Avoidance of earth shattering news by the NY Times is the greatest scandal of this century

• Global warming time out, Der Spiegel, 11/19/09

NY Times doubles down at a crucial hour: 2/1/10, STILL SOLEMNLY REPORTS GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS AND THE UNITED STATES IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF IT. American citizens desperately need to know this is not true. When will the NY Times report that one of its employees has actually read the entire UN Climate Report and answered questions about it? And that they have read other news and science reports on the matter, including the British Government last night failing to support climate chief Pachauri?

• There are trillions of dollars at stake here, organized crime is already involved in carbon trading, and it's the biggest profit center at Europe's investment banks. The UK Prime Minister attaches the survival of London to the carbon trading business. None of this has anything to do with the environment or the evil US. It is all about money. If the NY Times cared about the planet or its people it would put this story on the front page everyday.
  
• The NY Times gives a reader to believe the disproven interests of ranting equatorial dictators and unaccountable, greedy UN grifters who all along demanded one thing: BILLIONS FROM US TAXPAYERS IN PERPETUITY.
  

In its existence planet Earth has grown vegetation in the Arctic. At times, the planet has been completely ice free. Goldman Sachs and the NY Times had nothing to do with starting or stopping any of it and never will. If the NY Times will not protect citizens against government, who will protect citizens?

• "Global Warming Science Implodes Overseas: American Media Silent" 1/31. In the case of the NY Times, they write editorials as if nothing happened. Are one or more of their big investors involved in global warming investments? (Not that it would follow that anyone would influence Times' reporting).

The discoveries of faulty, unvetted, or simply made up claims in the UN Nobel winning Climate Report are things any NY Times reporter could have discovered--had he cared to read the report. Perhaps it's the threat to billions in carbon trading-the real point of the so-called global warming movement that bothers them. Carlos Slim may or may not have interests, and in any case it would not mean his interests influenced the NY Times. I believe the Times is on the same side of the issue now as they were before Mr. Slim invested with their company. But the UN's interest in climate policy does extend to Mexico and its investors.

• 
  
• From a 6/8/09 AFP report from Xcaret, Mexico, Carbon Offsets Daily, "Mexico Promises CO2 cuts, activists urge consistency" :
  

"Mexican Finance Minister Agustin Carstens meanwhile presented a project to evaluate the cost of climate change in Mexico, inspired by the 2006 Stern Review, which become the benchmark for calculating the economic cost of tackling climate change."...

• (Note: It has been reported that the The Stern Review has encountered questions about its economic disaster predicting methods. One or more typographical errors have been found which may not be clarified to users of the document among other issues. The Mexican government and its co-investors may wish to double check any report used to establish national policy based on climate calculations).
  

(continuing, Carbon Offsets Daily): "The UN-sponsored World Environment Day began 37 years ago and takes place annually on June 5.

• Ahead of the event, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, one of the world’s richest men, promised to invest
  
• 50 million dollars in a joint investment project
  

• with the Mexican government and the
  

• World Wildlife Fund, in a move
  

lauded by experts as a model for emerging countries to follow.

“Big investments which are not apparently profitable in the short term are necessary in order to stabilize the

• emission of greenhouse gases,” Slim said here Friday.

• “Without a doubt these cost a lot less than if climate change continues its trend.”"**

**********
American Thinker: "As global warming the political movement is losing its scientific justification, the American people - who will be asked to foot the bill to the tune of trillions of dollars if Obama goes ahead with his "green" plans - are grossly uninformed about the state of the debate. Until the media starts to give this story the coverage it deserves, that state of affairs will not change....

• Perhaps its time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can't get any traction here. Blogs like Watts up with That and Climate Depot are keeping us informed of the latest from England but we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and - outside of Fox News - the cable nets. ...

This is a great story. It has everything a media outlet could desire; scandal, conflict of interest (IPCC head Pauchuri runs companies that benefited from climate scare stories), government cover ups - why then, has

• this unraveling of the basis of climate science that posited catastrophic man made warming not been making any news at all in the United States?

• It's too easy to simply claim "bias."
  

Media outlets don't pass up juicy stories that could potentially increase their readership and revenue for ideological purposes (except the New York Times - and even they could spin all of this to show skeptics to be using flawed arguments like the liberal Guardian is doing in England)....

• The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens - yes dozens - of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to

• transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and
  
• cede sovereignty to the UN.

Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus "science" on was written by a food safety advocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in the Telegraph :

• "Dr North next uncovered "Amazongate". The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest - as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain's two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.

A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report which cite similarly

• non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report.
  

These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of "extreme weather events" such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to

• a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages - when the study cited
  

as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water."...

• article by Rick Moran, American Thinker, via Tom Nelson, photo at top from Climate Depot