NYT’s botched ‘hidden climate change report’ story makes Trump’s top 10 “fake news” events of 2017

This is funny, but also sad. These media outlets and reporters don’t practice journalism anymore.

Donald Trump’s Fake News Awards List

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.

Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.

Dow closed above 26,000 this week.

2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report.

3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.

(via Fox News)

4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.

5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.

6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

(via washingtonpost.com)

8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.

9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.

The New York Times on Wednesday appended a correction to a story about a climate change study:

Correction: August 9, 2017

An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.

That correction, which sits at the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record. Yet given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should sit atop the story, surrounded by red flashing lights and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers: Warning: This story once peddled a faulty and damaging premise.

That premise suggests that the Trump administration is stifling a damaging draft report — part of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — with dire warnings about climate change.

(via WashingtonPost.com)

11. And last, but not least: “RUSSIA COLLUSION!” Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2018 9:48 am

No Joke. During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming

Most perversely, The Guardian highlights a quote that has been proven 100% false. The Guardian literally published a quote that completely disproves the point they are trying to make. (Emphasis Mine in Following Quote)


Curious George
Reply to  co2islife
January 19, 2018 12:54 pm

It is a common state of alarmist mind. I remember the Ship of Fools passengers chanting about global warming while awaiting evacuation from their ice bound ship.

Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 9:50 am

Wow! FLOTUS looks stunning in that dress.

Ron Long
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:51 am

[Probably best not to approve this comment as is… -mod]

[Snip] (Moderator, if I put a SARC tag on this will you let it pass?) SARC!

Ron Long
Reply to  Ron Long
January 19, 2018 12:41 pm

For the record I think this FLOTUS is a very good person, smart, and great looking. My second snip, I think I will celebrate.

January 19, 2018 9:50 am

Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

Ignoring the facts that the current cold is a weather phenomenon, not a change in climate, the problem Michael Mann and the climate alarmists face is that the only mechanism defined by which CO2 can affect climate change is be trapping outgoing IR radiation between 13 and 18µ. That is the only defined mechanism, and the only result possible is the “thermalization” of those wavelengths resulting in atmospheric WARMING. There is no way for “thermalization” to result in cooling…none. How then, does Michael Mann address this issue?

Mike Maguire
Reply to  co2islife
January 19, 2018 11:02 am

Many of your points are good ones at that link.

However this one:
“If CO2 were the cause of the warming, you would see a narrowing of the spread between the nighttime and the daytime temperatures”
…………needs to be ousted because in fact, the diurnal spread in temperatures has decreased.


This can also be seen because record warm min’s have been occurring with more frequency than record warm max’s. Record low max’s are also exceeding record low min’s.


This is also my observation during the past 3 decades as an operational meteorologist, so it has nothing to do with adjusted temperatures or biased studies………….it’s for real.

That is just one reason for me to be a “Lukewarmer” who believes the modest warming has been beneficial to most life so far and the increasing CO2 has been massively beneficial.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
January 19, 2018 11:48 am

Mike, it’s just asymmetrical water vapor distribution from the changes to the oceans cycles that happen.
Mint Temp follows dew points, there’s a big energy barrier to slow cooling at dew point, WV condensing. As the NH oceans went into warm cycles, all that humid air blows inland to cool, where in the SH, it’s just over water.
And the data agrees, you can both see the actual regulation response in action, by the change in net radiation herecomment image
It slows or stops cooling in spite of a large temperature difference still existing from the surface and zenith temp.
This as examplecomment image
And then, you can see the impact of this regulating ability by seeing the 97% correlation between Dew Point and Min Tcomment image
Why dew point? because temps are non-linearly correlated to both absolute and rel humidity, and co2 is down in the 30%.
A good explanation of the problem is here
The data in the first graph is from these guys.

Oh, then I can show it’s not global here
Where I use a known change in insolation, and compare that to the actual stations change in temperature.
I do that over the extratropics, since it has the strong seasonal signal.

And there are links to all the data and code.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
January 19, 2018 11:50 am

Mike – “…………needs to be ousted because in fact, the diurnal spread in temperatures has decreased.”

You are cherry picking measurements over land at high latitude and low humidity, while ignoring over 84% of the earths surface where that is not happening at all.

Reply to  jinghis
January 19, 2018 12:02 pm

Here’s the daily range from GSoD (US Air Force’s Summary of Days) data set from NCDC.comment image

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Mike Maguire
January 19, 2018 4:37 pm

With all due respect the diurnal spread decrease only appears in UHIs. I live in the country and my experience is that the spread has increased. Reams of supporting data have appeared on this site to support that position, as well as other websites listed on the right side of this page.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
January 19, 2018 10:18 pm

Micro 6500, some units on your vertical axis would be nice,

January 19, 2018 9:53 am

Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Joke

Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isn’t dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.

January 19, 2018 9:53 am

I had a twitter exchange with Katharine Hayhoe yesterday where she claimed it fake, because it wasn’t about him actually blocking anything, which he did not do, but scientists fear that he might!

The fear was real not fake !!!!!!

Made up or not, they sure did work themselves up into a tizzy.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  micro6500
January 19, 2018 10:06 am

Those folks who feared it I loathe to call scientist. Katherine Hayhoe is not a true scientist. She is a politically-motivated rentseeker peddling pseudoscience ideas that continually get falsified by observation with each passing year.

We need a new English word that means, “Political activist masquerading as a scientist”.

Pseudoscientist doesn’t quite cut it because it doesn’t capture the politically/ideologically motivated ideas behind thos supposed fears in those pseudoscientists.

Any ideas on a new word?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:07 am


Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:16 am

If English syntax were like German syntax, we’d already have a new word to that as something like:

“Politikactiverentseekerfakescientist” ,

Simply one long string of letters to pronounce to describe Hayhoe, Dessler, Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, Karl, et al.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:34 am

How about- PAMASS

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:49 am

There is a word. It’s Lysenkoist.

Brian R
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:56 am

Many Climate Scientist remind be of modern day alchemist. Like alchemist they get others to pay for their “research”. Like alchemist the goal of their research is always just around the corner. And just like alchemist there are always forces out of their control that keep them from obtaining their goal.

People of the past were finally able to see these charlatans for what they were. I can only hope that the more enlightened people of the present can do the same.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:57 am

Charlatan comes to mind. Or perhaps:
quack, sham, fraud, fake, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, double-dealer, swindler, fraudster, mountebank….

