— Or: The Left Are Nothing But Herd Animals —
Today, in an absolutely extraordinary feature, National Public Radio (NPR) admitted its bias openly, clearly, obviously, transparently.
Needless to say, they thought (1) they were hiding it. Or, just as likely, (2) they’re so divorced from reality and science that they had no idea that their bias was just hanging out there for all to see.
Or, also just as likely, (3) they understand that their listening audience is generally too stupid, ill-educated, ill-informed, misinformed, or ignorant to be able to see the slant even when they dangle it in front of their eyes.
Or, also just as likely: a combination of all three things.
I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) this morning on the way to work. It was their morning fake news program “Morning Edition.”
They’ve recently been running a regular feature in which they’ve been “reporting” on the long-running “deforestation” of the Brazilian rain forest.
Today they did a little side-feature, related to the running one. The NPR reporterette, one Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, bemoaned the fact that in their travels during the “deforestation” project, they had covered some 15,000 miles, consuming fossil fuels the entire time.
That really upset her, because, you see, she was, as she said, “contributing to the problem” by emitting all the carbon dioxide that she and her NPR team were.
And there it is. All the things that she had to believe to come to the conclusion that she was “contributing to the problem” constitute nothing more than beliefs. Not facts, but opinions. Bias. Now, there’s nothing at all wrong with bias. We all have it. What’s wrong is when you present opinions as settled facts. NPR is guilty of this crime all the time
Here are some environmental truths. Facts, if you will.
- There’s no consensus science(1) indicating that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to a “greenhouse effect,” or “global warming.”
- There has been no observed “global warming” for nearly a generation now.
- What “global warming” there ever was, or might have been, has largely been debunked when it was discovered that the readings “scientists” were using were largely faked. Climate data used to start the entire global warming hysteria was so riddled with fraud and manipulation, that none of it was usable to draw any useful conclusions at all. Imagine you have a data set to analyze. You do a spot check and find that 5% of it is worthless, or fraudulent, or improperly obtained. Your problem is that now you can’t tell what of the rest of the data is worthless, so you have no choice but to toss it all and start fresh.
- “Climate Science” is so full of fraud, corruption, and manipulated and faked data that, even if there is valid data it’s impossible to tell which pieces of it are valid, and which are fraudulent. All scientists, and computer programmers, will tell you: if you find some data that’s fraudulent in a larger pile of data, you generally have to toss out the whole pile of data. At the very least, you have to scrutinize the rest of the data very closely and carefully.
- Others have expressed this same thing: Absent a real house-cleaning, “Climate Science” has given us nothing whatsoever we can use to understand what is happening with the climate. Do you want to understand the earth’s climate? You have to start at the very beginning.
- Real climate scientists know all this, but don’t expect their voices to be heard in the media.
In her “report,” which was really nothing more than a typical NPR propaganda piece, Garcia-Navarro said openly and out-front that the mere extremely shaky and largely discredited theories of environmentalism are fact.
This kind of “news” feature is typical of NPR. They’re generally not quite as obvious, out-front and transparent with their hogwash, though. For anyone with eyes to see, or a brain to do independent critical thinking, you need little more that that (though you can read our “NPR Watch” features, if you need more evidence.) to recognize that NPR doesn’t give you anything resembling news, but rather thinly-disguised left-wing propaganda.
Finally, to bring this full circle: You and I both recognize this behavior. This is what the left do. There are a few influential left-wing mouthpieces — the New York Times, The LA Times, Ivy League faculty members, and the like — who do their thinking for them, while they go out and parrot the party line like the herd animals they are.
Want proof? How do you think we could — as a country — have decided that a man is a woman, or vice versa based on nothing more than the say-so of the man or woman making the claim?
There aren’t any Conservatives exhibiting that kind of brainless, ovine behavior.
(1) – Real science. Not what is today called “environmental science,” which is nothing but fraud and corruption. First of all, there’s no such thing as “settled science.” So, let’s put that little thing to rest right now. If there were even such a thing, then the earth would still be flat, and the sun would still be revolving around the earth. “Settled Science” is a nonsense phrase. Anytime you hear it used in such a way as to make you think that the person using it believes there is such a thing, you can be sure you’re listening to someone who has no idea what she’s talking about; someone who’s parroting someone else who had no idea what she was talking about.