There was another slick piece of GreenFear in the Niagara press, this time courtesy of Paul Forsyth, (Nov.22, 2012, Niagara This Week, "We're living in the blue economy: study") who eagerly wrote of Diane Dupont, a Brock University professor, who "said climate change is no longer disputable: global warming is here to stay, and it will inevitably have impacts such as more unpredictable storms and droughts..."
Are we all frightened yet, by the threat of climate change?!
You see: IT'S ALL SETTLED!!
Just as Al Gore and his friends have instructed us to believe!!
And so, obediently, Paul Forsyth... (reporter, or GreenFear-enabler? Discuss, class) ...didn't bother to ask any questions or challenge these repetitive old green canards.
Was Forsyth told by his editors not to question his subject's claims? Was Dupont simply preaching to the choir, counting on Forsyth and Niagara This Week to amplify the GreenFear agenda, to bring it back to its pre-Climategate glory-day peaks?!
Is it because Dupont's claim, that "climate change is no longer disputable", also happens to be Forsyth's own belief - so, why question it?! Is this reporting?!
Forsyth didn't bother to provide any other sources to comment on Dupont's claims, either. Why?! Is it because Dupont's claims meet the default position of the reporter - yeah: who could question 'climate change'? It's all settled!! All of it!!!! Why even bother getting another source's comments - right?!!
Is this also the default position of Niagara This Week's editors - that "climate change" (whatever that even means?!) is indisputable, so, accepting a one-sided story on this issue from Forsyth is just natural?!
Forsyth didn't even bother (and his lazy, biased editors didn't bother, either) to define what Dupont's meaning of "climate change" is; what Dupont's meaning of "global warming" is; and where AGW stands, as a causation, in Dupont's definitions?
Isn't clearing up these definitions relevant to the discussion? Or was Forsyth's story simply an exercise of GreenFear propaganda, with no pretension of even being unbiased?
Why doesn't Forsyth get sent by his Niagara This Week employers to interview Ontario's Environment Minister, Liberal MPP Jim Bradley, about the official Liberal causes of "it's all settled" climate-change/global-warming/climate-warming/whatever?!
Forsyth could get Bradley to not only wholeheartedly agree with and corroborate Dupont's claims, but maybe GreenJimmy would happily even throw some more tax-payer green Brock's way, to fund the green fight! Oh, yeah... and Forsyth could then ask GreenJimmy about how man-made-global-warming was... umm... already 'secretly proven' to Jimmy, some 20-30 years ago!!
I mean, we can't have enough biased politicians and professors telling us that it's all settled, forcing us to drink their green kool-aid.
Fast-forward to May 8, 2014, and read Barbara Kay's National Post story "Global warming mediacracy" which essentially deals with the exact same issue I had been writing about above, where Kay writes of how "utterly irrational and faith-based global-warming theory is, and how collusive its fundamentalist supporters and the media have become in proselytizing that faith".
Yep: that just about nails the "reporting" from the "it's all settled" GreenFear-spreaders in Niagara's media.