WaPo : inevitable complex deniers willfully ignorant recalcitrance cynical catastrophic planetary damage drastic Republican preeminent rising seas spreading deserts intensifying storms loom significant risks caused by human activities

They forgot a few words – “mindless hysterical hyperbole.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

They never considered the possibility that skeptics have actually looked at the data for themselves.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to WaPo : inevitable complex deniers willfully ignorant recalcitrance cynical catastrophic planetary damage drastic Republican preeminent rising seas spreading deserts intensifying storms loom significant risks caused by human activities

  1. Russell C says:

    Predictable Washington Post editorial, and arguably predictable NAS as well that was cited in it – but it should be noted that way back in 2001, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSIP) bragged about their influence over WashPo reporters at this page http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/wp_letter.html , where the note at the top says “Shortly after this letter was sent, and in response to it, Ms. Spayd reminded Washington Post reporters to inquire about conflicts of interest and to disclose them“. Scroll down to the 3rd paragraph of the letter, and it has a link to a previous CSPI / NRDC letter where they smeared skeptic scientists Dr S Fred Singer with oil industry ‘guilt-by-association’.

    Rummage around in the CSIP web site, and you soon find the source of their oil funding accusations, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan and the enviro-activist group Ozone Action ( fifth paragraph here http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nyt_letter.html , 11th paragraph here on the same Robert Balling accusation http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/risk_report.html ).

    Just five paragraphs beyond that last note about Balling, it says this about NAS: “Last year, at the urging of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council, and others, the NAS made a strong commitment to greater openness.

    We have to wonder just how far the unsupported smear of skeptic scientists spreads into the media and these science organizations…….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s