Don’t report facts inconvenient to my beliefs and propaganda

From the Jo Abbess school of climate censorship we see this laughably cackhanded attempt to criticise the media for reporting climate related information that contradicts the worldview of AGW’s true believers.  All credit to the Washington Post for being such good sports and publishing the almost tearful complaint of one David Hilfiker from Washington.  In its own way the letter is comedic gold.  How else can you describe a complaint that includes a caveat that undermines its own argument?

The Feb. 15 front-page article “Missteps weigh on agenda for climate” was infuriating, a perfect example of why so many Americans still don’t believe in the coming crisis of global climate change. Read closely, your article was technically accurate, but the language and placement of information gave the impression that the overwhelming scientific consensus on global climate change might be in danger. (my emphasis in bold italics)

Wonderful stuff.  Now we can see that many Americans don’t believe the AGW hype because the facts contradict the claims of the warmists and undermine confidence in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).  Who can blame them?  One wonders if Hilfiker was similarly minded to write and complain about publications that claimed on their front pages that there is an increasing number of more destructive hurricanes than before because of mankind.  Perhaps he wrote in and corrected nonsensical claims that the Arctic sea ice will completely disappear, despite the extent of ice recovering and increasing.  Somehow though, I doubt it.  So what were the main bugbears of David Hilfiker?  Here, he can explain for himself…

What are these recent shocking revelations? Buried on Page A4 are:

— An obvious typographical error in the report — that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, rather than 2350.

— Attributing to a climate advocacy group the claim that up to 40 percent of Amazonian forests could react drastically to a slight reduction in precipitation. In fact, the claim was made by a respected climatologist, whom the advocacy group appropriately cited.

— The IPCC’s erroneous claim that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level. The figure included land that’s above sea level but at risk of flooding. But the reference was only in a background note and hardly challenged the science of global climate change.

Bless.  If only it was that simple.  The Himalayan glacier issue is not simply a matter of a typo, it was that even the 2350 date was not subject to peer review and was made with no supporting evidence.  It carried the same weight as a drunk in a pub taking credit for the tennis skills of Roger Federer.  The claim about the Amazon had nothing to do with climate change, but was concerned with the effects of deforestation and fire, as made clear by the author who condemned his reports use for the purpose of propaganda.

The Netherlands story was evidence of a clear distortion made to make the risk of flooding appear worse than it really was.  As we are seeing in every AGW supporting comment, it finishes with a defence of the errors and claim that this doesn’t change the science – while offering no evidence that transforms the theories into facts.  Hilfiker, demonstrating a complete lack of self awareness of the hilarity of his deluded position ends by saying:

The real focus should have been on how climate-change deniers rely on bits of irrelevant information to distort the “debate” on a threat that is as near to certainty as science gets.

Perhaps the real focus should have been on how climate-change campaigners rely on unsupported claims and attributing naturally occurring events to the impact of man on the environment to distort the ‘debate’ on a threat that is in reality nothing more than a theory supported by increasingly discredited scientific ‘evidence’.  David Hilfiker is a shining example of the kind of unthinking, agenda driven drone who clings to the man made global warming narrative.  Having snatched a free ride by jumping on the man made climate change bandwagon, he is now distraught to find it isn’t going to his desired destination.  What was that destination?  Hilfiker explains on his website:

As long as profit maximization, the sanctity of private property, and distribution solely by supply and demand remain the unexamined bases of our economic system, we will not be able to feed the hungry or prevent ecological destruction.

Among those who ardently hope and work for change, there is a different opinion.  Many believe that without a fundamental re-orientation in power relationships no change will be possible.  It is power, they say, that determines the course of society; until those who rule society are replaced, we cannot expect justice or sustainability[…]

[…] We do not have much time left before environmental catastrophe overtakes us.  We won’t find environmental balance unless we deal with injustice.  The current economic system cannot bring either justice or sustainability.  The economic system will not change until we change its assumptions.

Unless we begin to think differently, we will not act differently.

Is anyone surprised?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

1 Response to “Don’t report facts inconvenient to my beliefs and propaganda”



  1. 1 Data rape « TWAWKI Trackback on 20/02/2010 at 10:35 pm
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive


%d bloggers like this: