The establishment press is making a big deal out of the fact that President Trump has not been and will not be personally invited to a climate summit in Paris in December. Both the media and the folks running the summit, where the utterly unoriginal theme is "Make Our Planet Great Again," should be thanking the U.S. for its outsized contribution — but to be clear, unnecessary, given that the link between "global warming" and CO2 increases has not been definitively established — to carbon dioxide reduction.
CNN New Day co-host Chris Cuomo always does his best to push climate change propaganda. On Tuesday morning, he had the following to say: “he president has called climate change everything from a hoax invented by the Chinese, to not really understood, and maybe there's something to it. He's vacillated at best. It's become a little bit of a pet for the right fringe of his party playing with the realities of science.”
A peer-reviewed research report published last week by three highly qualified researchers with the agreement of seven others similarly accomplished charges that the entities reporting historical and current worldwide temperatures have adjusted their data to show global warming which has not actually occurred. The trio has concluded that this data is "not a valid representation of reality," and that as a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 "Endangerment Finding" — essentially that global warming has been occurring and continues to accelerate due to human activity — is, in the study's words, "invalidated." The establishment media's silence has been deafening.
Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press and those pushing for radical wealth redistribution in the name of "climate change" just can't past their hysteria over President Donald Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords. Trump's move reversed former President Barack Obama's unilateral decision to sign on. Borenstein's latest exercise in hyperbole on Thursday gave free publicity to a study which absurdly pretends to project the economic impact of alleged global warming over 80 years out. The study's authors appear not to realize that the allegedly frightening impacts they're projecting aren't intimidating at all.
On Friday (appearing in Saturday's print edition), the New York Times published its first column by Bret Stephens, the former Wall Street Journal columnist recently hired as a "conservative" voice. Its theme was that the political "hyperbole" about climate change doesn't match the underlying science — even if one trusts the underlying science. That alone was enough to send journalists into unhinged and often profane orbit.
Meteorologist Eric Holthaus, who has appeared a couple of times on these pages in the past (more on that shortly), is in therapy.
Well, okay, lots of people are. But get a load of what has driven Holthaus into therapy: "I know many ppl feel deep despair about climate, especially post-election." And it's because of this, "There are days where I literally can't work," and "We don't deserve this planet."
Andrew Ross Sorkin is considered a financial guru - a savant of all things business. So how is he so very, very wrong about government teat specialist Elon Musk?: “Donald Trump: Please think about calling Elon Musk….Mr. Musk…(is) the real-life Tony Stark behind Tesla, the electric car company; SolarCity, the solar power provider; and SpaceX, the rocket company….”
Actually, Elon Musk isn’t the Tony Stark of anything. And the only person behind Tesla and Solar City is a government bureaucrat - writing Musk yet another government check.
It's hard to imagine a press report accomplishing the following three things at once: disrespecting U.S. servicemen, demonstrating fever-swamp presumptive support for the one-world "climate change" agenda, and vastly overstating a 2.4-mile atoll's significance to "native tradition."
In a Tuesday morning dispatch, the Associated Press's Josh Lederman, in covering President Barack Obama's visit to Midway Island, was up to the task.
When Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri was chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the networks relied on him to warn about the threat of climate change to planet earth.
Now that he is under fire for allegedly sexually assaulting a female colleague, the networks want nothing to do with the scandal. The Telegraph reported on March 1, that the 75-year-old Pachauri was formally charged with sexually assaulting a female employee at a think tank he ran in India. Allegations like that could undermine Pachauri’s credibility and hurt any issue he was connected to, including the media’s much-loved climate change agenda.
On Saturday, conservative Australian columnist Miranda Devine revealed that an Australian engineer claims to have "fixed two errors" in "the basic climate model which underpins all climate science."
The person making this claim was a "climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office," and has "six degrees in applied mathematics." What he found is that "the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought." While some U.S. blogs have begun to relay the news (examples here, here and here), the nation's establishment press is ignoring it.
The news networks failed to report on the resignation of top UN climate official Rajendra K. Pachauri after he faced yet another scandal. Pachauri resigned after being accused of sexual harassment.
As the chairman of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) beginning in 2002, Pachauri was a visible and controversial proponent of climate alarmism. The IPCC has been a favorite source for the networks catastrophic climate change claims.
As of 5:30 p.m. ET today, a search on "Koningstein" at the Associated Press's national web site returned no results.
That's an indication that the wire service's globaloney-believing pseudo-science reporters are still trying to figure out how to respond to a November 18 article in the IEEE Spectrum by Ross Koningstein & David Fork, a pair of Google engineers tasked by the company in 2007 to "tackle the world’s climate and energy problems." The pair, whose active work on the project at Google ended in 2011, have concluded, as succinctly stated in the UK Register (HT Instapundit), that renewable energy sources "will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists."