficiency is higher fuel burn and higher fuel cost. NOx essentially occurs at high power settings (take-off and climb) when combustor gas temps are near stoichiometric (look it up) in parts of the combustor and atmospheric nitrogen combines with remaining oxygen. It’s controllable to some extent by managing the local fuel-air ratio in the combustor to limit time at high temperature. Thanks to company research and NASA funding, today’s combustors produce 70 or 80% less NOx than combustors in 1995. Maybe more, I retired 5 years ago.
Particulates (smoke) are a nuisance near airports and may have a health impact, but are not global warming concerns. In short, the market will dictate minimization in aircraft emissions — the EPA and EU need not be concerned.
The comment in the “questionaire” about particulate matter is a reference to a new EPA campaign against PM2.5 particulates. There is no actual scientific evidence that it is bad for people, yet. Just wait a bit, while the EPA organises some “scientific” studies to come up with a preordained result.
er… yes there is.
Extensive medical studies in the UK show PM2.5 particulates are a definite health hazard.
Extensive medical studies have also shown that vaccines cause autism.
Only problem was, they studies were for the most part made up.
Too bad vaccines are not subjected to the sort of extensive medical testing that would allow us to actually know they’re not causing autism, eh Mark?
Isn’t it incredible that every day there is precisely the amount of news which just fits into the newspaper!!!!
The newspaper never has to be smaller or larger.
Isn’t that amazing?
I’m not understanding why the closing assessment of my test said I did a bad job protecting the environment when all of my decisions would have raised CO2 levels. Plants love CO2. Plants flourish when CO2 is raised higher than they are now. The test producers make it sound like CO2 is poison for plants. Maybe, for the NY Times, “good for the environment” means “keep things as they are, despite what would be good for plants”.
Suggested headline for WaPo:
Why does the NYT hate plants?
The NYTs continues digging their own grave. How thoughtful of them.
This is the Kobayashi Maru of online quizzes
“The only winning move is not to play”
Unless you reprogram the simulation.
My strategy when playing Euchre: play to tie.
That was fun 🙂
Here’s the answer I got:
“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?).”
(I’m for clean air and clean water and increasing trees and flora in general)…
The NYT’s should study the FACTS about CO2 and Climate Change before putting out this crap…
CO2 is not carbon.
You go cuz!