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 11:10 am

M. Mann / Emu (who’s eye is bigger than the brain ) and emu is an abbreviation of …….

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 11:28 am

How about Lyingtist?

As in EPA Lyingtist or Green Peace Lyingtist?


Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 12:26 pm

Political activist constantly making anecdotal nonsense.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 12:36 pm

How about ‘charlatan’? ‘Hack’? ‘Quack’
Sometimes the old stand-bys are the best.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 12:48 pm

Climate Janusaries

Janus — The two-faced Roman god of gates. (Two-faced, peer-review as gatekeeping)
Aries – Greek god of war (Making culture war on Modern Western Civilization)
Historical Janissaries – Ottoman Empire military units consisting of Christian men, recruited as boys and trained as soldiers. (Hijacking other people/professions/ideas to do the dirty work)

Phil Rae
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 8:39 pm

For those who know about the history of chemistry, I’m tempted to suggest “phlogistonist” since there is actually many similarities between CAGW and the Phlogiston theory! Many of the actors are the same – CO2, oxygen, plants, air…and, of course, the theory had a seductive logic to it except it had pretty much everything “back asswards”. It was finally superseded by the oxygen theory as proposed by Antoine Lavoisier. However, during its heyday the phlogiston theory was widely accepted and it held sway for 100 years with scientists developing ever-more exotic suggestions to explain the various discrepancies between the theory and experimental results. Sounds familiar, right?
The only downside of this term is that it’s a disservice to the original scientists who didn’t try to change their results when they didn’t fit the phlogiston theory! The good news is that science finally prevailed so we can only hope that the same will happen with the CAGW nonsense!

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:43 pm


Just like an astrologer abuses scientific tools and data to produce “predictions”, a climatologer ….

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 21, 2018 11:50 pm

Would PAMAS be OK ?

Reply to  micro6500
January 19, 2018 12:11 pm

Leftists falling for their own propaganda is not news.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2018 12:41 pm

I’ve always found that amazing – apparently acting on a ‘fact’ that you made up – when you KNOW you made it up – but I guess that’s simply effective propaganda. Actors are at their best when they let themselves believe their part. I think OJ’s convinced himself he didn’t do it.

I remember a guy who dressed up in a bigfoot suit, and laid out in the road – pretending to be ‘squatch-road kill’. He got run over twice… as in ‘dead’.

All to get other people to believe a lie he was telling to himself.

Reply to  micro6500
January 19, 2018 12:16 pm

The fear was real not fake !!!!!!


Time to summons the ‘witch smellers’ again! Hayhoe and Mann to the rescue!

Hayhoe would be cute doing the ‘witch smelling’ ritual. She’s a true believer! Mann would be even more bizarre! Let the fat lady sing and dance, it’s the best show of the times! (sit in circle and clap, mumble, and chant).


Reply to  micro6500
January 19, 2018 2:41 pm


I saw your tweet exchange with Katharine Hayhoe when trawling through the 80+ crazy, sycophantic replies to her straw man tweet.

I added a reply just below yours, having done extensive research on the chronology of the NYT edits (not just the correction) at the time. Here’s my tweet:

“If u “notified everyone” you’re surely aware that the errors in the original story (7th Aug, implying a leak) were removed in this later version (8th Aug)? The ‘leak’ + the feared suppression made it seem it was already being suppressed-so why use this version to exonerate @NYT?”

No reply yet.

It happened to be in a thread that didn’t include you but was appropriate to the info in my tweet. No space left to ‘@‘ you but would’ve done so in any subsequent reply.

The reason I thought it important to include you with the one other guy who was calling her out is that we three were the only people in the thread who saw the flaws in her defence of the NYT story. I find it appalling that there are so many lefties lapping up this drivel so unquestioningly

Reply to  Scute
January 19, 2018 3:23 pm

I didn’t see it in my notifications, she didn’t respond on her conclusion, maybe she removed me.

Reply to  Scute
January 19, 2018 6:08 pm

I don’t get how the twitter comment threads work. They seem to fork off in multiple directions even when it’s clearly just two or three people discussing one subject. Before I posted my commment above I scrolled up and down under her tweet replies to check if you had replied since my tweet. Afterwards, I happened to click on my reply to check if anyone had read it and I saw two more comments from you to the same reply of hers! Those two replies were hidden in a forking-off and not on the main comment thread to her original tweet.

January 19, 2018 9:54 am

Thank you for the reminders list. I don’t rely on any of those news sources anyway but it’s good to review them periodically to re-confirm my decision to seek better quality inputs. I just realized this is no different than the decision process for brand selection in car buying or other consumer product and store selection.

January 19, 2018 9:54 am

Of course, Trump will never call out Fox, Breitbart, Drudge or Zero Hedge when they get a story wrong.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 20, 2018 6:56 am

Anthony, you said “that level of wrong” on a list that included a column by an op ed writer (Krugman) as it’s #1 item. The list also included stories about hand shakes and rice tossing. So I’ll include that level of “major stories” in my list.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-03/documents-indicate-emmanuel-macron-may-be-engaging-tax-evasion – documents were faked, ZH didn’t bother to check. And they never published a retraction.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 10:07 am

So Chris, lets have your list.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 10:24 am

Drudge only is an aggregator. He links out to other news sites both Left and Right. Lets the reader decide what to think and/r believe.

ZeroHedge, though, does have many confabulations and frequently has articles that made many predictions over the last few years that have not become reality. Predictions of imminent stock collapses, gold going up, gold going down, are all over the place over the last few years at ZeroHedge. ZeroHedge stories have to be read quite skeptically.

Brietbart is also (not mentioned) is an outlet with a strong Right bias that must be read quite skeptically.
Another is Whatfinger.com. Whatfinger does link out to news stories on sites like CNN and NYT, buts adds in editorials like “Barf-alert”.

Fox is the only true media outlet that has both a journalist-side and an opinion editorial side, where the Firewall between the two is usually maintained.

paul courtney
Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 11:12 am

Chris, we’ve seen your comments in the past, you are intelligent enough to know that your comment above is entirely immaterial to the post. If in fact other news outlets get stories wrong and Trump said nothing (demonstrably untrue, BTW- ever heard of Megyn Kelly? Wasn’t she at FOX, when Trump said a few things about her?) that has no affect whatsoever on the “fake news attack on Trump backfires on progressive press outlets” post above. Why do you need the deflection?

sy computing
Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 11:41 am

“Of course, Trump will never call out Fox, Breitbart, Drudge or Zero Hedge when they get a story wrong.”

