Sunday, November 29, 2009

Climate fear-mongering in the St.Catharines Standard

above: Nov.26, 2009 - more climate-change Copenhaganist global-warming fear-mongering found in Niagara's St.Catharines Standard - especially the smooth, deceptive link between speculative 'science' and the smear about Harper at the end. Well done.

You can just see local global warming fear-mongerers Liberal MPP Jim Bradley (here) and St.Catharines mayor Brian McMullan...
or this classic piece of St.Catharines Standard/Brian McMullan mutual brown-nosing
...their heads in unison, screaming
We told you so! Run for the hills! The pipelines are rupturing! The pipelines are exploding! We're going to drown in floods of oil and melting glaciers!! Praise to thee, o wonderous prophets, Stephane Dion and David Suzuki! O Glory that is thine Great Seer and Saviour Al Gore, we beseech thee: save us... SAVE US...

Propaganda - what propaganda?!
The "science" is "settled", we're to believe!!

What you won't read in the St.Catharines Standard are perspectives such as these (update note - over time, since 2009, a lot of these links have changed):

Of course, the Standard can print whatever they like - "whatever" being the key concept.

But, should politicians Jim Bradley and Brian McMullan freely spout their personal climate alarmism while embedding it in skewed public policies? And should the local media simply let them get away with it, unchallenged?


Tiffany said...

You must have missed Monte Solberg's column The Standard published during Copenhagen. It would have been right up your alley. I'll find the link and send it to you. Meanwhile, this Lorrie Goldstein column in The Standard might make you smile. See, both sides after all.

R.Bobak said...

Thanks again for some of your great links - of course I saw Solberg's and Goldstein's recent columns; what I didn't see was any Climategate-related column from the St.Catharines Standard's supposed green team. Why was that?
What are they paying you for - to spread GreenFear based pseudo-science?
To spread only one side of this un-settled AGW story, which has always been more about political science than climate science?
You've had enough time (and paying readers have patiently given you more than enough time) to be fair in the scope of your Standard column - but, if this was not your intended goal, I regret I misunderstood your aims, and also that I wasted time reading your spin.
I hope the St.Catharines Standard can find additional writers who will contribute specifically to the "Green Team" column; it's not enough to simply point to Solberg or Goldstein and exclaim 'See: we DO have a token other perspective'.
The Green Team column itself ought to provide more perspective; if you can't do that; then your editors should find others who can bridge your spin-gap.
Anyone who is not interested primarily in spin would immediately realize the scientific absurdity of presenting "both sides", however, in the interim, I should hope that the ultimate goal is not spin, but truth.