Media Bias


environMentalist Killed After Taking 3 hostages

This story is all over the place.  ABC, Washington Post, MSNBC, WSJ, etc.  Others (like the New York Times or Salon) mention that it happened, hide the word “environmentalist” deep in the middle of the story, and don’t mention at all that this guy was “awakened” by “Al Gore”. 
Well, there is little I can say about this guy other then maybe you should read what he wanted the world to hear in his own words: 
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following


1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!

9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.

10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!

11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS!

Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.

These are the demands and sayings of Lee.

Ah, environMentalists.
Salon even went so far as to say that the gunman was made “crazy” by… oh, wait, let me quote them: 
governments in thrall to special interests, corporations intent on monopoly control, politically motivated attacks on the scientific method, and a growing chorus of ranters who wear ignorance as their coat of arms and shout down all those with whom they disagree.  We probably have the tools to solve the big problems that face us this century, but our own stupidity may well prevent us from properly using them. That’s truly crazy making and we’d better get used to the collateral damage.
Politically motivated attacked on the scientific method eh?  It would appear that Salon does not even know what the scientific method is.  We’ve talked about this before.  Well, Salon… It is rather difficult to “empirically test” something while environMentalists hide/falsify data and silencing the voices of descent.  They must not dig what Wikipedia definition of the Scientific Method.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
 (Then again, often I question if some at Wikipedia understand what the Scientific Method is.)
Oh Well, Salon… your probably right.  This guy wanted to shoot up a bunch of people not because he was inspired by Al Gore and thought “Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.”… He probaby was just bothered about corporations.

Court Throws Out ‘Landmark’ Global Warming Ruling

From the New York Times (By Gabriel Nelson of Greenwire so you know it’s not biased):

After an unusual about-face prompted by a late recusal, a federal appeals court has scrapped a ruling that said the nation’s largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions could be sued for the damage caused by global warming.

The case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, started with a lawsuit by Gulf Coast residents affected by Hurricane Katrina. Claiming that global warming contributed to the severity of the storm, the plaintiffs sued dozens of the nation’s largest polluters — a veritable who’s who of utilities, chemical companies and the oil industry.

This is my favorite part.  Are you ready?

The Comer case is one of several pioneering climate change cases based on claims of public nuisance, a centuries-old mainstay of common law that allows people to sue their neighbors for nuisances such as foul smells, loud noises or overgrown trees. A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the plaintiffs could proceed with their lawsuit, but that ruling is now out of play unless the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court and the justices decide to intervene.

So that puts global warming into the category of a “public nuisance”.  You know, on the level of your radio up too loud or your trees being overgrown.  Ha!  I’ve never heard Al Gore or the UN call it a “nuisance” before.

This is one of those six-degrees to Al Gore things.  Your property was damaged by a hurricane that was caused by increasing temperatures that was caused by global warming that was caused by these companies.  Even if we drink their Kool-Aid and say global warming is real, how are you going to pin a lawsuit on a list of companies when the rest of the world emits so much carbon that it makes Murphy Oil here look like white on rice? (Not to mention the whole natural sources of carbon thing)

I should sue Al Gore for pushing this global warming thing that causes the members of the Church of Global Warming to talk about it that causes legislation to be passed that taxes me that causes me to write about it here.

On Ice

As Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is attacked, the Church steps in to defend it

An article by Fiona Harvey, Environmental Correspondent for highlights the attempts of an environmentalist to hide the bad news that their precious hockey stick is coming under serious attack.  Though I do not think the intent was to bring a negative light to the efforts of the leaders of this religion (note the tone when talking about “Skeptics”), sometimes you simply cannot report something as positive.  She should have taken Al Gore’s technique and simply ignored it.  Let’s take a look at what she is saying.

A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming skeptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.

The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.

