From Forbes, our image of the day captures nicely the mainstream media's credibility problem, as their…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Mainstream Media's Evaporating Credibility

From Forbes, our image of the day captures nicely the mainstream media's credibility problem, as their cries of "Wolf!" accumulate.  Simultaneously, it captures how three institutions most intertwined with conservative values - the military, small business and police - remain atop the list of public esteem.

.  

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="960"] Media's Evaporating Credibility[/caption]

 

.  …[more]

October 04, 2019 • 10:29 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Climate Alarmists Begin Censoring Inconvenient Truths Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Wednesday, February 06 2019
Indeed, as Mr. Ehrlich’s continued prominence illustrates, many of the doomsday voices haven’t changed, even while their rationalizations have.

Ask yourself this:  If your ideological opponents stubbornly and continually uttered something laughably counterfactual and preposterously contrary to truly “settled science,” would you really feel the need to silence them?  

Quite the contrary, you’d provide them the most prominent platform, and expose them to the widest audience possible.   If your opponents insisted that the Earth is flat, or that two plus two equals five, you wouldn’t want to conceal them.  It would be to your enormous advantage for the world to behold and ridicule their humiliating folly. 

Recent events have elevated that beyond the level of academic exercise or rhetorical question, and offer the latest illustration of leftist desperation and denial. 

Frustrated by what they consider insufficient panic among the populace, global warming alarmists increasingly refuse to even debate the matter or acknowledge the persistently ambiguous climate data.  That’s hardly the manifestation of a movement confident in the soundness of its beliefs. 

In the most prominent recent example, NBC News pundit and Meet the Press host Chuck Todd petulantly announced on the air that he would no longer tolerate informed or open debate: 

This morning, we’re going to do something that we don’t often get to do, dive in on one topic.  It’s obviously extraordinarily difficult to do this, as the end of this year has proven, in the era of Trump.  But we’re going to take an in-depth look, regardless of that, at a literally Earth-changing subject that doesn’t get talked about this thoroughly on television news, at least, climate change. 

But just as important as what we’re going to do this hour is what we’re not going to do.  We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it.  The Earth is getting hotter.  And human activity is a major cause, period.  We’re not going to give time to the climate deniers.  The science is settled, even if political opinion is not. 

Bravo, Chuck, you scientific mastermind and arbiter of which science is “settled” and which is not. 

But tell us something, Todd:  When has climate change not existed? 

What we now know as the Great Lakes were once enormous glaciers that retreated when the Earth warmed.  Back during that far more pronounced change in climate, was human activity “a major cause, period,” Chuck? 

Or go back to 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  We were assured by the likes of Chuck Todd that global warming (as it was then known, before “climate change” became the fashionable label after contradictory temperature data began to accumulate) was the culprit.   Furthermore, they proclaimed, ensuing years would only witness more and more hurricanes of even greater destructiveness. 

But instead, over a decade passed without the United States experiencing another major-category hurricane, which set a new record for the longest stretch in recorded history. 

What went wrong with that “settled science,” Chuck? 

Going back a few years before that, in June 1989 we were lectured by the United Nations that we had just ten years to avert irreversible climate catastrophe: 

Coastal flooding and crop failures could create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, a senior environmental official at the United Nations and director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.  He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect. 

Mr. Brown further predicted that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000." 

For perspective, that was before the Berlin Wall even fell. 

Or go back a couple of decades before that.  Paul Ehrlich is considered a godfather of the climate alarm movement, and remains a member in good standing.  But in the 1960s and ‘70s, he authored a book entitled The Population Bomb, and warned us that global cooling, not global warming, would destroy humanity. 

A new ice age due to human activity, you see, was certain to cause global crop failures and trigger mass starvation. 

All of that was supposedly “settled science” as well, Chuck.  Indeed, as Mr. Ehrlich’s continued prominence illustrates, many of the doomsday voices haven’t changed, even while their rationalizations have. 

The point is that the “science” isn’t settled at all, and informed voices aren’t “deniers” of climate change.  They simply, and rightfully, question the degree to which human activity causes climate change.  They also, inconveniently, highlight the years and decades of false claims and failed predictions from supposedly “settled science.” 

Chuck Todd and others like him may not like that reality.  But they’re not fooling anyone about their true motives or confidence in their ideological agenda. 

Question of the Week   
What was the Big Apple called before it was named New York City by the British?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"House Democrats confident that their push for impeachment is a political slam-dunk might want to figure out how they can reconcile two contradictory facts.On the one hand, they say that there is a clear case for impeachment that every voter can understand. On the other, Rep. Adam Schiff, who is leading the charge, is doing everything possible to keep the details surrounding the impeachment charge…[more]
 
 
—Eddie Scarry, Washington Examiner
— Eddie Scarry, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you agree or disagree with President Trump's decision to move American troops from northeast Syria prior to a Turkish military incursion into that region?