Althouse: "The Times is peddling ignorance here. Actually, the congregation of walruses on land is an age-old phenomenon known as 'hauling out.'"

December 2, 2015

"The Times is peddling ignorance here. Actually, the congregation of walruses on land is an age-old phenomenon known as 'hauling out.'"

"It has nothing to do with the volume of sea ice at any given time. In fact, the Times is not just peddling ignorance, it is recycling it."

53 comments:

Fernandinande said...: "You walrus hurt the ones you love" -- B. Kliban; 12/2/15, 10:22 AM
Rob said...: The Times has made it way too easy to discern their agenda. Where's the challenge?

As for the walruses: Goo goo g' joob!; 12/2/15, 10:28 AM
PB said...: The NY Times makes good fish wrap.; 12/2/15, 10:37 AM
tim maguire said...: It's really quite remarkable the flim flam of the alarmists. Not only have they not shown that the climate is doing anything unusual, they haven't even bothered to try to show that warming would be a bad thing. It's all just assumed.

One lie after another to crush debate. I can't help picturing them lying awake at night terrified at the thought of an actual honest informed discussion. As Al Gore cranks up the heating in the new east wing of his mansion and eats another Kobe beef burger with imported bleu cheese.; 12/2/15, 10:37 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Tomorrow is the story about the Egg Man. Global climate warming changing men into eggs. Or vice-versa.

Damn eggs. Cant ever tell which comes first.; 12/2/15, 10:38 AM
Michael K said...: When was the last time a Times reader saw a walrus ?

Nobody checks these things because nobody cares about the facts. It's the narrative.; 12/2/15, 10:39 AM
Tim said...: The Times lies? This is not news.; 12/2/15, 10:44 AM
Tim said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/2/15, 10:45 AM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: This propaganda could only work on someone who never read or seen National Geographic, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, or myriad other TV shows, magazines, or books about wildlife.; 12/2/15, 10:54 AM
Birkel said...: Completely unfair to the NYT. If they didn't peddle falsehoods they'd have to go out of business. And the people who work for the NYT are otherwise unemployable.

Keep those people bottled up where they can do the least harm.; 12/2/15, 11:02 AM
Todd said...: "The Times is peddling ignorance here.

It has always been thus...; 12/2/15, 11:11 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: "Never let a good walrus go to waste."; 12/2/15, 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: First they came for the walruses and I said nothing, for I am not a walrus...

Mussolini was a newspaper editor when he rose to power.

The NYT is just Der Stuermer with a nice typeface. Same audience profile, too.; 12/2/15, 11:16 AM
MAJMike said...: Peddling ignorance in the service of the LibCong is a long-time tradition of the Times.; 12/2/15, 11:16 AM
Clayton Hennesey said...: When you see someone falling, give them a push. The best thing more level-headed climate watchers could do would be to send this story viral, to the point that school children around the world came home crying to their parents about the walruses desperately seeking sanctuary on land. Then let an 8-year-old biology geek detonate the whole thing on national TV.; 12/2/15, 11:17 AM
Jaq said...: Tell us again the story of how they named Greenland ironically (Greenland exported beef a thousand years ago exploiting their extensive grasslands) but these same people called Newfoundland "Flat Rock Land" because of all of the flat rocks and New England "Vinland" because of all of the grape vines.

Because, you know, the Narrative.

They would do so much better if they ran every statement on global warming by a skeptic, and if he can reduce it to ridicule in a couple of seconds with any kind of valid point, just don't publish it because you are doing more harm to your cause than good.

Seriously, the story of Climate Advocacy is a story of own goals, starting with that ridiculous hockey stick.; 12/2/15, 11:17 AM
James Pawlak said...: The Times inflicting ignorance is no longer news.; 12/2/15, 11:22 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: THey are probably waiting their turn at Leonardo DiCaprio.; 12/2/15, 11:27 AM
eric said...: The same goes for Wikipedia. If you read the power line article you'll note that wikipedia was edited to remove the section about bailouts.

I see a pattern here. Want to convince the public global warming exists? Make stuff up and erase the truth from the official record.

Want to convince the public that black lives matter have a point? Create fake, racist, twitter accounts and pretend to experience racism.; 12/2/15, 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Packed shoulder to shoulder, an estimated 35,000 Pacific walruses congregated on Alaska’s northwest coast near Point Lay last fall

That picture is 3,500 to maybe 5,000. Not 35,000. I know naturalists are better at crowd counting than that.

As for lack of "winter sea ice" in September? duh...; 12/2/15, 11:32 AM
traditionalguy said...: Flooding the Zone is good propaganda technique for the Paris Conference of the Parties. Teachers know most people don't learn a new teachings without at least three repetitions.