Okay, she goes out to remind the readers that those who disagree with global warming are “skeptics”, a derogatory term used by the environmentalists.  Then she goes on to tell us how the scientists who were responsible for hiding data, and using “tricks” to change data were behaving themselves.  Yea… because when someone says “try and change the Received date!  Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with” that totally makes me think there was “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice.”

The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.

 “Appeared” huh?

Although Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit’s scientists, it criticized climate experts for failures in handling statistics.

 “It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.

 Why would this be surprising?  These people are trying to save the planet!  Good God, man, they don’t have time to fact check or talk to a statistician before throwing numbers around!  I mean, they don’t even have enough time to use all the temperature data, so they have to be selective about what temperature data they use…  wait, what?

 The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph.

 This is a fun one.  Look at how the hockey stick graph completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period.  That’s some trick.

Michael Mann's Hockey StickThe actual temperature record

 The UEA scientists said that “trick” merely referred to a scientific technique – an explanation accepted by some skeptics, including Lord Lawson, former Tory chancellor.

 Oh my, is she trying to paint some skeptics in a positive light by saying this explanation was already accepted by some of them?  Doubtful.  She is using those she disagrees with to try to prop up those who she agrees with.  That’s like using Tom Coburn to prop up Nancy Pelosi by saying “See, republicans like her, this is one republican I agree with.” 

 Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.

 Of course criticisms should not be seen as invalidating the science!  After all, global warming can’t even be invalidated by cold winters or record snowfall.  They have written this one so that nothing can or should invalidate their dogma.

 He accused skeptics of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.

 It would be funny if it wasn’t so thick of an attempt to be one-sided.  The fact that there are issues with their science religion help to show those of us who are not lost in the faith of manmade global warming that there are indeed serious issues with the data.  The scientific method itself is designed specifically to tear at these errors to progress science.  When you have people like Michael Mann bitching that it’s not fair because some “skeptics” are going after the issues behind their science, it helps to point out how little actual science is being done here.

 The report into the science produced by UEA, which came from a panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a scientist and former Shell chairman, was the second investigation into Climategate in the UK. The first, by a committee of MPs, also found the scientists innocent of manipulating data, though it said they may have breached Freedom of Information legislation.

 Note how Fiona also makes it quite clear that Lord Oxburgh (how dare he to attack the Church) is a scientist, but couruppted by being a former Shell Oil chairman.  Try this with every Church member you know.  The moment they bring up studies funded by or influenced by Big Oil, try asking them if studies funded by Big Oil are biased, what about studies funded by environmentalists?  Those too should be biased, right?  naaa.  “Its not evil when we do it” will most likely be the response you get.

 An investigation into the scientists’ handling of FOI requests is still under way.

Yea, and I bet it is as open and non-biased as it can be.  Riiight.

To save the earth, Tax Tax Tax Tax

I came across this article this evening and blood shot out of my eyes as I strained to understand WTF.  I am going to include the entire article.  It is short enough and I have comments on every part of it.

From the New York Times (figures):

Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

So, to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets put forward by the Church of Global Warming, we have to drive our economy into the shitter?  You all remember what happened when gas was $4.00 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

According to them, the cost of driving must more then double to reduce emissions by fourteen percent?  Do you get that? 

To reduce emissions by 14%… Fuel prices must go up by 105%? Wait the what?

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

There we go.  That’s it.  That’s what it comes down to.  Taxes.  Taxes = Control.  How do you get the price of fuel up 105% artificially?  Tax it.  And if they tax the frack out of us, their power grows.  Amazing when only (according to the WRI, a source that is a member of the Church) 9.9% of all world Greenhouse Gas (Read CO2) emissions are from road transportation.

“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”

Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University

Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.

And this illustrates even more what they would do.  Taking money out of my pocket and putting it into someone else’s for following their religion isn’t enough to help.  Environmental Communism alone won’t cut it.  They need more.

At no time will any of these “fixes” ever… ever call for a reduction in government power or control.  The Church of Global Warming will use everything they can as an excuse to take power from you in the name of their “God”.  This is the same story told time and time again through history. 

