Friday, January 29, 2010

Washington Post and MSNBC cite National Wildlife Federation as source on existence of climate change

Washington Post: "This winter's extreme weather -- with heavy snowfall in some places and unusually low temperatures --
  • is in fact
a sign of how climate change disrupts long-standing patterns, according to a Why doesn't the Washington Post report the collapse of the entire man-caused 'climate change' scam? Including that the $100 billion demand for climate reparations in Copenhagen was based on nothing, no published report, nothing substantiated, and made up just for stealing? Doesn't fraud and stealing billions of dollars rate as news?
  • Why would the Washington Post cry that there's a "wealth of scientific evidence" to support (man-made) climate change (actually they leave out the words "man made" in this article, allowing a reader to think any kind of climate change for any reason is enough to turn this country, its citizens, their finite efforts and time over to a bunch of equatorial dictators, unaccountable UN grifters and billionaire hedge fund scam artists)
  • when there is a 'wealth' of recent scientific information to the contrary? Legitimate press have given evidence that the Nobel Prize winning climate report is replete with fake data.
The BBC reported on 12/5/09 that UN Climate Chief, Nobel Prize Winning RJ Pachauri, was told by scientists of multiple mistakes about Himalayas claims in his report. Pachauri brushed them off, calling one claim
  • "voodoo science."
  • This should have had enormous impact on the Copenhagen summit and every day since. Did the Washington Post make this scandal front page news? Could this not be considered a "wealth of evidence" of which citizens should be made aware? At the very least, if the Washington Post is truly concerned about the earth's atmosphere, informing the world of this fraud might have caused some to stay home
  • instead of spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere with harmful jet travel.
As reported on Watt's Up With That, use of citations from another wildlife group, the World Wildlife Federation, has cast additional doubt on the entire United Nations Nobel Prize winning report. The actual National Wildlife Federation report cited by the Washington Post is reviewed on Watt's Up With That by a reviewer from Climate Audit.
  • The point has been made by others, this matter should not be decided by advocacy groups and a round the clock spray of media propaganda. We are being urged:

"...to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking

  • the work of the prophets predicting our doom
  • should we refuse." (Marc Sheppard, American Thinker) via WUWT
The Washington Post article does not discuss recent documented false statements and non-scientific procedures in the UN Nobel Prize Winning Climate Report claiming man caused CO2 was harming the planet. Scientists have come forward saying they knew conclusions were erroneous.
  • The Washington Post's only concern was that the public's perception of colder than usual weather might make it harder for Obama to pass global warming related legislation. I am curious why the Washington Post is considered anything other than a bulky public relations newsletter. ed.


Stumbleupon StumbleUpon


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home