I agree and have no confidence in the media's intent to report without bias or factually. But will all the data and facts out there that dispute the "consensus", the media must choose to test their credibility. The only argument the MMGW wackos have and continue to use is that 97.8546789% of credible scientists believe that humans are the reason there is global climate change. They have run out of statistics and facts and really don't want to have to defend any science they think they have "created".
The subject is not scientifically taboo because the assertions cannot be defended. The models were not only wrong by forcibly falsified repeatedly and they can't defend the problems.
I don't think the climate change radicals want any more attention until the earth starts warming again.
Yeah, true. Engage a warmie will elicit an angry retort, usually on these talking points.
1. You don’t know anything about science.
2. Man-made climate change is a conclusion agreed upon by 97% of scientists.
3. Weather isn’t climate, and anyway the “polar vortex” is a symptom of a warming climate.
4. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph are pushing BS, but the Guardian is the gold standard for climate truth.
5. You don’t know anything about science (back around again).
Given the financially-driven amputation of any kind of real news-gathering and fact-checking activities (courtesy of network-flipper Larry Tisch, who gutted CBS News), they are almost all down to reliance on Obama Regime press-release handouts for material.
Five or six years ago, CNN began hiring foreign journalists as in-country CNN stringers, to cushion the winnowing-out of their own correspondents. Wanna guess how well that works in, say, China? Where everyone's day job is to play along with the secret police?