And since a picture is worth 10,000 words, we will also see many of the Hoaxer's patented shots of churning clouds of evil black smoke, which are actually back lit innocent steam.; 12/2/15, 11:42 AM
The Godfather said...: The science is settled.; 12/2/15, 11:42 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: Well the ignorant clucks (climatista variety) at the New York Times were at it again this morning, worrying about the Marshall Islands. When Majuro Atoll became one of the great fleet anchorages in the world (late 1943 or early 1944) the average island or islet in the Marshalls was 6 feet above sea level. Now some 70 plus years later, the average island or islet in the Marshall Islands is---you guessed it-- 6 feet above sea level. But the Times worries that the islands will be underwater by 2050. Those islands better hurry up-the clock is running. Now in fairness the Times writer did say that changes in wind patterns were tending to push tides a bit higher--but admitted that they didn't know if the change in wind patterns was related to clmate change.

But as always, the good folks (a polite way of saying flipping scientific imbeciles) are "concerned" about environmental damage. Scientific ignorance can be cured--but willful stupidity is forever.; 12/2/15, 11:57 AM
Rick said...: Remember the great bee die off? Including that one the left has predicted 23 of the last 0 apocalyi.; 12/2/15, 11:58 AM
damikesc said...: It's really quite remarkable the flim flam of the alarmists. Not only have they not shown that the climate is doing anything unusual, they haven't even bothered to try to show that warming would be a bad thing. It's all just assumed.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter, in their WORST case scenario, you're at the beach and, instead of it being 77 degrees...it's 79. How in the hell can ANYBODY survive that?; 12/2/15, 12:01 PM
Static Ping said...: Yet another example of why I didn't seriously consider the male/female brain article from yesterday.

So did the New York Times reprint someone's press release or did they manage to come up with this nonsense all by themselves? I'm guessing the former since the latter is too much work.; 12/2/15, 12:10 PM
SteveR said...: The time has come,' the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.'; 12/2/15, 12:11 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: To paraphrase Ann Coulter, in their WORST case scenario, you're at the beach and, instead of it being 77 degrees...it's 79.

Now, now, let's be fair. It's a lot worse than that. You might even have to move your beach blanket several feet further up the beach.; 12/2/15, 12:43 PM
Jason said...: This story's getting a little long in the tooth.; 12/2/15, 12:56 PM
JPS said...: It's amazing how much Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy there is in the alarmist arguments. They seize on one odd-looking event after another and yell, "You see?! What further proof do you need?"

And some of those events, like walruses hauling out, or a polar bear (aka Ursus maritimus) on a small ice floe surrounded by lots of water, don't mean what they're supposed to, but hey: Only a shill for the oil companies would object, right? OK, my claim isn't literally true - what's your intention in pointing it out?

But it's the skeptics who are Science Deniers.; 12/2/15, 12:57 PM
Larry J said...: Keep things like this in mind whenever you read any New York Times article. If they're so wrong about this, they're likely wrong about many other things. See: Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.; 12/2/15, 1:01 PM
Drago said...: And the poor polar bears are still being forced to swim from ice flow to ice flow!

As they have done for thousands of years except now they are forced to swim because republicans\koch brothers\deniers\exxonmobile!!; 12/2/15, 1:04 PM
Unknown said...: When ever there is a link to a nytimes article I always wait for confirmation from another source and refuse to click on it. Even if that article is factually true, they will slant it to help their democrat masters.; 12/2/15, 1:06 PM
Jaq said...: The weird thing is that I actually believe that curbing CO2 emissions in ways that don't bring the economy to a halt, even if they hurt a little bit, is probably a good idea given the absolute uncertainty of the situation we face. But these guys make it so hard to be on their side.

It's like supporting abortion, but being forced to have allies who think that the sense of the word "baby" that applies to unborn child, e.g. "I felt the baby kick" should be removed from the dictionary because it is "too emotional," or that deny the legitimacy of the feelings and arguments of those who consider abortion murder.

I could go on and on.; 12/2/15, 1:40 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Of all mammals, the walrus has the largest male genitalia. A much more interesting and accurate fact.; 12/2/15, 1:41 PM
jr565 said...: Well of course they are peddling false statistics and science. That's a given. Everything is tied into climate change and even knowable things become both new and caused by climate change. Either that or they don't know and are making stuff up.; 12/2/15, 1:42 PM
jr565 said...: Here another clue for you all
The walrus was Paul.

