Chris Woods of the Canadian Journalism Project has managed to put his foot in it just when the pile is really starting to stink.
"Even were an East Anglian cabal plotting to subvert the global temperature record (and independent reviews by The Associated Press and FactCheck.org found no support for that charge), to declare human-induced climate change thereby proven a hoax that Canadians can safely ignore goes beyond cherry-picking facts to reckless endangerment."
Well, that's completely assbackwards, isn't it?
The journalistic fraud in this story is the uncritical willing acceptance of the Global Warming narrative with nary a skeptical thought among the thousands of main stream journalists that have covered it. Journalism is about truth finding, not theme building or consensus building.
"The poison filling the theatre is revealed in real-world records. Arctic ice sheets are collapsing and their collapse accelerating. Rivers on the Prairies, in Asia and Latin America, have dwindled along with mountain glaciers. The most violent rainstorms, persistent droughts and powerful storms are all increasing."
You forgot to add that Level 5 hurricanes are now commonplace, that Himalayan glacial fields are wasting away and will be gone by 2035, and that the peak of Mt Kilimanjaro is losing its frosty white cap and will soon be barren of snow. Of course, those stories which journalists enthusiastically advanced as supporting evidence that the end of the world was nigh have all been shown to be bogus. Thank you, professional journalists of the world, and Chris Woods in particular, for your plodding, slave like adherence to an embarrassingly unsupportable and unfounded theory.
"I can’t speak with authority on science."
Now there is an honest statement.
"But after 35 years and a score of honours for documentaries, articles and books, I do know a thing or two about journalism."
Well, those two go together like milk and pretzels. Besides the outright arrogance of the statement, one is struck with the emptiness of it all. What Mr. Woods may not realize is that his insistent support of this bogus "scientific theory" undermines his credibility, and castes doubt on the accuracy of his previous work. If he could be this much in the dark this far into the story, what kind of critical analysis did he bring to his earlier projects?
"I can imagine innocent explanations for why a journalist might overlook these facts. But I don’t believe any of these writers is stupid or lazy. I think they chose to ignore the only value that justifies our trade at all, and conceal the truth. We used to call that dishonest reporting—a fraud on the consumer."
Now here I agree whole heartily, but the criticism is properly directed to you and your fellow alarmist apologists. Running around scaring children and the uninformed among us?
For shame, sir. For shame.
Update: Mark Steyn
Well, though my argument fell along similar lines, I shall not deprive you, my friends and readers, of the master artist.