St.Catharines Standard reporter Matthew Van Dongen continued his pre-Copenhaganist assignment as local Niagara climate fearmonger and Greenfear-enabler, this time in his laughable, one-sided, biased piece "Environmentalists call out Canada on climate change" (St.Catharines Standard, Dec.10, 2009):
"Jane Hanlon hopes bickering world nations can reach a carbon- cutting agreement at climate talks this week in Copenhagen.
But failing that, she hopes Canada is benched for not being a team player.
"I hope we're slapped with economic sanctions until we agree to cut our carbon emissions for real," said Hanlon, who heads the local advocacy group Climate Action Niagara.
"We seem to have no intention of living up to our previous Kyoto (emission-cutting) obligations, let alone setting new goals ... it makes me embarrassed to be a Canadian."
The climate summit, which began Dec. 7, is meant to find a successor treaty to the Kyoto Accord among 192 countries. Most of the debate revolves around setting binding targets on carbon emissions, thought by a majority of scientists to be responsible for a harmful warming of the atmosphere.
The federal Conservatives aim to lower Canada's greenhouse gases 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, with the U. S. pitching a similar target.
However, Canada faces criticism from environmentalists and even other countries for not doing enough.
The EU, for example, has pitched reducing harmful gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels.
Well-known Lincoln environmentalist Liz Benneian said she'd like to see Canada be a leader in the battle against global warming, "not a global embarrassment."
"We're quickly losing time here," said Benneian, who noted scientists are already finding evidence of damaging climate change around the world. "It's a simple question we have to answer: do we love our children enough to leave them a livable world?"
Before the Copenhagen conference even began, several world leaders suggested a firm commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be unlikely at the summit.
But the conference runs until Dec. 18 and both Benneian and Hanlon still hold out hope for a wide-reaching agreement.
United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Wednesday Canada was "negotiating very constructively." Canada also decided to send to the summit ambassador and former Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, a strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord.
Milica Njegovan believes home-front pressure is forcing politicians to take the summit seriously.
"So many international groups are engaged, so many small movements are working in concert at home and in Copenhagen," said the co-ordinator for the Ontario Public Interest Research Group at Brock University.
"I think that's fabulous and I think it really is making a difference."
*
Ahh, Jane Hanlon and Liz Benneian - now there's a couple of embarrassing local GreenFear-spreading climatalarmists for you - reporter/enabler Van Dongen simply regurgitates without question the skewed mantra that these people spout. Van Dongen couldn't be bothered to give any background about or ask any questions of OPIRG, either.
(note: this kind of phony reporting is an example of what would be clearly revealed as "fake news", years later, in the age of President Trump. The spin, the baked-in bias, the non-attempt at fairness... are all in evidence here, all designed from the get-go to provide as phony - fake - unchallenged narrative.
This wasn't news - it was pure propaganda.
Van Dongen was so lazy as a "reporter", he didn't even try to 'phone it in'!! This was even lazier than 'phoning something in'! It's like he didn't even move a journalistic muscle, nor a brain cell, in 'writing' this GreenTrash! He didn't even bother a lame attempt, a token try, with a cursory question, or show any modicum of inquisitiveness - - - wow - - this was just garbage; a lazy, lousy, corrupt, phony, bent piece of klimate krap fake news.
Hell: Van Dongen wasn't a 'reporter' at all, he was just a stenographer assigned by the Liberal campaign office known as the St.Catharines Standard to regurgitate GreenFear Klimate Krap.
This was a standard, normal procedure at Liberal-friendly media outlets throughout Canada. This Klimate Krap, catering to Jim Bradley sycophants, was all-too-common in Niagara.
It's not surprising that a bitter Hanlon would spew the line that she wishes Canadians should suffer economic harm if we don't bow to her climate cabal's warmist views.
Hanlon and Benneian may believe that they are spreading hope and change; but they are infecting us with a deluded hoax and its resultant pain. It's like ClimateGate is irrelevant to the agents of warmist propaganda - or to the reporters who should be asking questions about it.
Compare Van Dongen's sorry greenie ass-licking piece to Lorne Gunter's column here, "The Skeleton of Climate Change" (National Post, Dec.9, 2009)
Compare Van Dongen's blatant lack of journalistic pretention in his Hanlon ad/thinly-disguised 'news report', to, say, Bret Stephens' story here, "The Totalities of Copenhagen" (Wall Street Journal, Dec.7, 2009).