He will if they botch it on him for the same purposes these other licentious outlets do. Otherwise he considers it none of his affair. And why should it be?

I don’t see him calling out the NY Times when they reprint some moronic climate change drivel that has nothing to do with him.

Your argument is specious…

Reply to  sy computing
January 19, 2018 12:13 pm

So is Chris.

Reply to  sy computing
January 20, 2018 6:14 am

And MarkW pops in with another 3rd grade insight. You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 12:14 pm

Chris. This Fake news compilation is just a small example of the Left of center MSM and their deep state leaders and their constant misleading leaks. It is the same gang that have promoted and lied about the Global warming /Climate change FAKE NEWS and manipulated climate dogma = Same difference – Same actors!!!

Reply to  TB
January 19, 2018 12:17 pm

Sorry Wrong name = not TB but TG

Reply to  TB
January 20, 2018 6:13 am

Haha “deep state”, why don’t you throw in some more cliches, TB? Marxist/Communist/Leninist, global elites, Agenda 21. Come on, keep up with the right wing nonsense!

Joel Snider
Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 12:45 pm

Dude. Have you been paying attention to the coverage this last year?
NONE of this is about getting a story ‘wrong’.
This is the biggest smear campaign in the history of the planet – bar none. They’ve never been ABLE to commit this kind of widespread fraud – they’ve never been able to create this kind of uniformity of message to so many, so fast. The modern press is Goebbels’ wet dream.
And just think – these people have been controlling the message for our entire lives – they don’t even care if we know it, anymore.

Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 4:01 pm

“Chris January 19, 2018 at 9:54 am
Of course, Trump will never call out Fox, Breitbart, Drudge or Zero Hedge when they get a story wrong.”


It’s not too obvious that you intensely dislike those sites, and that you intensely dislike Trump.
Therefore Chris, as sy computing, accurately points out, you speciously link Trump and those news sites together.

All the better for hating Trumps and truth telling news sources, eh?

It’s astonishing the level of fake bile, that is passed for news on the ‘progressive’ news echo chambers; yet progressive leftists eagerly lap up every fake syllable, then add their own bizarre lies to the stories before tweeting their pals.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 20, 2018 6:19 am

ATheoK, I don’t have a lot of respect for sites that are too lazy or too cheap to pay for their own reporting. Zero Hedge rarely does, they mostly steal stories from other sites, than add a bit of verbiage at the top and bottom to make it “theirs”. Breitbart does some reporting, Drudge is just an aggregator.

I don’t intensely dislike Trump, so clearly your mind reading skills are far weaker than you think. And saying “it’s not too obvious” implies the opposite of what you are trying to say.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 20, 2018 3:53 pm

“Chris January 19, 2018 at 9:54 am
Of course, Trump will never call out Fox, Breitbart, Drudge or Zero Hedge when they get a story wrong.”

Not mind reading. Simple reading, you wrote bluntly and forcefully; with hate regarding all subjects in your sentences.

You directly link Trump to a claim you are unable to prove; and very unlikely to try to prove.
Ergo; a bitter unproven false claim to all subjects in your sentence. It’s called a diatribe.

“Chris January 20, 2018 at 6:19 am
ATheoK, I don’t have a lot of respect for sites that are too lazy or too cheap to pay for their own reporting”

A) Which means you despise all news outlets; since all commercial news outlets solicit and pay for interesting, to them, news stories from any other publisher.
Except for a few poor bloggers, there are not any sites that solely write all of their own news. Even newsletters from organizations and clubs accept, procure and publish news releases from other sites.

“don’t have a lot of respect”

B) Interesting that you attempt to soften your words, actions and other statements by framing your emotive outbursts as pleasant; they are not, no matter what you want to posture as.

– a) Your blunt responses communicate zero respect. Basically, you arbitrarily hate; apparently without rationale or reason. Which is evident when you make statements or post a odd links to your sweeping claims. Apparently, you expect your readers to immediately understand whys and wherefores for your emotives.

– b) You use sweeping gross generalizations coupled with linking specific people et al. Your utter lack of respect for your topics and readers echoes back at you from readers who refuse your nakedly emotional baseless claims.

Trump’s top ten fake news sites must have been impossibly hard to list! Those news outlets that made Trump’s top ten have been pushing reams and reams of fake news, day in, day out for over twelve months.

I think Trump should post a searchable fake news list online, with who wrote the original; and every secondary news outlet that published or rewrote the fake news, then published.

A secondary list should be all of the folks who blindly and publicly ‘share’ and/or retweet fake news.

Public shame lists are very effective.
Especially as CNN, Washpo, NYT, and other news outlets find their credibility destroyed by the thousands of fake news articles attributed to them, forever.
Every fake news article should identify the authors along with their employing agency.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 20, 2018 5:55 pm

“Basically, you arbitrarily hate; apparently without rationale or reason.”

Of course there’s a reason.

By the same logic that utter adherence to the maxim that ‘there are no enemies on the Left” is obligatory to the Left, equally “there are no friends on the Right”.

“Chris” personifies that perfectly, and he isn’t the only one who posts on these threads.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 20, 2018 8:41 pm

Atheok – lol, continue to write long winded diatribes.Being direct and succinct does not equal hate. I think Trump is a poor President who has damaged the standing of the US globally, but I certainly don’t hate him. Regarding content, the NYT has 3700 employees, Zero Hedge has 3 on the payroll. Gee, I wonder which site has a higher percentage of original content?

Reply to  ATheoK
January 21, 2018 9:14 pm

“Chris January 20, 2018 at 8:41 pm
Atheok – lol, continue to write long winded diatribes”

Well, look at that! “Chris” learned a new word; but that does not stop it from emoting hate while maintaining a fake moral superiority pretense and soft pedaling coloring book versions of “Chris” emotives.

Wow! Chris then compares NYT’s total count of employees against a smaller site and then assumes a greater number of employees means veracity. Chris is completely mental, comes to mind.

Chris uses NYT’s marketing, advertising, printers, operators, obituary writers, entertainment critics, help desk, subscription department and whatnot as his “proof” that NYT has a higher percentage of “original content”.
Typical leftist progressive illogic; choose a topic, imagine some spurious correlation, cease thinking.

