On two occasions during CNN’s live coverage Monday night previewing the sixth Republican presidential debate, CNN political commentator Michael Smerconish attempted to paint the issue of climate change and the deal reached in Paris as posing a “down ballot concern” for the GOP and causing “brand damage” since the party has largely rejected the ideal and declined to embrace the issue as a whole.
Environment
In what may be the worst series of attacks by the liberal media on Ted Cruz, Monday’s Nightly Show on Comedy Central featured host Larry Wilmore declaring that the “creepy” Cruz may be mentally disturbed with guest Aida Rodriguez firmly asserting that, if elected, Cruz’s agenda would be to “do everything the KKK does.”

MSNBC's Tony Dokoupil acted more like a left-wing environmentalist than a journalist on Saturday's Weekends With Alex Witt, as he reported on the Paris climate change talks. Dokoupil trumpeted how "it's really like a Mars lander kind of moment — a NASA moonshot moment." The correspondent later touted how "history will be made" if the talks conclude successfully, and added, "I can't wait to see how it turns out, because there's going to be celebration if it's successful; and there could really be rioting in the streets here if it fails."

Imagine a Republican or conservative governor boasting of his or her use of "the coercive power of government" to accomplish center-right policy goals. The political and media backlash would be furious — and justified.
Such statist rhetoric is becoming ever more commonplace on the left, and is rising to ever higher political levels. The establishment press is mostly ignoring this development, and usually omits related inflammatory assertions from its coverage. Statements relating to "climate change" have especially been reinforcing David Horowitz's old adage that "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out" for several months. Last week in Paris, California Governor Jerry Brown let his inner totalitarian out several times. A video of one such example follows the jump.

Apparently a generation of "journalists" has been raised to believe that the matter of human-caused global warming is "settled science," and that anyone who doubts the agenda-driven, redistributionist "climate change" movement is an enemy of civilization. Additionally, these people clearly don't understand the orchestrated, false-drama nature of diplomatic gatherings such as the one in Paris which just concluded with yet another "breakthrough" but non-binding "agreement" to reduce carbon emissions.
Thus, it's disconcerting, but not at all hard to believe, that these ignorant, gullible children disguised as discerning adults wildly cheered the announcement of the aforementioned agreement as if an athlete on one of their favorite teams just delivered a last-second victory:
Want to tell people that they are hurting children around the globe?
Use a pop star and a fake newscast to soften up the guilt trip.
In a video reminiscent of a bad episode of “Who Wore it Better,” pop superstar Katy Perry channelled her inner Anchorman in a burgundy pantsuit while she “forecasted” the climate threat in a video for UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund.) UNICEF, a humanitarian program of the UN that provides assistance to mothers and children in developing countries, advocates for a strong legally binding global agreement to be the result of the Paris conference.
Touting her softball Wednesday sit-down with President Obama that aired on Friday’s CBS This Morning, co-host Norah O’Donnell gushed over the commander-in-chief’s “effort to take historic action” on climate change and how that “could affect his legacy.”

Biofuels should serve as an instructive lesson for negotiators in Paris, because they are proof that not all energy sources work as well as anticipated. But journalists are unlikely to remind them or the public.
The early 2000s were the heyday of good press for biofuels. Major newspapers like The New York Times ran stories about Willie Nelson’s biodiesel startup and individuals converting their vehicles into “veggie” cars to run on french fry grease and other forms of biodiesels. The Washington Post even editorialized about people “dreaming big” plans like replacing hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline) with biodiesels.

One-sided and overwhelmingly biased coverage of climate change wasn’t enough for the news industry publication Columbia Journalism Review.
On Dec. 1, CJR contributing editor Cristine Russell actually claimed “climate change has often languished in news coverage ...”

The matter of renewable “energy” sources is certain to be part of Paris summit negotiations, since they are an essential part of the goal of lowering carbon emissions. Ahead of the Paris meeting, one British Labor Party politician argued for a “zero” emissions target, rather than already discussed severe 80-percent cuts.
However, the proponents of such cuts rarely acknowledge they are an unrealistic, maybe even impossible goal. And the liberal news media refuse to expose the truth. In contrast to the news coverage of fossil fuels and nuclear power, reporting on “renewable” sources like wind and solar power is often positive.

The climate conference in Paris hadn’t even begun, before climate alarmists were warning a far more stringent emissions agreement was necessary.
British Labor Party politician Ed Milliband wrote for The Guardian on Nov. 22, that the Paris summit “can save the planet,” but not with the emissions pledges that are expected. Heralding the falling costs of solar and wind, Milliband claimed zero emissions are necessary and could be done “without closing down our economy.”

Certain types of energy are certain targets for the 190 governments’ representatives gathering in Paris this week and from green activists surrounding the melee.
The goal of the U.N. climate conference in Paris, known as COP21, is to get an international agreement on reducing carbon emissions, out of fear that climate change is a global threat. But the agenda of some developing nations to make rich nations like the U.S. pay them billions of dollars to fund a transition to “clean energy” reveals one reason clean energy goals aren’t realistic.