Stephens writes of the underlying totalitarian impulse of the global warming true believers:
"This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar. Consider:
• Revolutionary fervor: There's a distinct tendency among climate alarmists toward uncompromising radicalism, a hatred of "bourgeois" values, a disgust with democratic practices. So President Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% from current levels by 2050, levels not seen since the 1870s—in effect, the Industrial Revolution in reverse. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, insists that "our lifestyles are unsustainable." Al Gore gets crowds going by insisting that "civil disobedience has a role to play" in strong-arming governments to do his bidding. (This from the man who once sought to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.)
• Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet "new man." At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.
• Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller "The World Without Us," environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it's no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that "no human is genuinely 'carbon neutral'"—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.
• Intolerance: Why did the scientists at the heart of Climategate go to such lengths to hide or massage the data if truth needs no defense? Why launch campaigns of obstruction and vilification against gadfly Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick if they were such intellectual laughingstocks? It is the unvarying habit of the totalitarian mind to treat any manner of disagreement as prima facie evidence of bad faith and treason.
• Monocausalism: For the anti-Semite, the problems of the world can invariably be ascribed to the Jews; for the Communist, to the capitalists. And as the list above suggests, global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem.
• Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here?
• Grandiosity: In "SuperFreakonomics," Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner give favorable treatment to an idea to cool the earth by pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, something that could be done cheaply and quickly. Maybe it would work, or maybe it wouldn't. But one suspects that the main reason the chapter was the subject of hysterical criticism is that it didn't propose to deal with global warming by re-engineering the world economy. The penchant for monumentalism is yet another constant feature of the totalitarian mind.
Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play - and that, comrades, is no accident."
*
Is it an accident that St.Catharines Standard reporter Matthew Van Dongen is unable, or, unwilling, to bring himself to present an unbiased view of his greenshevik-infected subjects?
This was no accident: this type of GreenFear propaganda was purposefully sought out and moulded by the Standard's editors to fit the St. Catharines Standard's "it's all settled" Liberal green agenda.
This story was totalitarian propaganda, pure green fascism, promulgated willingly in Niagara by the phony "free press".
*
"Jane Hanlon hopes bickering world nations can reach a carbon- cutting agreement at climate talks this week in Copenhagen.
But failing that, she hopes Canada is benched for not being a team player.
"I hope we're slapped with economic sanctions until we agree to cut our carbon emissions for real," said Hanlon, who heads the local advocacy group Climate Action Niagara.
"We seem to have no intention of living up to our previous Kyoto (emission-cutting) obligations, let alone setting new goals ... it makes me embarrassed to be a Canadian."
The climate summit, which began Dec. 7, is meant to find a successor treaty to the Kyoto Accord among 192 countries. Most of the debate revolves around setting binding targets on carbon emissions, thought by a majority of scientists to be responsible for a harmful warming of the atmosphere.
The federal Conservatives aim to lower Canada's greenhouse gases 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, with the U. S. pitching a similar target.
However, Canada faces criticism from environmentalists and even other countries for not doing enough.
The EU, for example, has pitched reducing harmful gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels.
Well-known Lincoln environmentalist Liz Benneian said she'd like to see Canada be a leader in the battle against global warming, "not a global embarrassment."
"We're quickly losing time here," said Benneian, who noted scientists are already finding evidence of damaging climate change around the world. "It's a simple question we have to answer: do we love our children enough to leave them a livable world?"
Before the Copenhagen conference even began, several world leaders suggested a firm commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be unlikely at the summit.
But the conference runs until Dec. 18 and both Benneian and Hanlon still hold out hope for a wide-reaching agreement.
United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Wednesday Canada was "negotiating very constructively." Canada also decided to send to the summit ambassador and former Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, a strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord.
Milica Njegovan believes home-front pressure is forcing politicians to take the summit seriously.
"So many international groups are engaged, so many small movements are working in concert at home and in Copenhagen," said the co-ordinator for the Ontario Public Interest Research Group at Brock University.
"I think that's fabulous and I think it really is making a difference."
