Source; https://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/forum/topics/how-can-rational-people-believe-them
“Another Ice Age could soon be upon the world… A trend shows no indication of reversing.”—Time magazine, 1974
“Noel Brown, is senior environmental official for the United Nations, predicted entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels by the year 2000.”— Associated Press, 1989.
“42 top American and European investigators examining climate change determined that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than may hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”—George Kukla & Robert Matthews, prominent scientists, letter to President Nixon warning of a global cooling crisis.
“The W. Side Highway in New York would be underwater by 2019 because of rising sea levels cause by global warming.”—Famed climatologist Jim Hanson, 1989.
The UN’s IPCC executive summary in Chapter 10 states that: “the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers. Those other drivers include population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, meeting type of governing system, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development, [such as cancel culture and critical theory implementation] Will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”
People tend to believe and trust the chosen media in areas outside their expertise. It’s part of the Gell-Mann Annesia effect—you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story on a subject you know well then read the rest of the publication as if it was somehow more accurate.
If the lying-liberal media were even remotely close to being a truly unbiased source of information, they would at the very least point out the abysmal, dumpster level track record of climate doomsday prognostications. Of course they do not, so tens of millions gullible Americans are fooled every year.
Nevertheless, climate alarmism has come to dominate US politics, especially among liberals/democrats. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, they offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make a little mention of any doubts there might be. Imagine instead headlines like record high temperatures are becoming rare, hurricane show no sign of human influence or global warming won’t have much impact on the economy, even though they’re a lot closer to what the science actually says.
There is even a new category of journalists that can be called "climate reporters.” Their mission is largely predetermined; if they don’t have a narrative of climate change doom to report, they don’t get heard. The general lack of knowledge of what the science actually says, the drama of extreme weather events in their heart rendering impact on people, and pressures within the climate crisis industry all work against balance coverage in the media
Apparently it is difficult for people in the media to understand what’s actually written in the assessment reports. Or has the lying-liberal media has forgotten that their job is not to be an arm of the liberal/democrat establishment, no matter how much they love climate-alarmism, or the democratic Party, no matter how much they hate fossil-fuels, Trump, or the GOP. They’ve spent years torching their credibility. They earned distrust from their propaganda. What a dangerous shame.
In that vein, The Associated Press (AP) is passing off press releases and blog posts from climate change activists and groups and those who fund them, as if they were actual, factual news stories. It is accepting an $8 million grant from 5 prominent Big-Business foundations known for promoting and backing organizations that promote climate alarmism. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation are funding the hiring of more than two dozen journalists. "This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story," said AP senior vice president and executive editor Julie Pace in the press release announcing the grant program. I’ll bet!
Commenting on AP’s decision to take millions of dollars from climate-woke foundations to fund climate reporting, Climate Depot said: "The media’s coverage of climate change has sunk to a new journalistic low. … The mainstream media, led by the Associated Press, is now publicly admitting they are just phoning in their coverage on climate change." Led by the Rockefeller Foundation and others, the AP will be parroting what the ideological activist groups’ funding pays for, while actual news will be tossed aside.
Not precisely understanding the subject about which one is talking and the way one is talking about it, none of us can reason, talk, or choose well about subjects we do not first understand. To claim otherwise is to a common sense. Hence there will be no attempt to present a patina of objectivity, balance, or unbiased news by the AP when it comes to "climate change.” The AP has very publicly ceased to be a legitimate news gathering and reporting organization, at least in reporting on climate change. It has become a bought and paid-for shill for the environmental movement, spreading climate alarm around the world(1). Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, the whole aim of liberal politics is to keep the populace aroused with alarm by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, mostly of them imaginary.
Commenting on AP’s decision to take millions of dollars from climate-woke foundations to fund climate reporting, Climate Depot said: "The media’s coverage of climate change has sunk to a new journalistic low. … The mainstream media, led by the Associated Press, is now publicly admitting they are just phoning in their coverage on climate change." Led by the Rockefeller Foundation and others, the AP will be parroting what the ideological activist groups’ funding pays for, while actual news will be tossed aside.
Not precisely understanding the subject about which one is talking and the way one is talking about it, none of us can reason, talk, or choose well about subjects we do not first understand. To claim otherwise is to a common sense. Hence there will be no attempt to present a patina of objectivity, balance, or unbiased news by the AP when it comes to "climate change.” The AP has very publicly ceased to be a legitimate news gathering and reporting organization, at least in reporting on climate change. It has become a bought and paid-for shill for the environmental movement, spreading climate alarm around the world(1). Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, the whole aim of liberal politics is to keep the populace aroused with alarm by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, mostly of them imaginary.
Can anyone honestly believe AP will report objectively on climate matters when climate change alarm foundations are giving it millions of dollars? This is especially egregious when evidence indicates a climate crisis is not in the offing and bad weather events are not extreme in the context of history and recent data. To do so would be to bite the climate-woke hand feeding them. Reader, beware.
Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism finds television news sources play up disaster scenarios and downplay issues of scientific uncertainty, benefits of global warming, and opportunities for solving the problems.
“It is clear that media, politicians, and often the assessment reports themselves blatantly misrepresent what the sign says about climate and catastrophes. Those failures indict the scientist who write into casually review reports, the reporter to uncritically repeat them, the editors who allow that to happen, the activists and organizations to fan the flames of alarm, and the experts whose public silence endorses the deception. The constant repetition of these and many other climate fallacies turns them into accepted beliefs...Not some secret cabal, but rather a self reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests...Activism masquerading as the science is pernicious.”— Stephen E Koonin
1. In the paper, statistician and philosopher of science William M. Briggs, Ph.D. shows most claims attributing specific extreme weather events and trends in extreme weather and temperatures are made by researchers comparing computer simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. The problem with such claims is the simulations are only as good as the assumptions built into the models and our understanding of the full panoply of factors that influence climate and how they interact. "We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity... Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like...In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong," Briggs says. Attribution studies assume the weather has been getting worse, yet empirical observations refute this claim, Briggs notes. "These studies assume either (a) perfect forecasting models, or (b) known, uncertainty-free causes of climate change," Briggs writes. "Neither condition holds. Because of this, attribution claims are far too certain or are wrong. They should not be used in any policy decisions."
Further reading:
Replies