Climate Depot Note: This is what passes as 'journalism' with much of the media today. Scott Waldman, E&E News 'reporter's' opening line in an allegedly straight news article. Why does Scott Waldman write in editorial style instead of news-writing style? Does Waldman not realize that it is more effective to remove the reporter's bias from the news article?
Waldman's original sentence: "A climate denier working under the purview of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is attempting to publish cherry-picked and inaccurate research so that it can be permanently archived as a government record."
An example of how Waldman could have written the opening line if he cared about objective journalism: (changes in red): "A scientist who dissents from the UN IPCC's climate claims working under the purview of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is attempting to publish studies which critics claim are cherry-picked and inaccurate research so that it can be permanently archived as a government record."
Waldman: "Legates is also giving false climate views a different imprimatur: the seal of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy."
If Waldman were an unbiased reporter (changes in red): "Legates is also giving what many other scientists say are false climate views a different imprimatur: the seal of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy."
"Traitors like you and your friends who backed Trump and his goons attacking the Capital are going on the no-fly list anyhow, Halperin wrote to Morano on Twitter.
Morano replied: "I would not be surprised if you are correct. Should I have my utilities shut off and driver's license revoked as well for supporting Trump?" Morano added: "Put me on a no-fly list? Will it matter? If Bill Gates gets his way 99.99 % of humanity will be on no-fly list since all the commercial airlines will have been bankrupted and out of business."
Mark Mathis Senators Warren and Whitehouse have a lot of power and threatened to take action against Facebook if it didn’t censor people like us. So, Facebook started the Climate Science Information Center to present a point of view pleasing to Warren and Whitehouse. Facebook employs so-called “Third Party Fact Checkers” that tag content as “false” or “misleading” if it strays from the climate crisis narrative. We’ve been hit with it. Our “97% Myth” video was tagged as “False Information”.... even though it’s true.
John Stossel had one of his videos slapped with the tag “misleading” and was told by Facebook it would show his video to fewer people.
"The probability of a 100-year flood event is now so rare it has only been occurring once every 358 years on average since 1970." ...
"In present-day conditions, 100-year flood events have globally become so rare that they now (since 1970) only occur once every 358 years on average. And 50-year floods only occur once every 152 years on average.
With the cooler climate conditions of the 1970s, there was a 45% probability that a 50-year flood would occur. In today’s conditions, however, there is only an 18% chance that a 50-year flood will occur."
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." — Michael Crichton