Goo goo go joob.; 12/2/15, 1:43 PM
jr565 said...: the times assert this as a certainty. If they don't know that walruses congregate on land, what are they basing that certainty on?
If this were a math test the teacher might ask them to show their work. If they can't then it suggests they don't really know how to do math. And if not, then when they come up with answers not based on proofs, it's just guesswork. Not settled science at all.
You know what might be considered settled science? That walruses congregate on land.
And it has nothing to do with climate change.; 12/2/15, 1:47 PM
Skipper said...: All the news that's fake, they print.; 12/2/15, 2:01 PM
Skyler said...: And yet people still read the NY Times. Even law professors who should be smart enough to know better.; 12/2/15, 2:24 PM
Fritz said...: Gusty Winds said...
Of all mammals, the walrus has the largest male genitalia. A much more interesting and accurate fact.

Mmm, probably not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX7mN2l5i28

Go to about 1 minute...; 12/2/15, 2:30 PM
n.n said...: Skyler:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War; 12/2/15, 2:30 PM
Fernandinande said...: Andrea Mitchell said...
When ever there is a link to a nytimes article I always wait for confirmation from another source and refuse to click on it.

I'm reluctant to read anything from an outfit with "New York" in its name, especially the NYT, and usually google some keywords to read about it elsewhere.

But this time it might be worth it for the bemusement value.

Right above the pic of the walruses, the NYT says:
"Chasing a Climate Deal in Paris
World leaders have 12 days to agree on plans to slow global warming. We’re weighing in with insights and analysis."

...which makes the pack of walruses appear to be the world leaders chasing a climate deal.; 12/2/15, 2:49 PM
SteveR said...: The Marshall Islands are vulnerable but mostly to American companies who use the guilt of the US government over Bikini ("check the wind direction before you blow the bomb, sailor") to get business protecting them.; 12/2/15, 3:06 PM
Todd said...: Gusty Winds said...

Of all mammals, the walrus has the largest male genitalia. A much more interesting and accurate fact.

12/2/15, 1:41 PM

I beg to differ...

The specimen is just the tip, as the entire organ, when intact, would have been about 5 m (16 ft) long and weighed about 350–450 kilograms (770–990 lb), well above average for even a blue whale. By comparison, an adult elephant's penis is the largest penis of any land animal at 1.8 metres (6 ft) on average.
Blue whale penis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale_penisWikipedia; 12/2/15, 3:14 PM
Jeff Hall said...: In the article, he claims that the Wikipedia on walruses had been edited to conform to this narrative. But I see no evidence of that in the history page for that article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus; 12/2/15, 3:35 PM
Jaq said...: OMG! Scientific American are now deniers!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/; 12/2/15, 3:38 PM
Sebastian said...: "the New York Times is an especially laughable purveyor of politically-motivated climate hysteria"

'nuff said. No news there. But think back to the time before the Internet, not that long ago, when all manner of Prog nonsense could be peddled with impunity by the anointed, when the occasional scientist might send a letter to the editor or a half-skeptical law prof like AA might grumble over the breakfast table -- but without achieving any real pushback. Now there's some. It's progress of sorts.; 12/2/15, 3:49 PM
Fritz said...: Like salt marshes, atolls have the "amazing" ability to rise with sea level. For atolls the process involves sand being generated on the reef, washing up on the beach and then blowing up into dunes. It's been happening for thousands of years.

Cover the island with hard surfaces (buildings and streets), or starve the beach of sand (by killing the parrot fish that chew up the reef into sand) and the process stops.; 12/2/15, 3:57 PM
Jaq said...: Wikipedia is not a trusted source on climate, whether they got this one right or not. Stopped clock, blind squirrel. What is the point of an encyclopedia where you have to independently validate every article?

It may be different now, but one time I tried to look up the gel point of bio-diesel, and instead of a straight answer, I got a page and a half of persiflage as to why it doesn't matter and that you can add additives (also true of regular diesel, but you can still find its gel point.) In other words, if the topic is remotely political, you cannot trust Wikipedia. I never did find the gel point in that article.; 12/2/15, 4:05 PM
eddie willers said...: Expert, textperts, don't you think we posters laugh at you.

Ho ho ho, he he he.; 12/2/15, 5:06 PM
rcocean said...: People need to read "The Sea Wolf" by Jack London. In the novel the hero and heroine stay alive by killing walruses who have come ashore by the tens of thousands.; 12/2/15, 7:30 PM
John henry said...: We got dying polar bears because of Coca-Cola. they've used polar bears in advertising for a century and donated lots of money to WWF. Just a coincidence I am sure that polar bears were brought front and center in global warming.

Polar bear population has quadrupled since the 70s. They are doing just fine under "global warming"

So under the follow the money rule, who uses walruses (walri?) in their corporate imagery? Is there a walrus movie coming out? This kind of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum. Somebody is paying the Times for this.

John Henry; 12/2/15, 7:56 PM