• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confirmed: Mainstream Media Outlets Working Together To Set Climate Agenda

bongsaway said:
Uh huh and having to evacuate two times in the last three years because of hurricanes is bull****? I live in florida so unless you do too, please don't tell me what's happening here.
Click to expand...

Clearly there are more hurricanes today. Before 1400 there are no recorded hurricanes in Florida.
 
PoS said:
Nope, the science is not solid. There's a lot of contradictory studies being ignored by the MSM.

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
Click to expand...

That list appears to have been complied by morons. Here's one paper from the list:

Climate change scenarios and long term projections

According to its abstract, the paper "explores a range of methodological issues surrounding projecting greenhouse emissions over the next century." It does not in any way disagree with the consensus on the science of AGW; it merely disputes models of future economic activity.
 
PoS said:
Covering Climate Now signs on over 170 news outlets - Columbia Journalism Review

So we're looking at an obvious agenda here- to brainwash the uninformed public based on an unproven hypothesis and hyperbolic apocalyptic predictions that the world is somehow going to end if the average temperature goes up by less than 2 degrees. And of course the lemmings are going to lap this up.
Click to expand...

Really.

It is news worthy.

When the minors got trapped in South America virtually ever news agency covered the story for weeks.

When we went to the moon, again blanket coverage.

The world looks at the climate changes and decides that it a crisis the media covers it.

You want to believe that it is a conspiracy that 170 news agencies "secretly" decided to brainwash the gullible Americans.

For what purpose, who are their leaders, how is it suppose to work, when do they claim to win, how long has it been planned, how did they convince the scientist to help, what is the goal, why did 183 countries sign the Paris accord, etc.?

The underlying question is why, what is in it for the news outlets, scientist and world leaders?
 
PoS said:
Covering Climate Now signs on over 170 news outlets - Columbia Journalism Review



So we're looking at an obvious agenda here- to brainwash the uninformed public based on an unproven hypothesis and hyperbolic apocalyptic predictions that the world is somehow going to end if the average temperature goes up by less than 2 degrees. And of course the lemmings are going to lap this up.
Click to expand...


As two conservative radio talk show hosts said this morning, it is reprehensible that climate change extremists are using children in their campaign of scaremongering,


Those two hosts pointed out that a certain former president who is beloved by liberals is building a mansion near the shoreline. Apparently, he is not worried that rising waters will flood his residence.
 
TheParser said:
As two conservative radio talk show hosts said this morning, it is reprehensible that climate change extremists are using children in their campaign of scaremongering,


Those two hosts pointed out that a certain former president who is beloved by liberals is building a mansion near the shoreline. Apparently, he is not worried that rising waters will flood his residence.
Click to expand...

They couldn't be more wrong. It is the denial of the science supporting AGW that is not just reprehensible, but downright evil. Their refusal of the deniers to countenance actions to mitigate AGW will blight the lives of our descendants for centuries to come.
 
Surface Detail said:
They couldn't be more wrong. It is the denial of the science supporting AGW that is not just reprehensible, but downright evil. Their refusal of the deniers to countenance actions to mitigate AGW will blight the lives of our descendants for centuries to come.
Click to expand...

Something had to be found to take our attention away from governments increasing debt, inflation, and cost of living. The only question is, can AGW be made an acceptable replacement?
 
[h=2]How to create panic by cherry picking the start date. Lessons from NOAA and NASA[/h]
Tony Heller does a fantastic video of the cherry picking done by US propaganda agencies formerly known as “scientific”.
It’s an excellent collection of graphs, mostly US based ones, all showing rising trends but all starting in different years. Somehow the warming effect of CO2 starts at different times in different datasets.
Unskeptical Scientists have an excuse for starting every dataset when they do, but there is no excuse for the pattern of continually picking the low point and hiding the hotter-drier past. Heller is calmly scathing about Arctic Sea Ice data. How many people know the early satellite data shows lower Arctic Sea ice in the 1970s?
It’s the pattern that matters. The US is only a small part of the surface of Earth, but it’s a large part of the propaganda. Formerly great institutions are deceiving the people who pay their salaries. A lie by omission is still a lie…

Before anyone asks: the graphs for Australia don’t necessarily look the same or start at the same date. Though the pattern of behaviour of our “scientists” is — and scary graphs usually start either in 1910 or “the 70s”. The wild heat of the 1890′s and the Federation Drought and the thousands of news stories about that might as well not exist.
Australia is on the opposite side of the Pacific, which means the opposite side of ENSO. Inasmuch as El Ninos and La Ninas drive the climate (which is quite a bit) hot and dry spells swing differently douwnunder, though there are longer underlying cycles which affect the whole globe.
 
Dick Tornado said:
Really.

It is news worthy.

When the minors got trapped in South America virtually ever news agency covered the story for weeks.

When we went to the moon, again blanket coverage.

The world looks at the climate changes and decides that it a crisis the media covers it.

You want to believe that it is a conspiracy that 170 news agencies "secretly" decided to brainwash the gullible Americans.

For what purpose, who are their leaders, how is it suppose to work, when do they claim to win, how long has it been planned, how did they convince the scientist to help, what is the goal, why did 183 countries sign the Paris accord, etc.?

The underlying question is why, what is in it for the news outlets, scientist and world leaders?
Click to expand...

Its a manufactured crisis, thats what. Just like the neocons manufactured the war on terror, now its the econuts who have manufactured the climate change crisis. They want what many people want: to get into the spotlight, money, and their 15 minutes of fame.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then they should do so in an unbiased perspective.
Click to expand...

There is no bias in saying someone who dismisses the overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change science as just a Chinese hoax is a moron. It's just reporting the facts. There is no "other side to the story".
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Clearly there are more hurricanes today. Before 1400 there are no recorded hurricanes in Florida.
Click to expand...