Chris, again demonstrates leftist wriggling as it changes the meanings of it’s previous comments, trying to find some scrap of validation for earlier false claims and expostulated negative emotions.
• Chris’s comments are “Direct”” Very very slightly.
• Chris’s comments are succinct? Not a chance.
Succinct means clearly and efficiently stated. Chris’s comments have been anything but clear and efficient communications

Oh! “Chris” claims it does not “hate”; but “Chris” somehow believes the polar opposite of Trump’s actual 2017 achievements internationally and domestically.
Just, another example of Chris’s abject refusal of facts and truths, that is directly linked to Chris’s groupie attitude towards NYT and other progressive leftist purveyors of fake news.

Definition of hate
hated; hating

transitive verb
1 : to feel extreme enmity toward : to regard with active hostility ·hates his country’s enemies
2 : to have a strong aversion to : find very distasteful ·hated to have to meet strangers
·hate hypocrisy

intransitive verb
: to express or feel extreme enmity or active hostility”

Chris’s statements clearly emote hate; without rationale, without reason, without facts, without evidence. Indeed, Chris has stated several times it’s severe aversion to the truth(s); since it’s cherished NYT rarely prints any truths.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 21, 2018 11:48 pm

AtheoK – are you paid by the word? You take 4 paragraphs to convey 2 sentences worth of thought. The NYT has 100s of reporters, ZH has 3 full time staff. We were not talking about veracity, we were talking about original reporting.

You can trot out all the definitions you want, and project until the cows come home. I don’t hate Trump, I just think he’s a poor President. Inconsistent, not a real leader, ineffective. Too much hat and not enough cattle.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 22, 2018 9:49 am

Clarity requires sufficient words to frame and deliver the message.
Unlike your short fuse sentences.

Which is another reason to respond with detail since you wriggle and twist as you pretend innocence along with utter ignorance about your exact words.

“Chris January 21, 2018 at 11:48 pm
AtheoK – are you paid by the word? You take 4 paragraphs to convey 2 sentences worth of thought. The NYT has 100s of reporters, ZH has 3 full time staff. We were not talking about veracity, we were talking about original reporting.

You can trot out all the definitions you want, and project until the cows come home. I don’t hate Trump, I just think he’s a poor President. Inconsistent, not a real leader, ineffective. Too much hat and not enough cattle.”

1) Your first words sling an ad hominem. Mostly because you are taken to task based on your words.

2) If your only takeaway is 2 sentences of thought; that is a massive window into your failure to accept facts, truth and reality.

3) As you have already stated, you decide what words mean, dictionaries be dam*ed. Exactly as you treat the reliable news sources; ergo, you dislike the news they publish, so you “hate” those publishers.

4) Within his first year, Trump has eclipsed the Obama incredibly weak totalitarian regime; all without “Presidential orders” to “bypass” Congress.
– a) Donald Trump runs a very successful world wide business empire. An empire that DNC, HRC and the MSM’s were unable to find many Trump doubters within.
– b) President Trump, in one year, has eliminated thousands of burdensome regulations, returned funds back to the people who earned them, shut down leftists dragging a very unwilling USA towards green doom and debacle.

5) What you “think” is irrelevant! You insist on your personal bias while ignoring facts and actions.

6) Again, you sling ad hominems against a performing successful sitting President. Ad hominems that are dependent upon echo chamber misinformation and your personal “dislike”; aka hate.
– a) Trump has been very consistent from before his inauguration.
– b) Unlike Obama, Trump has not demonstrated weakness anywhere.
– c) Trump’s actions match those of leader extremely well. There is zero ranting about the opposition team while scribbling unconstitutional “Presidential Orders” to force the President’s will against the American people.

“Definition of leader
1. a person who rules, guides, or inspires others; head
(lē′dər) n.
1. One that leads or guides.
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
3. a. One who heads a political party or organization.
b. One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.”

Ah, but you prefer your own opinions of what a word “means”.
Which also explains why your comments mislead people.

The key action of a “leader” is that they are not “followers”.
Definitely unlike the leftist progressives, DNC, HRC, MSM and the previous despotic Administration.

“We were not talking about veracity, we were talking about original reporting.”

There you go again! You redefine what your original words mean, so you can wriggle into a different claim.!

“Chris January 20, 2018 at 6:19 am
ATheoK, I don’t have a lot of respect for sites that are too lazy or too cheap to pay for their own reporting.”

Your statement is not about “original reporting” it is about publishing news articles sourced elsewhere!

Let us know when you actually identify the true sources for all of NYT’s reporting and can tell us what NYT wrote versus the stories sourced from elsewhere.
“True sources” mean those who that actually practiced investigative journalism, found and reported the news initially, not NYT’s rewrite of a Boston, AP, Chicago, greenpiece, wwf, guardian, etc. articles.

NYT has not performed “investigative journalism” for quite some time now, except for some international “hotspot” stories or local neighborhoods’ social stories.

Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 9:59 am

While the Lame Stream Media wildly goes bananas over ever Trump tweet, and every supposed vulgarity he said, his cabinet officers in charge of agencies and Departments are quietly, slowly, and steadily undoing the Obama-Liberal agenda items all across government.

That is the real success story the Lib media won’t report on. Polling and academic studies consistently show independent non-political party affiliated (independent) voters strongly favor the idea of a smaller, less-intrusive Federal government. The Left and its media propaganda wing avoids reporting on the slow, steady declining payrolls at the EPA, State Department, and others.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:15 am

I still maintain that this is Trump’s real genius.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:19 am


Gary Pearse
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:33 am

His alleged remark about S…hole countries is of course crude, mean and unpresidential. But we know which ones he means and why they might be called that. These are the ones whose governments are negligent, self-enriching and care not a whit for the plight of the poor citizens who find themselves in the most degraded circumstances because of it. Of course we don’t want such people to flood the country. The leaders of these countries should be called out and use of some levers to get responsible government to these unfortunate people should be the impetus for prosperous governments.

