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:

Los telelevidentes de Univisión, si se les brinda un debate pleno y honesto que presenta ambos lados de la cuestión, son capaces de determinar por sí mismos si la actividad humana ha contribuido al cambio climático en semejante medida que haga falta billones de dólares en reglamentaciones, y si tales reglamentaciones justifican su efecto inevitable en nuestra economía y en sus bolsillos.

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.

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 New York Times' coverage of the international climate change summit in Paris remained on an aggressive boil, as Coral Davenport and Gardiner Harris' report from France Tuesday, "Citing Urgency, World Leaders Converge on France for Climate Meeting," hit the same set of alarmist notes Davenport did in her previous story from Paris. And Justin Gillis, the paper's most alarmist environmental reporter, accused libertarians and conservatives of bad faith, taking funding from Big Oil, and "cherry-picking" data under the headline "Why do people question climate change? -- Hint: ideology."