NYT too narrow on climate change matters?

Dr. Arnd Bernaerts
2 min readJan 8, 2021


Sometimes THE NEW YORK TIMES addresses its readers with the request: The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise. Comments are moderated for civility. That happened also with an article on Dec.30/2020 titled: “What’s on the Horizon for the Climate Desk”. A brief comment was send twice, on 4 and 5 January, which read at it follows:


I fully understand the NYT’s clear position on the climate issue. It is less acceptable if important questions that urgently need clarification are therefore excluded. This includes at least three important complexes that are very important for a sustainable climate discussion, namely

1. Were humans involved in Early Arctic Warming from 1918 to 1939? https://oceansgovernclimate.com/is-man-the-source-of-the-early-arctic-warming/

2. Was the Second World War one of the reasons for the global cooling that occurred in the war winter of 1939/40, lasting until about mid-1970s.

See Chapter C (about 40 pages) at http://www.seaclimate.com/

3. Should climate research be allowed to get away with using the layman’s term “climate” without being able to define it in a scientifically comprehensible way? http://www.whatisclimate.com/

Please accept the brevity of my contribution and kindly take note of the attached Links.
I am ready to answer your questions.


The submission was confirmed but not published. Wondering and concerned that the NYT may handle the climatic change issue too narrowly the following mail letter was sent on 6th of January:


To the EDITOR in Chief…………. 6th January 2021…etc.… .

Dear Madam or Sir,

The Climate Desk requested readers to comment to the article, on climate change matters. My brief comment, as attached, and definitely received by the NYT, was not published, although the comment complies with the article’s perspective, and is not “uncivilized”.

In order to dispel any suspicion that the reporting on climatic change matters of the NYT has little interest in painting the most complete picture possible of the climate complex and not to exclude important and unanswered questions, I would appreciate to get your kind explanation, concerning the not accepted comment. Thanks.