I have had a lifetime (first went to Africa south of the Sahara in early-mid 1960s) of wondering why in hell the people of Africa don’t have clean water on a water planet! Egad! get a half dozen engineers to design simple workable systems and train a team to monitor and keep it going. I had to purify my own water as every expatriate did in those early days. Heck, you could dig a hole, put a pail in it, stretch plastic over the hole and put a small stone weight in the middle for the nighttime condensation to drip into the pail – even in many arid countries. All these NGOs in over 50yrs of going on safari and frustratinig every initiative of foreign investment in mining and other industries that would have by now funded public works, education and wellbeing for these people has been an impediment. UN + NGOs, plus foreign government aid projects and safaris called counselling, blew over a trillion since independence of African countries and you can’t get a drink of clean water or a bit of electricity to facilitate advancement of these people whose S…holes-In-Charge simply skimmed this off with lots of wink winks and bought palaces in southern France and real estate in NYC, etc. etc. Out.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 10:55 am

If the UN spent more time actually helping these countries instead of promoting exporting their people to countries that are successful and taking the money wasted on Climate Change and invested it in their real economy maybe there would be hope.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 10:58 am

“Egad! get a half dozen engineers to design simple workable systems and train a team to monitor and keep it going.”

A friend of mine did just that. The project was shelved when local poobahs blocked import of the system, demanding a ton of baksheesh for every unit.

paul courtney
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 11:27 am

Gary P: I think Trump should apologize for calling Haiti a sh**hole country, and then- “What I meant to say is, Haiti is a third world country that is striving, with the help of the Clinton Foundation, to become the world’s first fourth world country.” That should do it!

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 6:29 pm

“His alleged remark about S…hole countries is of course crude, mean and unpresidential.”

The fact is we don’t know exactly what Trump said or in what cotext it was said. All we have for a source is the partisan Democrat Senator Dick Durbin’s characterization of it. Others in the meeting had different memories of the incident.

Dick Durbin makes a scruilous charge, the Leftwing Media runs with it as if it is true, and too many people, including people who ought to know better, believe what Durbin said.

The first rule when dealing with the Left and the Leftwing News Media is to assume they are distorting the truth until proven otherwise.

A hundred news reporters repeatig a lie doesn’t make the lie true.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 6:31 pm

The problem is embodied by the Whitefish Energy contract Puerto Rico Power signed right after Hurricane Maria.

The Left smeared it as White privilege because local contractors were not contracted. PR Power wanted the work done fast. Liberals objected to giving the contract to a Montana company. A State where Interior Sec Zinke had lived.
The contract got cancelled.

4 months on, PR still has lots of power issues.

James Francisco
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 19, 2018 10:43 am

Could be a clever tactic eh. Oh look a baby wolf.

January 19, 2018 10:00 am

“That correction, which sits at the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record”

Somebody should get Pachauri’s Lawyer on the case:


“The former TERI chief had earlier secured an order from Additional District Judge that makes it mandatory for media houses to publish or telecast the coverage of the case with a title that “In any court the allegations have not been proved and they may not be correct.”

“The interim order also said “when such information is published in any page of a magazine or report, then it should be in middle of the page in bold letters and it should be five times larger than the font in which the article is being published.”

January 19, 2018 10:12 am

Why is a climate site reporting political propaganda?

All apart from the non-story about NY times is just party political stuff.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 19, 2018 4:05 pm

Months ago, Many looonngg months ago!

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 19, 2018 7:35 pm

Occasionally Griff has a comment that adds to the discussion or provides a serious ‘second opinion’ that helps others think. I like that to make sure that I am not falling pry to group think.

However, so often, his comments are like this one, simply idiotic.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 19, 2018 8:04 pm

Anthony, your patience with his inane interruptions is extraordinary.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 20, 2018 3:17 am

He sometimes provides great humour.
He also shows us how ignorant and dumb some of the Climate Warriors are.
Let’s face it we don’t have to read the nonsense he writes.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2018 11:15 am

While it’s hardly propaganda, Griff, I’d agree that this is not really appropriate. While a note would have been good, a whole article is just taking this site took far into politics.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
January 19, 2018 11:41 am

Ben, “Climate Change™” IS all about politics. !! (more than about actual climate)

There is no escaping that fact.

They are inimically intertwined.

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2018 11:17 am

Did you get thrown out of a S/Hole country ? your mentality is below there average !

Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
January 20, 2018 7:00 am

And you can’t spell, Ziiex. Not very smart when you are criticizing someone else’s intelligence.

Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2018 11:41 am

Why is a climate site reporting political propaganda?

Griff, this story is in itself news, not propaganda. But if you are concerned about propaganda, you might ask why a scientific organization, the American Geophysical Union, is encouraging research on “climate intervention?” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/18/the-american-geophysical-union-thinks-climate-intervention-is-a-viable-area-of-research/

Getting really tired of your idiotic comments.

I’m getting really tired of name-calling on this and other sites. It’s juvenile and lowers the quality of discussion. It’s counterproductive in that it: a-encourages more of the same noise by promoting martyrdom complexes, and b-damages the credibility for some new visitors of the information available on this site.

By the way, someone spoofed my name onto a comment a while back. This comment seems out-of-character for Anthony.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 12:18 pm

Are you disagreeing with the assessment of Griff’s comments as idiotic?

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 12:34 pm

I’m disagreeing with name-calling. It isn’t constructive.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 1:05 pm

“Griff is an idiot.” is name-calling. “Griff made an idiotic comment.” is not. It’s completely fair game to judge the message, not the messenger.

That said, after years of commenting here, Griff deserves just about every bit of ribbing he gets. Sometimes the only proper response to the ridiculous is ridicule.

You don’t raise the quality of discussion by suffering fools gladly. Quite the opposite.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 1:08 pm

The reference was to the comment, not to griff. So not name-calling.

But certainly , they go hand in hand… skipping off into fantasy land.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 1:22 pm

If Griff were helpful, you might have the beginnings of a point.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 1:25 pm

It’s completely fair game to judge the message, not the messenger.

This is a serious issue, not a “game.” Dismissing a comment as “idiotic” doesn’t add anything to the conversation or enhance the credibility of this site. For the benefit of visitors who might be open to recognizing the errors of the CAGW narrative, briefly explain instead why a comment is so wrong.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 1:35 pm

Gees I get sick of totalitarians telling people what they should and shouldn’t say !!

Anthony and the moderators have that job, certainly NOT you, Ralph.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 1:51 pm

“If I had said “Griff, you’re an idiot.” You’d have a point about name-calling.”

The line between a totally appropriate description, and name-calling, can sometimes get blurry. !!

