Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical' on global warming, Libs flip out!

[teapartysamurai]

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.​

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”​

A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don’t know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”​

In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.​

For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:​

Yet, Salon’s headline claims the Fox news executive was “again caught demanding conservative spin.” And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his “anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news.”​

Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon’s comment?
The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.​

Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today’s extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.

Mark Tapscott: Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical' | Washington Examiner

Now it's kind of obvious WHY liberals get this way about global warming. Because it's NOT about the climate. It's about their socialist dream of wealth distribution. Even the UN has admitted that. ​

And they know global warming is a house of cards that won't stand up under examination. That's why Al Gore runs from any hint of a real debate and global warming whackos call anyone who brings up actual data a "denier." ​

They know house of cards is built on a house of lies as well. The only way to continue pushing this fraud is to intimidate and shut up anyone questioning this fraud with the facts.​

But be skeptical is some kind of treason? I thought reporters were supposed to be skeptical. Not according to liberals. You are supposed to take the liberal agenda without question.​

When liberals go NUTS about simple questions being asked, then you know THEY know what they stand on is a house of cards. In other words, they know, even themselves, global warming, is a fraud!​

​

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder why they don't get upset when ABC news runs the CDC report about food borne illness and neglects to mention the numbers are a sharp decline from the estimates used to justify the Food Safety bill, and then imply that if the bill wasn't stalled in Congress things would be better.

 

[waltky]

Granny wantin' to know if dat means more Hispexicans gonna be movin' up here?...

‘Environmental refugees’ expected
WASHINGTON Wed, Feb 23, 2011 - Fifty million “environmental refugees” will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change, experts warned at a major science conference that ended on Monday.

“In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees,” University of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate,” she said, outlining with the other speakers how climate change is impacting both food security and food safety, or the amount of food available and the healthfulness of that food.

Southern Europe is already seeing a sharp increase in what has long been a slow but steady flow of migrants from Africa, many of whom risk their lives to cross the Strait of Gibraltar into Spain from Morocco or sail in makeshift vessels to Italy from Libya and Tunisia. The flow recently grew to a flood after a month of protests in Tunisia, set off by food shortages and widespread unemployment and poverty, brought down the government of longtime Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, said Michigan State University professor Ewen Todd, who predicted there will be more of the same. “What we saw in Tunisia — a change in government and suddenly there are a whole lot of people going to Italy — this is going to be the pattern,” Todd said.

“Already, Africans are going in small droves up to Spain, Germany and wherever from different countries in the Mediterranean region, but we’re going to see many, many more trying to go north when food stress comes in. And it was food shortages that put the people of Tunisia and Egypt over the top,” Todd said. “In many Middle Eastern and North African countries, you have a cocktail of politics, religion and other things, but often it’s just poor people saying ‘I’ve got to survive, I’ve got to eat, I’ve got to feed my family’ that ignites things,” he said.

MORE

 

[Charles_Main]

Someone should tell the Libs, it is a Reporters Job to be skeptical all the time.

DUH!

 

[konradv]

Someone should tell the Libs, it is a Reporters Job to be skeptical all the time.

DUH!

Sure they need to be skeptical, but why did FOX need to tell them to be skeptical on a particular subject? That's the point. They've turned a journalistic axiom into a politcal stance on a particular issue. They stepped in the sh_t by making the skepticism specific. That's not journalism, that's advocacy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Global warming liberals don't want geologists or other scientists asking questions about global warming.

Republican loving conservatives don't want engineers or architects asking questions about 9/11.

Nobody in the world wants anyone to question or debate anything that has anything to do with their religion.

This sounds pretty status quo to me.

 

[konradv]

Global warming liberals don't want geologists or other scientists asking questions about global warming.

Republican loving conservatives don't want engineers or architects asking questions about 9/11.

Nobody in the world wants anyone to question or debate anything that has anything to do with their religion.

This sounds pretty status quo to me.

If Global Warming is a religion, where's my tax break?!?!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Global warming liberals don't want geologists or other scientists asking questions about global warming.

Republican loving conservatives don't want engineers or architects asking questions about 9/11.

Nobody in the world wants anyone to question or debate anything that has anything to do with their religion.

This sounds pretty status quo to me.

If Global Warming is a religion, where's my tax break?!?!

Lol well done

But i didn't say it was a religion just to clarify. People don't want certain views questioned or they'll pull the emotion card. Exchanging intellect for emotion in any debate is silly to me.

 

[R.D.]

Someone should tell the Libs, it is a Reporters Job to be skeptical all the time.

DUH!

Sure they need to be skeptical, but why did FOX need to tell them to be skeptical on a particular subject? That's the point. They've turned a journalistic axiom into a politcal stance on a particular issue. They stepped in the sh_t by making the skepticism specific. That's not journalism, that's advocacy.

Because as early as the 80's the politics of global warming has been fodder for the left
Are you really going to pretend this statement is off base?
“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

 

[The Joe]

Global warming liberals don't want geologists or other scientists asking questions about global warming.

Republican loving conservatives don't want engineers or architects asking questions about 9/11.

Nobody in the world wants anyone to question or debate anything that has anything to do with their religion.

This sounds pretty status quo to me.

If Global Warming is a religion, where's my tax break?!?!

Lol well done

But i didn't say it was a religion just to clarify. People don't want certain views questioned or they'll pull the emotion card. Exchanging intellect for emotion in any debate is silly to me.

What's well done? You're both ignorant. What do you call a tax credit for buying a hybrid automobile? A tax break. Let me know if you guys need more examples of tax breaks for the religion of marxism.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If Global Warming is a religion, where's my tax break?!?!

Lol well done

But i didn't say it was a religion just to clarify. People don't want certain views questioned or they'll pull the emotion card. Exchanging intellect for emotion in any debate is silly to me.

What's well done? You're both ignorant. What do you call a tax credit for buying a hybrid automobile? A tax break. Let me know if you guys need more examples of tax breaks for the religion of marxism.

My bad I thought you were making a joke.

Fact is I'm taxed more to give religions a tax break when I don't follow any of them, and I'm taxed more to give hybrid-drivers a break when I don't drive one.

Same thing, my income taken away for things I don't give 2 shits about.