They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being unbiased, now exists to support a hard-left position on climate. Journalism doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any more. It's disgusting.

The ask:

Support urgent
climate journalism!

Guardian reporting - independent, rigorous, science-led and open to all - is a critical tool to confront the climate crisis. It’s never been more vital than at this moment, when world leaders gather at the crucial UN climate summit. But we rely on readers to fund our work - so millions more can benefit.

On 11/14/2021 2:46 AM, RichA wrote:
> They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being unbiased, now exists to support a hard-left position on climate. Journalism doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any more. It's disgusting.
> ...

You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...

On 2021-11-14 8:23 a.m., moviePig wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 2:46 AM, RichA wrote:
>> They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being unbiased,
>> now exists to support a hard-left position on climate.  Journalism
>> doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any more.  It's
>> disgusting.
>> ...
>
> You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...
>

This is not a defense of ANYTHING RichA says, but....

Climate science may not be inherently political, but the proposed
solutions are. Approval or rejection of LNG and/or nuclear is a
political decision. Cancelling pipelines and then asking for more OPEC
oil is political. Demanding trillions in spending for subsidies for
unrealistic "green" initiatives such as electric cars is political.
Governments determining CO2 targets that cannot be met and that won't
affect climate even if they are is, by definition, political.

--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On 2021-11-14 10:39 AM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> On 2021-11-14 8:23 a.m., moviePig wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 2:46 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being
>>> unbiased, now exists to support a hard-left position on climate.
>>> Journalism doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any
>>> more.  It's disgusting.
>>> ...
>>
>> You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...
>>
>
> This is not a defense of ANYTHING RichA says, but....
>
> Climate science may not be inherently political, but the proposed
> solutions are. Approval or rejection of LNG and/or nuclear is a
> political decision. Cancelling pipelines and then asking for more OPEC
> oil is political. Demanding trillions in spending for subsidies for
> unrealistic "green" initiatives such as electric cars is political.
> Governments determining CO2 targets that cannot be met and that won't
> affect climate even if they are is, by definition, political.
>
+1000!

--
Rhino

On 11/14/2021 9:23 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 2:46 AM, RichA wrote:
>> They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being unbiased,
>> now exists to support a hard-left position on climate.  Journalism
>> doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any more.  It's
>> disgusting.
>> ...
>
> You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...

His brain is teeming with syphilis, it's unclear if he understands anything.

On 11/14/2021 10:39 AM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> On 2021-11-14 8:23 a.m., moviePig wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 2:46 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being
>>> unbiased, now exists to support a hard-left position on climate.
>>> Journalism doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any
>>> more.  It's disgusting.
>>> ...
>>
>> You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...
>>
>
> This is not a defense of ANYTHING RichA says, but....
>
> Climate science may not be inherently political, but the proposed
> solutions are. Approval or rejection of LNG and/or nuclear is a
> political decision. Cancelling pipelines and then asking for more OPEC
> oil is political. Demanding trillions in spending for subsidies for
> unrealistic "green" initiatives such as electric cars is political.
> Governments determining CO2 targets that cannot be met and that won't
> affect climate even if they are is, by definition, political.

Politics sways us mice regarding how to bell the cat, but it shouldn't
keep us from seeing there *is* a cat.

In article <M4akJ.77786$AJ2.58501@fx33.iad>,
Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

> On 2021-11-14 8:23 a.m., moviePig wrote:
> > On 11/14/2021 2:46 AM, RichA wrote:

> >> They've basically said that their journalism, FAR from being unbiased,
> >> now exists to support a hard-left position on climate.  Journalism
> >> doesn't even TRY to pretend to print objectively any more.  It's
> >> disgusting.
> >> ...
> >
> > You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...

> This is not a defense of ANYTHING RichA says, but....
>
> Climate science may not be inherently political, but the proposed
> solutions are. Approval or rejection of LNG and/or nuclear is a
> political decision. Cancelling pipelines and then asking for more OPEC
> oil is political.

Canceling pipelines in America because of 'climate change' but not only
endorsing the Germany-to-Russia pipeline but exerting diplomatic
pressure to speed it along is political. I mean, who knew that only
pipelines in America are bad for 'climate change'?
> Demanding trillions in spending for subsidies for unrealistic "green"
> initiatives such as electric cars is political.
> Governments determining CO2 targets that cannot be met and that won't
> affect climate even if they are is, by definition, political.

Shutting down natural gas and nuclear power plants in California so the
governor can brag about how 'green' his state is, then turning off the
lights on people for days at a time because his windmills and solar
panels can't meet the demand all on their own is political.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Shutting down natural gas and nuclear power plants in California so the
>governor can brag about how 'green' his state is, then turning off the
>lights on people for days at a time because his windmills and solar
>panels can't meet the demand all on their own is political.

Solar keeps the lights on during daylight hours. I don't understand the
complaint here.

In article <smrq3q$19f$3@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>. . .
>
> >Shutting down natural gas and nuclear power plants in California so the
> >governor can brag about how 'green' his state is, then turning off the
> >lights on people for days at a time because his windmills and solar
> >panels can't meet the demand all on their own is political.
>
> Solar keeps the lights on during daylight hours. I don't understand the
> complaint here.

LOL!

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 10:45:01 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Canceling pipelines in America because of 'climate change' but not only
>endorsing the Germany-to-Russia pipeline but exerting diplomatic
>pressure to speed it along is political. I mean, who knew that only
>pipelines in America are bad for 'climate change'?

Well apparently pipelines that cross northern Michegan and make up
30-40% of within Canada oil shipments are included in that.

Let's put it this way the Governor of Michegan won't exactly be
getting Christmas treats from the premiers of Quebec and Ontario!

In article <TR9kJ.39403$np6.7571@fx46.iad>, pwallace@moviepig.com wrote:

>You do understand that climate science isn't *inherently* political...

TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

In article <M4akJ.77786$AJ2.58501@fx33.iad>, Noname@fake.net wrote:

>Climate science may not be inherently political, but the proposed
>solutions are. Approval or rejection of LNG and/or nuclear is a
>political decision. Cancelling pipelines and then asking for more OPEC
>oil is political. Demanding trillions in spending for subsidies for
>unrealistic "green" initiatives such as electric cars is political.
>Governments determining CO2 targets that cannot be met and that won't
>affect climate even if they are is, by definition, political.

++

--
Let's go Brandon!