Global warming to Rittenhouse – media relaying propaganda
In his lament that he is but a ‘climate confusionist’, former university vice-chancellor, Professor Greg Craven, wants the ‘posturing on both sides of the debate’ to stop so there can be a ‘dialogue’.
As a constitutional expert who demands he be believed within his field, he thinks he should pay the same respect to his scientific colleagues concerning ‘climate science’.
The problem with that is there is no climate scientist who is an expert in all aspects of the field of study.
As one of American’s most distinguished scientists, the former under-secretary for science in the Obama administration, Professor Stephen Koonin, says climate science is the ultimate multidisciplinary activity.
The fields involved range across quantum physics of molecules, classical physics of moving air, water and ice, the chemical processes in the atmosphere and ocean, the geology of the solid earth and the biology of ecosystems. They also include the technologies used to ‘do’ the science, including computer modelling on the world’s fastest machines, one of the areas in which Koonin has long been a leading expert.
Other relevant technologies include remote sensing from satellites, paleoclimate analysis and advanced statistical methods. But in addition to the sciences, there are the areas related to reducing emissions, including policy, economics, as well as the energy technologies. Add to that the unique expertise with which the media seem obsessed, that of one troubled former Swedish school girl.
My advice to Professor Craven is to forgo any expectation of a genuine dialogue. Too many careers, too much money and the strategies of the powers, especially Beijing, are involved.
Instead, my advice is first, beware of a growing part of the media which has become the propaganda arm of the global warming orthodoxy. Read such books as Koonin’s Unsettled (not the Kindle version; the graphs are illegible) and Professor Ian Plimer’s Green Murder and the articles of Bjorn Lomborg who offers solutions different from those of the political establishment.
Second, check on the bona fides of global warming advocates. A simple test is to make a rough estimate of their raw CO2 footprint. By ‘raw’ I mean without ‘offsets’. Offsets are the climate equivalent of, if not tax evasion, tax avoidance. The views of any climate advocate with a raw CO2 footprint many times that of an ordinary Australian are necessarily highly questionable.
Third, be on the watch for flags which should make you sceptical, such as the use of terms like ‘deniers’, the promotion of fairy tales such as Australia becoming a green hydrogen superpower creating unbelievable amounts of employment but requiring billions in subsidies, any pejorative reference to fuels as ‘fossil’, or any talk of a consensus especially that debunked claim of a ‘97 per cent consensus’.
Finally, follow the money. The big beneficiaries of net zero will clearly be the genocidal billionaire Beijing communists who are already making a killing as well as their Western camp followers, the various carpet-baggers and shysters who expect to share in the profits.
The losers will be ordinary people, with Australians being among the world’s biggest.
Returning to the media, the Rittenhouse case should persuade most of the Australian media that they should be far more sceptical about relaying news from the American mainstream media.
This is despite the indictments emerging from the Durham grand jury confirming that there was collusion with Russia during the 2016 election campaign.
Where the media were wrong, and knew they were wrong, was in saying this was with Donald Trump.
What the Durham investigation is revealing is that collusion with the highest levels of the Russian government was with the Clinton campaign. Anyone with common sense would have realised that Putin would have obviously preferred a demonstrably malleable Clinton administration which would have gone soft on Russia, just as Biden has in relation to the fuel pipeline to Germany. Trump was always an unknown quantity and too risky. That was confirmed when the Trump administration came down hard on Russian ambitions, removing the former central Asian soviet republics from his influence, moving against his role in the Middle East and making the US energy independent.
What we have seen from the US media with the Rittenhouse case has been disgraceful. If they had done that in Australia, they would have been ruined by massive defamation payouts and worse, they would be behind bars.
Although Kyle Rittenhouse clearly acted in self-defence, the US media and the Democratic party, including Joe Biden, threw him to the lions to help win the election. On facts clearly ascertainable before the trial, no fair prosecutor should have ever proceeded.
Bari Weiss, a professionally respectable journalist forced off the New York Times, has listed the most prominent lies constantly repeated in the mainstream media: that he crossed state lines with a gun, that he had the gun illegally, that he had no connection with Kenosha, that he was connected to white supremacist groups (repeated by Joe Biden as a candidate) and that he did not act in self-defence.
When these lies were gradually exposed during the trial, the same media began targeting the judge, with some even planning to harass the jury, preparing to punish them if they took the ‘wrong’ decision.
The reaction has been predictable, with Biden releasing a statement saying ‘like many’ he was ‘angry and concerned’. There was no apology for either defaming Rittenhouse or misusing him for the election. That is surely an impeachable ‘high crime and misdemeanour’. But if he can get away with the Afghanistan debacle, throwing open the southern border and making the US once again dependent on OPEC, he will certainly get away with this.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10