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 2:21 pm

Ralph, are you bound and determined to prove how anal you can get?
Nobody said it was a game. That’s just a phrase, lighten up and stop pretending to be offended.

Reply to  Ralph Westfall
January 19, 2018 6:03 pm

Nice of Big Chief Ralph to tell Little Indian Anthony how to run his very own blog. (go get your own award winning pow wow and run it your way)…

Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2018 12:08 pm

“Why is a climate site reporting political propaganda?”

Because climate change is a political rather than scientific issue.

Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2018 12:16 pm

Griff[snip], if you want to control the content of a blog, maybe you should start your own.
I’m pretty sure your mom will give you visits.

[Again, we’re done changing people’s usernames into clever insults and slurs. Civility is not that difficult. -mod]

Gunga Din
Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2018 3:40 pm

I don’t check in here for “political propaganda”.
If I wanted that, I’d read the NYT or watch CNN or other MSM.
Manngorian “Climate Science” has been political going back to Hansen. You can’t say Ney to that!

January 19, 2018 10:13 am

This was actually a very clever way to hammer home the MSM bias point. Putting it all on the RNC server was also clever.
Next up the explosive Nunes summary memo showing how Clinton and Obama used FBI and DoJ to create anti-Trump ‘insurance’ policy. Heads will roll. And, of course, the probable Schumer Shutdown tonight showing Dems care more for illegals than our military and government services. Fun week for Deplorables. Have to stock more popcorn.

January 19, 2018 10:15 am

Former FBI director James Comey will teach an ethical leadership course at the College of William & Mary starting next fall, the school announced Friday.


Paul Penrose
Reply to  john
January 19, 2018 10:18 am

What’s next? Is Bill Clinton going to teach a course on abstinence?

James Francisco
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 19, 2018 10:51 am

How about Hillary teaches computer technology?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  john
January 19, 2018 10:44 am

Yeah, well, uncharged felon Glieck, was, after his impersonation as a board member to illegally receive internal documents and his fake documents activities, appointed to be ethics director for Geophysical Research Letterrs. Monica Lewinsky became a star…. notoriety is a good thing to have on your resume when you look for fame in lefty circles. I’m surprised she didn’t come out with a brand of cigars.

Reply to  john
January 19, 2018 6:41 pm

“Former FBI director James Comey will teach an ethical leadership course at the College of William & Mary starting next fall, the school announced Friday.”

I had a good laugh at this one when I read it! Oh, the irony!

I wonder if Comey will teach a class in the prison he is assigned to. I can see it now: Comey and Mueller are the instructors and all their henchmen and henchwomen from the FBI and DOJ will be in the classroom learning how to be ethical. Too bad they didn’t take this class before entering government/Obama service.

Reply to  TA
January 19, 2018 6:51 pm

FYI TA, neither Comey nor Meuller are facing any criminal charges. Prison for either of them is not possible without criminal charges.

Reply to  TA
January 20, 2018 1:17 pm

Not yet, J. Philip.

We are just at the beginning of this investigation into Russian/Hillary/Obama collusion. There may be lots of prominent names involved in crimes. Mueller was FBI Director when the Russian One scandal was going on, and Comey is already guilty of breaking federal laws dealing with classified information and leaking. And of course, Comey was a major player in exonnerating Hillary before she was even questioned about her crimes dealing with classified information. Comey signed off on all this unethical, and criminal activity of obstructing justice. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has some questions to answer, too. Lot’s of Obama appointees are involved in this skulduggery.

We are going to know a whole lot more about the corruption in the Obama administration shortly. Release the Memo!

January 19, 2018 10:15 am
Paul Penrose
Reply to  ozonebust
January 19, 2018 10:23 am

Waivers are not pardons, and these cases are a lot more complicated than that very misleading “article” reveals. BTW, Obama granted waivers to the same banks, which is why the MSM and the Democrats are staying low on this non-story.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 19, 2018 10:41 am
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 19, 2018 12:09 pm

Wow, it’s worse than we thought.


January 19, 2018 10:23 am

The National Media has slowly been transformed into the National Enquirer.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
January 19, 2018 10:43 am

Yes, I think it’s following a gravity model. Now science news is being dragged into the black hole with sensationalized headline reporting. All of the smaller news outlets and professional organizations are orbiting the same depression in similar fashion. Soon the light of day will have no chance of escaping.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
January 19, 2018 10:57 am

Death throes.

paul courtney
Reply to  Stephen Heins
January 19, 2018 11:40 am

Steve Heins: I disagree, NE once ran a story that was fair.

Reply to  paul courtney
January 19, 2018 12:21 pm

The NE broke several of the Clinton scandals.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
January 19, 2018 12:20 pm

The National Enquirer at least makes money.

January 19, 2018 10:36 am

Stock market soaring = strong economy? That is as dumb as it gets. Please find other metrics. Did the dot com bubble mean we all got rich? No, but stockbrokers probably did well. Did the real estate bubble mean we all did well? No, millions of people ended up losing homes and jobs. Sorry, but you hit one of my pet peeves pretty hard.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Albert
January 19, 2018 10:58 am

Yeah Albert, some prefer the Lefty Market Swoon instead – those bubbles rose out of the swamp and your heroes are desparately fighting a rearguard action to preserve the fetid water – some are compromised GOP lifers but most are Demograts. Did you miss the Apple announcement that (because of Trumps tax reform) they are repatriating 380B to the US and will pay 38B in taxes immediately and will invest heavily in new “campuses of production” in the US. They’ve also hired 20,000 new employees and gave a reduced taxes bonus payout to their employees of 2500 bucks each. You are undoubtedly a 100% Apple owner by definition and I could name a lot of other things that is instantly knowable about you, your sociology degree, etc. etc.. The market, even your heroes in it, is signalling what they like about the new USA open for businees project. Japanese and European companies are investing in facilities in the USA to take advantage of cheap natural gas and electricity. You are a man without a party but you do have a country.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 11:02 am

Gary, please don’t make assumptions about me. I’m a true skeptic and I reserve the right to call out BS wherever I see it.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 12:24 pm

While it pays to be skeptical, being skeptical of everything just makes you look like a crank.
Not everything is a scam.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 19, 2018 1:10 pm

If one would question everything, one must also question the concept of questioning everything.