They can help you, but first you must give up everything.


Danny Glover: Haiti=Responce for Failed Copenhagen

There has been a lot of press in the news with someone religious saying something very stupid regarding the Haiti earthquake.  What was said involved a religious deity causing the events in Haiti and could have been stopped if people just acted differently.

And it’s not just Pat Roberts, though he is the one getting all the press.

While I won’t disagree that what he said was stupid, I find it disturbing how much attention he is getting while a member of the Church of Global Warming said practically the same thing.


From Danny Glover:

This is a great moment for another type of internationalism, you know. And I hope we seize this particular moment. Because the threat that happened to Haiti is the threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know. They’re all in peril because of global warming, they’re all in peril because of climate change and all of this. And we need to find…When we did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens. You know what I’m saying? But we have to act now.

Both Glover and Roberts comments are nearly identical.

In one case, (Pat Roberts) the event in Haiti was caused by a deal signed with the devil to overthrow the French…

In the other case (Danny Glover) event in Haiti was caused because we didn’t sign a deal with the Greenies (in Copenhagen) for the Earth.

I submit that at more of a core, you have a few stupid people saying stupid things about what caused an earthquake.  Religion in either case has these people speaking out of their butts.  However what is most fascinating is how much Pat Robertson is being covered over Danny Glover for comments about the same thing (A religious cause of an earthquake in Haiti).

When you search their names the results in Google News (at the time of this posting) are quite different.

Pat Robertson Haiti: 2,539
Danny Glover Haiti: 239

It is quite interesting how one religion is fashionable to hate, while the other is simply fashionable.  It should be noted too that Glover isn’t just talking about our failure to act in Copenhagen being simply in the relm of Global Warming, but his comments were pretty clearly Big Government… but this whole Global Warming thing on its own is pretty Big Government.

Gore’s Religion Makes Him a Killing

Ahh, lobbying and advocacy.  It’s bad no matter who is profiting off of it, right?  Apparently not if your “Green”.

From the New York Times:

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

The article goes on and on (it’s quite long) with Gore defending himself as simply advocating for a greener future and all that, but then goes a little beyond the limits of “news” to help decide for us:

Mr. Gore has said he invested in partnerships and funds that try to identify and support companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward a low-carbon economy.


Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a $300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in electricity production in 10 years.


Mr. Gore has testified numerous times in support of legislation to address climate change and to revamp the nation’s energy policies.


He appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April to support an energy and climate change bill that was intended to reduce global warming emissions through a cap-and-trade program for major polluting industries.


Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy, is generally received on Capitol Hill as something of an oracle, at least by Democrats.

I didn’t see any quotes in that article there so it’s pretty clear who’s mouth its coming from: The writer.

Gore defended his huge pocketbook by having an interview this morning on MSNBC (A company owned by GE, who spends BILLIONS a year lobbying for green everything) who I’m sure are fair and balanced on this issue.

MSNBC Asks:”Is there a conflict of interest, or even an appearance of a conflict of interest?”

Gore:”Well, No. Of course I invest according to my beliefs and values, and I encourage everybody to do the same thing.”I put my money where my mouth is,”

Much like there is no conflict of interest in Big Oil and their push for relaxed regulation in regards to drilling right?

The New York Times gave him an opportunity also to pipe in on his own behalf.

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

No, Mr. Gore, there is nothing wrong with being active in business in this country.  There is however something very wrong with being active in a business while at the same time using a heavy handed political arm to sway the Government to force people into spending money into your business (Cap and Trade anyone).

In fact, that is the type of thing people have been put into jail for.  Also, I am willing to bet that Al Gore wouldn’t hold the same separation between investing and advocacy to the Oil industry, Nuclear industry, or Coal industry that he holds to himself.

But I’m sure all those who criticize any of those evil energy lobbying would be the first to criticize Al Gore’s “activism” with me.

Right guys?

Huh.  They have been oddly silent on this for some time.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wordpress themes