Christie hasn’t even entered the race—but just in case he does…
…well then, New York magazine has provided this helpful guide for Republicans as to why they’d hate Christie if they really knew him. And you can be sure that, if Christie ever did officially announce, we’d immediately come to “know” him even better (courtesy of the MSM), in ways that we still don’t know Obama.
Oh, and the article also repeats the incorrect-but-popular meme about Perry, “Rick Perry claims that climate change is a hoax that scientists have concocted as a way to get more funding. ” Hey, why get it right when you can be a lot more damaging by exaggerating and misrepresenting what Perry really said? And what’s more, in doing the latter, you’ll be following in the august footsteps of Tom Friedman, whom I criticized a while back this way:
Friedman is so busy laughing at Perry that he doesn’t even bother to distinguish between global warming and anthropogenic global warming, although it’s the latter about which Perry made his skeptical remarks.
[NOTE: As for what Perry actually said, if anyone missed it, here’s Perry at a recent Republican debate [emphasis mine]:
Q:… Just recently in New Hampshire, you said that weekly and even daily scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?
PERRY: Well, I do agree that there is — the science is — is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at — at — at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet, to me, is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.
And later in the debate, when asked again, Perry answered [emphasis mine]:
The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we’re going to put America’s economics in jeopardy.
And here’s Perry in another speech [emphasis mine]:
I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into, that a group of scientists, who in some cases were found to be manipulating this data.
From what I’ve been able to find, in discussing these issues Perry has been a lot more careful than his critics to make it clear that what he’s questioning is AGW, not global warming itself. Now, you may question both—and perhaps, in his heart of hearts, so does Perry. But my point is that he has shown a fair of amount of care in making the distinction between the two in his public remarks, and in saying that it’s AGW he’s questioning. But the press has—either purposely or carelessly or through some combination of the two—gotten it wrong fairly consistently.
Speaking of which—here’s the Times in “The Caucus” mischaracterizing those last remarks of Perry’s I quoted. The Times leaves out that little word “anthropogenic”:
Mr. Perry acknowledged that “yes, our climate has changed,” but said he was skeptical that global warming was the cause.
Why do I continue to hammer away at this, at the risk of being a bloody bore? It still fascinates me how incredibly sloppy and/or mendacious the highly-respected holier-than-thou MSM regularly is, and to see how these memes spread like wildfire (to coin a phrase).]
Mendacious, neo. Mendacious. In case you were wondering. Why would you be wondering?
Richard Aubrey: the reason I’m wondering is that I don’t give many in the MSM credit for mendacity. To be lying about this, you’d have to be attentive enough to learn the difference between global warming and AGW, and conscientious enough to care.
The global warmist can’t imagine climate fluctuations without humans and their behavior being the cause. Strikingly similar to how primitive humans viewed all calamities they experienced.
Go with mendacious, Neo. The MSM has been mis-quoting Republicans ever since Obama arrived on the scene.
As soon as a Republican candidate rises above the parapet, the MSM go after him or her. The liberals have figured out that is Obama’s best hope — destroy his opponent.
If Romney gets the nod, get ready for a full scale attack on Mormonism.
These ideas aren’t new, but here’s a well presented critique of the global warming movement. Watermelons..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=866yHuh1RYM&list=FLsGpPg98skS5oKgC5jFv5Dg&index=1
AGW hysteria is like the ‘default crisis’ back in August during the debt ceiling debate; its not real and is merely a means of swaying the uninformed by the use of fear. Unfortunately, too many on the right buy into this by using the left’s terms and phrases, as for example, when the republicans used the language of the left during the phony debt ceiling debates. When you allow the opposition to define the terms of the debate you’re already half way down the road to defeat.
AGW promoters are like the champions of eugenics during the first 3 decades of the 20th century. They are on the side of evil. Shun them and call them out at every opportunity.
“Go with mendacious, Neo. The MSM has been mis-quoting Republicans ever since Obama arrived on the scene.”
The MSM has been misquoting Republicans ever sine G. .W Bush arrived on the scene.
Richard Aubrey: the reason I’m wondering is that I don’t give many in the MSM credit for mendacity. To be lying about this, you’d have to be attentive enough to learn the difference between global warming and AGW, and conscientious enough to care.
They don’t need to learn the difference – they know where they want to go, and any pretext will do. If Perry had said, “Global warming …” and let the sentence trail off unfinished the MSM would have reported that he didn’t think climate change warranted comment.
So go with mendacity, leavened with a heaping helping of garden-variety stupidity and ignorance. How often do JournoListas refer to how much money Bush spent? It’s almost as if they think the President determines the budget, to the despair of any high school civics teachers who are still extant.
It is a part of the Big Lie propaganda technique. I mentioned in a previous thread that my local rag has published many articles trumpeting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) as a fact. Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes truth. Mendacity, mendacity, it’s what they do.
The MSM seems to be made up of a strange breed of liars. Half the time i’m convinced they lie for their own consumption in maintenance of their worldview.