Reply to  Albert
January 19, 2018 12:23 pm

While we didn’t all get rich off the dot com bubble, lots of people did and the economy as a whole improved.
Are you one of those people who believes that unless everyone gets rich, nobody should?
A rising stock market is an indicator of a healthy market.

Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2018 3:15 pm

If we say that the president’s policies control the stock market and the stock market is indicative of the overall economy then we need to say that George W crashed the global economy and President Obama’s policies were wonderful for the economy, neither of which is true. You’re no different than the Obama followers who constantly pointed to the stock market as an indication of how wonderful our economy was doing. It’s just the wrong metric.

Reply to  Albert
January 19, 2018 6:48 pm

“Did the dot com bubble mean we all got rich?”

Well, you got rich if you sold at the right time. You got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.

Another piece of propaganda the MSM ran with at the time was that George W. Bush was responsible for the Clinton/Gore economic downturn which began in March 2000, before Bush became president. They said Bush was “talking down the economy” and that’s why the bubble burst. It’s always the Republican’s fault, as far as the MSM is concerned. Then and now.

January 19, 2018 10:47 am

In any other universe, I would not be a Trump fan. But because Trump is up against a lying media with a narrative that is frankly destructive to western cultures, I am forced to be his ally.

Reply to  Jeremy
January 19, 2018 6:58 pm

“Trump is up against a lying media with a narrative that is frankly destructive to western cultures”

Yes, he is, and the lying news media is definitely destructive to western cultures. Trump is battling these evil doers for all of us by calling them out as the very dangerous liars they are.

Reply to  TA
January 19, 2018 7:07 pm

Only liar is Trump. For example, Stormy Daniels. She’s hot, and Trump should be proud of tapping that instead of saying it didn’t happen.

Reply to  TA
January 19, 2018 8:37 pm

MSM transformed? Well, I recall ex-CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg discovering that at graduate Columbia School of Journalism, there were only 1% non-Leftists attending.

That was in the1990s. By the next decade (ie, the last decade), Marxism in J-Schools became the default ideology.

I’ve known a half dozen J-school grad students over many years. The last one did his MA thesis on public morality and capitalism. On his committee were two Marxists. The only non-Marxist was a libertarian from the economics department whom I had recommended. He couldn’t find a non-Marxist at the University of Colorado School of Journalism.

Unfortunately, when it comes to higher-ed (as well as lower-ed, completely socialized much longer) we get we pay for. We have bought anti-capitalism and therefore we get anti-capitalism.

(Me? I stopped my families life-long newspaper subscription habit in 1999 – when Clinton’s impeachment that never mentioned “sex” became nothing but about “sex.” I refuse to pay for lies whenever and wherever I can resist them.)

January 19, 2018 10:51 am

Since we’re on the topic of lists, this would be a great time to get a listing of codified statements of belief inserted into professional organizations, institutions, and some religions on the subject of global warming. The date of statement insertion also needs to be recorded for future reference to show the manipulation timing.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 19, 2018 1:58 pm

Good idea, especially for global warming historians. I often think of how these WUWT articles and comment threads constitute a valuable historical record of the gw debate. So much so that if I refer to any dated article or action, I write out the full date including the month in letters and the year. I’m already finding it tedious nailing down chronologies in stories that are a few years old because everyone at the time was so familiar with that chronology, they didn’t feel they needed to include dates at all.

January 19, 2018 11:04 am

The irony is, despite the comedy wailing in the MSM and worldwide political circles, Trump is great news for the media, and probably for that Paris thing, which would have probably sunk with trace had it not been for the Great Withdrawal.

January 19, 2018 11:13 am

The only question is do people actually believe this crap the mainstream media put out? Apparently not, Donald Trump is president even though the same lying biased and propaganda sources called him unbelievable things and accused him of everything under the sun.

The sad thing is that the President is 100% right. The media have become a propaganda machine. They are literally working every day for political power purposes. It’s not possible to call it even “alternate viewpoints.” They have no viewpoint other than we want Donald Trump to die. We want to be in power again and we will do and say anything to get it.

This has never been the case in America at any time to my knowledge. I have been around. I have read a lot. I have never seen major news sources who are utterly 100% dedicated to destroying a politician. However, the global warming hysteria shows a methodology that they have repeated over and over again.

The global warming hysteria follows a strategy democrats have used extensively to promote environmentalsm causes. This is very sad to me since I consider myself very protective of the environment. I don’t need radicalization to be an environmentalist.

The strategy can be tied to that promoted by Alinsky. The Democrats reuse these techniques over and over in each new fantasy. Global warming is thus incredibly instructive to see how they operate and how they build these propaganda narratives.

1) Key to the propaganda approach is the demonization. They blame somebody whether they have anything to do with whatever they want to villify. Exxon seems fine. Even though all that Exxon and other oil companies do is provide a service that even the global warming elites need, i.e. oil, they still make out like we would be using rats in spinning cages or have solar energy earlier if it weren’t for dastardly Exxon. Exxon actually spends far more money advertising and promoting the global warming agenda then funding anyone who might be a skeptic. It is key to be able to blame someone.

2) Construct models and scientific sounding basis for whatever they suggest. In the case of the Russia conspiracy it seems they paid $12 million to fabricate some basis so they could get FISA warrants approved.

3) Give it a moniker of “news” “journalism” “science” leverage trustworthy sources to make it seem their accusations are based on real people and organizations beliefs although make sure to not go into detail on the merit of the accusations.

4) Become incredibly offended that anyone should doubt the narrative you are presenting. Make sure to constantly lambast the supposed perpetrator. Have moral speeches constantly accusing the other side of evil beyond belief. The antagonist literally wants the earth and everyone to die. They are pure evil. Repeat this every 2 or 3 minutes for years until it is baked into people;s heads an evil association of the antagonist.

5) When the science or the narrative’s arguments break down then ignore that. Deny the veracity of the arguments against and assert that things are EVEN WORSE than you thought before. The evildoer is even worse. Make more accusations. Produce more false evidence. Attack people who aren’t even opposed to your narrative.

6) It is very important to crush and demonize anyone who falls from grace and actually starts to believe the narrative is false or has flaws in the slightest. You must enforce rigid belief in the evil of the evildoer trumping any possible small errors in your narrative.

