[bmcgowan13]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Tourism video? Or anti environmental propaganda by big oil/industry and others who profit from deregulation of protection for the planet we call home?

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia.

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?

ABC & George Stephanopoulos are currently being sued by a certain political candidate...

CNN settled a $275 million lawsuit for lying about Nick Sandman...

The WaPO settled a $250 million with Sandman in another lawsuit...

NBC was sued for faking explosions on Ford Pick-up trucks...

But sure, Fox News is the problem... Everybody drink!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.

Does this help?

Is the Great Barrier Reef making a comeback?

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

ABC & George Stephanopoulos are currently being sued by a certain political candidate...

CNN settled a $275 million lawsuit for lying about Nick Sandman...

The WaPO settled a $250 million with Sandman in another lawsuit...

NBC was sued for faking explosions on Ford Pick-up trucks...

But sure, Fox News is the problem... Everybody drink!

The problem is journalists are anything but these days

[dhdallas]

Originally Posted by Glorantha

Recent WSJ editorial : wsj.com

I always find it interesting when past “truths” are given a fresh look. Whenever I hear claims of settled science, I am always leery.

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia.

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

I wasn't saying. I was asking. ? Is a question mark.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by dhdallas

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.

There are many who would and will continue to deny the truth because the lies they tell and pretend to believe in, they think, absolve them from from any responsibility. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We'll, it's broke.
Zoom in and look at the cub. That poor baby bear is very like dead now, unless the photographer managed to save it. A cub that size laks the fat to survive the temperature of the water.

[MorTech]

I always thought it was funny when the idiot box mockingbird media showed the same file footage of a single polar bear floating of a small piece of ice whenever the news propagandists talked about global warming. You would think people would have the basic ability to catch on to their indoctrination technics.

[Stu from NYC]

Journalists these days have a point of view which supercedes being objective.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Journalists these days have a point of view which supercedes being objective.

News reporting is biased now. I don’t know how we lost objectivity. Perhaps it isn’t taught anymore? It used to be the fundamental of journalism. It seems now everything is written to support an agenda.

Like Einstein once said, “ If the facts don’t fit the theory, then change the facts. “

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.

And what do all those organizations have in common????

A: they want your donations

So ask yourself----what advertising tactic will garner them more $$$$?

a) Everything is just fine, the oceans are doing great, keep up the good work, OR

b) Chicken Little, the sky is falling, it's imminent and we need to act now

Pretty much answers its own question, except to the indoctrinated and brainwashed.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia.

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

And which organizations does Soros support?????

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?

Unfortunately it seems...not really. Especially not those identified as American outlets. They all seem to share one unfortunate trait in common, and that is preaching (via slanted writing, selective presentation of the facts or other means) to a certain segment of American society. Some are over-the-top blatant. Others are a bit more clever. But they all suffer from the same malady thus rendering the "news" they present, to a greater or lesser extent, more propaganda than anything else.

I've been going to foreign sources for over a decade now, preferably those without a dog in the particular fight in question. Australia has some good sources: Sydney Morning Herald, for one. For Asia, the best source by far is Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan news in English): They're comprehensive, even-handed for the most part, and dig far deeper into stories than American sources do. For the Middle East, it is The Jerusalem Post and (oddly enough) al-Jazeera, both of which, though on opposite ends of whatever spectrum is in effect over there, do a suprisingly good job with the facts of the story. For Europe, BBC and BBC America (different entities), but all European capitols and other large European cities print their major newspapers in English.

They all do a far better job of news reporting than any American source I can think of. American sources, to a greater or lesser extent, have learned that Americans' hunger for validation at the expense of true information is, unfortunately, a gold mine.

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by dhdallas

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.

Ice formation and ice melting is seasonal. The propaganda photo you posted is a scene thay has been repeated over centuries. Polar bears can swim more than 200 miles. They didn't get that way lazing around on hard ice.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MorTech

I always thought it was funny when the idiot box mockingbird media showed the same file footage of a single polar bear floating of a small piece of ice whenever the news propagandists talked about global warming. You would think people would have the basic ability to catch on to their indoctrination technics.

Except, they continue to buy it, every single time...