That's the key.

Fewer people to see them earlier in history.

No satellites, yet the ignorant indoctrinated lefties have their confirmation bias and know their view is true.
 
Surface Detail said:
That list appears to have been complied by morons. Here's one paper from the list:

Climate change scenarios and long term projections

According to its abstract, the paper "explores a range of methodological issues surrounding projecting greenhouse emissions over the next century." It does not in any way disagree with the consensus on the science of AGW; it merely disputes models of future economic activity.
Click to expand...

Wow. What ignorance.

The abstract does not say the paper does not have support for the skeptical view now, does it?
 
ataraxia said:
Nope. In fact, many of them are the same ones which were hired to deny the smoking/cancer link. Recycled hired guns, charlatans, and kooks.

https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk. By an author most charitably described as "truth-challenged."

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Oreskes Inability to Keep Her Mouth Shut & the Big Erik Conway Problem[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Russell Cook Excerpt: If Conway and Oreskes were placed under oath in courtroom appearances or in congressional hearing appearances, would their narratives be forced to line up right? That’s a good question. At a rock-bottom level, this question must be asked: if a particular set of details is as damaging to Dr…
[/FONT]
 
ataraxia said:
There is no bias in saying someone who dismisses the overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change science as just a Chinese hoax is a moron. It's just reporting the facts. There is no "other side to the story".
Click to expand...

LOL...

You're funny.

LOL...
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's the key.

Fewer people to see them earlier in history.

No satellites, yet the ignorant indoctrinated lefties have their confirmation bias and know their view is true.
Click to expand...

Climate is measured in 100s of thousands even 100s millions of years. The Jurassic period lasted around 50 million years and the earth was a lot warmer than it is today. This extremely minor warming over the last couple of hundred years is less than a blink of an eye in the climate of our planet. Our minimal measurements we have gathered is like walking out on a cool summer morning and claiming 50 degrees is the temperature it is supposed to be in August. The really arrogant part is the fact that they show just how ignorant they are by believing they know everything there is know and there will be no new discoveries that most likely will change our belief in the climate process. The fact that there is more that we don't know than what we do know means our predictions of long term climate are more than likely not accurate.

I believe we should minimize our impact but not to the point that we stifle progress.
 
ataraxia said:
There is no bias in saying someone who dismisses the overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change science as just a Chinese hoax is a moron. It's just reporting the facts. There is no "other side to the story".
Click to expand...

It was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe at one time and all the stars in the heavens circled our planet.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
It was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe at one time and all the stars in the heavens circled our planet.
Click to expand...

Sure. Science always changes. You always have to try to keep up. This is the latest science.
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. By an author most charitably described as "truth-challenged."

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/18/oreskes-inability-to-keep-her-mouth-shut-the-big-erik-conway-problem/"]
oreskes.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Oreskes Inability to Keep Her Mouth Shut & the Big Erik Conway Problem[/h][FONT="]Guest essay by Russell Cook Excerpt: If Conway and Oreskes were placed under oath in courtroom appearances or in congressional hearing appearances, would their narratives be forced to line up right? That’s a good question. At a rock-bottom level, this question must be asked: if a particular set of details is as damaging to Dr…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

WUWT again? :roll:

I looked through your article, and have no idea what it is trying to say. Could you summarize it in one or two sentences?
 
ataraxia said:
WUWT again? :roll:

I looked through your article, and have no idea what it is trying to say. Could you summarize it in one or two sentences?
Click to expand...

It's right up front: Oreskes is a liar.

[FONT=&quot]In telling the tale of inadvertently discovering how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted, a person might be viewed as a hero or heroine, and it is understandably forgivable if the hero/heroine has a memory lapse about exactly when this event happened, or about minor narrative details surrounding it. But when the tale takes on an increasing appearance of being a fabrication designed to make the person look like a hero/heroine, unbiased objective thinkers will start to wonder why there would be any necessity for that kind of embellishment, and they might also wonder if there is something inherently wrong with the core of the tale.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’ve already detailed in my July 26, 2016 blog post how Naomi Oreskes’ own written words fatally undermined the timeline of her repeated stories on how her then-future Merchants of Doubt co-author alerted her to critics of her 2004 Science paper. Now, contradictory spoken words from Oreskes and her co-author make that dicey tale incrementally worse.[/FONT]
 
PoS said:
Its a manufactured crisis, thats what. Just like the neocons manufactured the war on terror, now its the econuts who have manufactured the climate change crisis. They want what many people want: to get into the spotlight, money, and their 15 minutes of fame.
Click to expand...

Oh that makes so much sense.

Fabricating scientific data internationally.

Changing the outcome of independent experiments on worldwide scale.

Tampering with satellite equipment while they are in orbit.

Yes that seems so logical now that you mention it.

bus.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
It's right up front: Oreskes is a liar.

[FONT="][I]In telling the tale of inadvertently discovering how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted, a person might be viewed as a hero or heroine, and it is understandably forgivable if the hero/heroine has a memory lapse about exactly when this event happened, or about minor narrative details surrounding it. But when the tale takes on an increasing appearance of being a fabrication designed to make the person [I]look[/I] like a hero/heroine, unbiased objective thinkers will start to wonder why there would be any necessity for that kind of embellishment, and they might also wonder if there is something inherently wrong with the core of the tale.[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]I’ve already detailed in my July 26, 2016 blog post how Naomi Oreskes’ own written words fatally undermined the timeline of her repeated stories on how her then-future Merchants of Doubt co-author alerted her to critics of her 2004 Science paper. Now, contradictory spoken words from Oreskes and her co-author make that dicey tale incrementally worse.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I am trying to read through this and understand what the outrage is all about. It just sounds to me like someone is really trying very hard...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom