Whether it is about smoking, eating or global warming, all those who dissent from the junk science doctrine that is at the foundation of mass-hysteria know how incredible the slant of the media against them may be.

From instruments of information, the media have turned into mechanisms for one-sided propaganda renamed “education”. The job of the media is to demonize those who oppose frauds such as man-made global warming, antitobacco, false information on obesity and demonization of industries.

Their job is, evidently, to convince the masses that THERE IS man-made global warming, that THERE IS danger from passive smoking exposure, and that THERE ARE five million “deaths” from smoking in spite of the fact that absolutely, positively NO hard science can support those assertions. The media then proceed to REDEFINE junk science as science to disprove the lack of scientific evidence.

Slander and intimidation of pro-truth opposition has become a legitimate and justifiable means to silence and discredit dissenters because of the “holy mission” of “saving people and planet” from themselves. No matter if it can’t be proven: it is IDEOLOGY.

Today we look at a great example of this aggression against dissent by those who portray themselves as “objective” – and that is just to be more persuasive when spreading their cancerous ideology. Look at this interview by Jeremy Paxman of “Newsnight”, broadcast by BBC. It is supposed to be a “fair” exposure of two different points of view, represented by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and John Mitchell of the Met Office, presented as “Chief Scientist”.

Clearly Mr. Ebell is not as aggressive as Paxman and feels Paxman’s contempt for his position. The first thing Paxman does is attack Ebell’s credibility on the basis of Exxon financing. The massage is clear: “Viewers, don’t believe anything Ebell says because he gets money from an evil industry to further its goals at the expense of everyone’s health.” So, we should believe Mitchell, who is paid by the state, to tell you the truth?! The implication is clear: Ebell’s money and position are “dirty” while Mitchell’s money and position are “clean” – especially because Mitchell claims that global warming is caused by man, thus catering to Paxman’s IDEOLOGY and BELIEFS while BBC performs its function of government agenda lackey.

Now, remember that this is supposed to be a scientific and non-political debate. Yet, brutal, political-style ad hominem attack is performed in spite of the pretended neutrality, which is used to persuade the public of the global warming fraud.

Finally, we should be note that Mitchell insists that the trash science he is talking about is “peer reviewed”, and that implies reliability, accuracy, and especially truth. But the peer review mechanism is gone rotten right along the prostitution of institutions to political and mercantile agendas. Would you believe a Mafioso who has his work peer reviewed by a Mafia boss? Of course not.

The peer review process itself is corrupt to the core, unfortunately. For information on that corruption, read for example IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis (for a stored copy click here) or Changing the Peer Review Process (for a stored copy click here). Alternatively, have fun finding a constellation of similar articles simply by entering the string “corruption of the peer review process” in any search engine. Also, see Al Gore’s Snowjob, a piece that that denounces the fraud of CO2 being represented as a dangerous global warming gas.

The cancer of institutional corruption and fanatical ideology is everywhere – and this is the only panic button that should be pushed. Therefore don’t’ fell guilty when you drive your car or when you light up in it. You are doing nothing wrong, thus keep on doing it.


Ed.- The peer review by experts has gone awry. Wikipedia shows that review by amateurs gets hijacked by corporate interests. Also, newspaper circulation is falling because people don’t trust the printed media and, now, the televised media is betraying us. Guess that just leaves a few organizations such as Forces, Freedom To Choose and Skeptic magazine for information.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder