When somebody pointed this out, I thought it was a joke.
Well, it is sort of but these people are actually serious. Extreme activism being disguised as science and journalism. We are living in a time, of one of the biggest scandals in history. The blatantly biased media, abusing the freedom of the press to impose their extreme views on us with impunity................no entity to hold them accountable.
From now, house style guide recommends terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’
Maybe you noticed the picture and caption to the linked story/announcement.
The destruction of Arctic ecosystems forces animals to search for food on land, such as these polar bears in northern Russia. Photograph: Alexander Grir/AFP/Getty Images
What they failed to mention is this:
"In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.
Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.
A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice. "
Get your real polar bear science here:
In "1984", there was a conversation with a guy who workedfor the language ministry, or some such. His job was to redefine, and more importantly, to eliminate words from the language. He bragged that in 20 years, the conversation they were having would be impossible.
"In other words, Newspeak isn’t just a set of buzzwords, but the deliberate replacement of one set of words in the language for another. The A class contains “everyday life” words that have been mutated with cumbersome prefixes and intensifiers: “uncold” for warm, “pluscold and doublepluscold” for “very cold” and “superlatively cold.”
When you control language, you control thought...
This is true Tim but in the world of authentic science, data and facts trump everything else. Read the 16 discussions here, where the MSM's junk science is obliterated with empirical data and authentic science.
The MSM is winning the war of words.......unfortunately because that is what they do.......use words to tell us what they think that we should know.
Used to be that the MSM told us what was going on but now they tell us what they think that we should know.
They control the stage and there is no overseeing entity/body that holds them accountable for providing accurate facts as they abuse freedom of the press.
However, you can say there is a climate crisis until the cows come farting home but when it comes down to the actual data, on weather, climate, biology, agronomy, energy, food production, zoology, plant science and all other fields of science, the truth is.............we are currently having a climate optimum for life.
The only fields where CO2 has been defined as pollution are politics and media reporting............in all other fields its still a beneficial gas.
Actually, they tell us that time is of the essence if we are to save the planet. They are giving us 12 years but we have to act NOW! And we have to do what they say NOW!
What are we saving the planet from?
And how much will it cost to save us from the climate optimum?
The American Action Forum estimates that, between 2020 and 2029, the energy and environmental components of the Green New Deal would cost $8.3 trillion to $12.3 trillion, or $52,000 to $72,000 per household. The total GND program, including the jobs and “social justice” policies, would cost $51.1 trillion to $92.9 trillion, or $316,010 to $419,010 per household.
Please explain to us again, why Trumps withdrawal from the fraudulent Climate Accord is causing him to be solely responsible for destroying the planet and the futures of our children and grand children?
"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research."