*
Ahh, Jane Hanlon and Liz Benneian - now there's a couple of embarrassing local GreenFear-spreading climatalarmists for you - reporter/enabler Van Dongen simply regurgitates without question the skewed mantra that these people spout. Van Dongen couldn't be bothered to give any background about or ask any questions of OPIRG, either.
(note: this kind of phony reporting is an example of what would be clearly revealed as "fake news", years later, in the age of President Trump. The spin, the baked-in bias, the non-attempt at fairness... are all in evidence here, all designed from the get-go to provide as phony - fake - unchallenged narrative.
This wasn't news - it was pure propaganda.
Van Dongen was so lazy as a "reporter", he didn't even try to 'phone it in'!! This was even lazier than 'phoning something in'! It's like he didn't even move a journalistic muscle, nor a brain cell, in 'writing' this GreenTrash! He didn't even bother a lame attempt, a token try, with a cursory question, or show any modicum of inquisitiveness - - - wow - - this was just garbage; a lazy, lousy, corrupt, phony, bent piece of klimate krap fake news.
Hell: Van Dongen wasn't a 'reporter' at all, he was just a stenographer assigned by the Liberal campaign office known as the St.Catharines Standard to regurgitate GreenFear Klimate Krap.
This was a standard, normal procedure at Liberal-friendly media outlets throughout Canada. This Klimate Krap, catering to Jim Bradley sycophants, was all-too-common in Niagara.
It's not surprising that a bitter Hanlon would spew the line that she wishes Canadians should suffer economic harm if we don't bow to her climate cabal's warmist views.
Hanlon and Benneian may believe that they are spreading hope and change; but they are infecting us with a deluded hoax and its resultant pain. It's like ClimateGate is irrelevant to the agents of warmist propaganda - or to the reporters who should be asking questions about it.
Compare Van Dongen's sorry greenie ass-licking piece to Lorne Gunter's column here, "The Skeleton of Climate Change" (National Post, Dec.9, 2009)
Compare Van Dongen's blatant lack of journalistic pretention in his Hanlon ad/thinly-disguised 'news report', to, say, Bret Stephens' story here, "The Totalities of Copenhagen" (Wall Street Journal, Dec.7, 2009).
Stephens writes of the underlying totalitarian impulse of the global warming true believers:
"This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar. Consider:
• Revolutionary fervor: There's a distinct tendency among climate alarmists toward uncompromising radicalism, a hatred of "bourgeois" values, a disgust with democratic practices. So President Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% from current levels by 2050, levels not seen since the 1870s—in effect, the Industrial Revolution in reverse. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, insists that "our lifestyles are unsustainable." Al Gore gets crowds going by insisting that "civil disobedience has a role to play" in strong-arming governments to do his bidding. (This from the man who once sought to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.)
• Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet "new man." At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.
• Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller "The World Without Us," environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it's no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that "no human is genuinely 'carbon neutral'"—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.
• Intolerance: Why did the scientists at the heart of Climategate go to such lengths to hide or massage the data if truth needs no defense? Why launch campaigns of obstruction and vilification against gadfly Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick if they were such intellectual laughingstocks? It is the unvarying habit of the totalitarian mind to treat any manner of disagreement as prima facie evidence of bad faith and treason.
• Monocausalism: For the anti-Semite, the problems of the world can invariably be ascribed to the Jews; for the Communist, to the capitalists. And as the list above suggests, global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem.
• Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here?
• Grandiosity: In "SuperFreakonomics," Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner give favorable treatment to an idea to cool the earth by pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, something that could be done cheaply and quickly. Maybe it would work, or maybe it wouldn't. But one suspects that the main reason the chapter was the subject of hysterical criticism is that it didn't propose to deal with global warming by re-engineering the world economy. The penchant for monumentalism is yet another constant feature of the totalitarian mind.
Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play - and that, comrades, is no accident."
*
Is it an accident that St.Catharines Standard reporter Matthew Van Dongen is unable, or, unwilling, to bring himself to present an unbiased view of his greenshevik-infected subjects?
This was no accident: this type of GreenFear propaganda was purposefully sought out and moulded by the Standard's editors to fit the St. Catharines Standard's "it's all settled" Liberal green agenda.
This story was totalitarian propaganda, pure green fascism, promulgated willingly in Niagara by the phony "free press".
*
No comments:
Post a Comment