7) Keep adjusting your story so that the original claims are slightly different. This allows you to claim the disproof of your oringal thesis is invalid and you never said that. It is important not to get too specific on your evidence because it will be harder to do this adjusting. This technique depends on several things. One is the fact that the narrative seem complicated. People today never remember details. So, by avoiding talking specifics and keeping to the accsational line it is possible to never admit to any actual failure.

8) When confronted with more doubt and people arguing against you make sure to have at the ready why “It is worse than you ever thought.” Have more accusations and more made up evidence or pieces of information that can be used to create new attacks. Claim the evidence has come in from these new accusations even though they aren’t evidence.

If you follow these 8 principles of the Alinsky method of social warring you can start your own narrative. Global warming has become the textbook example of how to decieve people and propagandize them.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
January 19, 2018 12:28 pm

The left can’t accept the fact that people aren’t buying what the leftists are trying to sell.
So the invent dastardly dark forces that are conspiring to keep the truth from the people.
They then demonize these assigned enemies in an effort to scare everyone else into going along with them.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
January 19, 2018 7:06 pm

The Left complains about Trump calling the Leftwing News Media “Fake News” and liars, saying Trump is attacking the First Amendment which establishes Freedom of the Press, but this is not true, Trump is not attacking the press in general, he is only attacking the liars in the press.

January 19, 2018 11:39 am

These seems to have been collusion, but it wasn’t Trump-originated. More projection from the left!

Rob Dawg
January 19, 2018 11:40 am

The intersection of Trump haters and CAGW belivers approaches unity.

January 19, 2018 12:03 pm


Ok. What is collusion anyway?

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal–but always secretive–to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve “wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties”. In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void. link

IIRC … The Russians were accused of dumping a bunch of documents into Wikileaks. Donald Trump said publicly, and gleefully, that the Russians should continue to do so. That doesn’t sound like collusion to me.

I’m not certain if it is collusion to meet with the Russians behind doors to ask if they have any better dirt on Hillary.

I’m not certain if is collusion to offer the Russians Republican money to act like a detective agency to dig up dirt on Hillary.

I am certain that the Democrats were doing everything in their power to dig up dirt on Trump. They should expect that the Republicans would act likewise.

On the other hand, if Trump’s people offered to betray America’s interests in exchange for Russian help, that goes over the line into collusion. (IMHO, IANAL)

Joel Snider
Reply to  commieBob
January 19, 2018 12:33 pm

Look at the DNC and the mainstream press and see if you can find any ‘collusion.’

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 19, 2018 1:28 pm

The FBI, DOJ, and Clinton Campaign apparently colluded to get a phony “dossier” on Trump fabricated, then used it to get FISA warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of a presidential candidate and those close to him and his campaign. Then that same phony “dossier” was used to instigate a special investigation of a sitting POTUS without so much as a whiff of probable cause. That is the story the old media is trying to avoid and I’m beginning to wonder if this shutdown thing is not a ploy to delay that story and all the dirt and names that are going to be broken when it all sees the light of day. Because it’s coming to a head, and no amount of spin or obfuscation is going to stop that story and what is behind it from making Watergate seem like a nothing burger. There are a whole lot of deep state establishment butts on the line but worse for them will be the revelation of just how the system worked. This isn’t just dirty laundry. It’s dirty diapers and a whole lot of names in the news that have been presented in the press as being honorable are the ones that soiled those diapers.

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 19, 2018 2:16 pm

RAH January 19, 2018 at 1:28 pm

The FBI, DOJ, and Clinton Campaign apparently colluded to get a phony “dossier” on Trump …

You’re not the only one who thinks that. link

Diapers indeed.

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 19, 2018 2:56 pm

The DNC emails released by Wiki are full of examples of the DNC colluding with the media and even editing their articles before going to print. Democrats would demand a special prosecutor to charge Republicans with a crime if the RNC had done the exact same thing. We now know that Hillary, the DNC, and the FBI paid an ex British spy to collude with Russians to produce the fake dossier on Trump. That was just opposition research they say. But if Trump Jr. met with Russians to get opposition research on Hillary, that’s a crime, even though he paid them nothing and got nothing from them. Go figure.

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 20, 2018 1:34 pm

“But if Trump Jr. met with Russians to get opposition research on Hillary, that’s a crime, even though he paid them nothing and got nothing from them.”

It is not a crime to listen to someone dishing dirt on Hillary Clinton, even if it was paid for.

Reply to  commieBob
January 19, 2018 7:10 pm

“I am certain that the Democrats were doing everything in their power to dig up dirt on Trump.”

According to reports, Fusion GPS, the producers of the “Dirty Dossier”, is *still* trying to dig up dirt on Trump. Which begs the question: Who is paying Fusion GPS to do this now?

January 19, 2018 12:25 pm

For a light-hearted look at politics and politicians (possibly very accurate), watch the series “VEEP” on HBO.

John F. Hultquist
January 19, 2018 1:27 pm

WUWT has always posted interesting things other than climate. I approve.

If you followed that rule, you could not post about the weather, your hearing issues, dams overflowing, nor the failure of polar bears to go extinct. If they went bye bye, that would be climate change, you could do a story.
If someone wants to only read about climate, just read the climate posts — or start your on blog.

Thanks, AW, for the site.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 19, 2018 1:38 pm

Agree. Besides that a blogger owns his/her blog and can post whatever they want. Fine to inform the blogger if you don’t like a blog post. But to try and dictate to the blogger that their content should be limited only to the subject matter that YOU want to read and think is pertinent is the height of arrogance.

Gunga Din
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 19, 2018 4:01 pm

Very true.
This is Anthony’s “living room”.
Whatever interest him or “catches his fancy” might merit a post.
He’s also a meteorologist. If the genuine science behind climate interest him. Big surprise. (NOT!)
That the politics behind CAGW’s political science also interest him?
It’s about time more readers considered it.
Some criticize this site because many have.

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 19, 2018 7:15 pm

It’s very easy to skip over posts or posters you don’t want to read. Just skip what you don’t like and quit complaining about how the owner of the website operates. It’s his website. He is the one who decides what is appropriate or not. If he posts an article, you should assume he finds it appropriate for his website.

Most of those who complain about too much politics seem to be on the Left side of the equation. What they are really saying is “Please stop bursting my Leftwing bubble”.

Dr. Strangelove
January 19, 2018 8:33 pm

This one is not fake news: “Nobel laureate in physics called global warming a pseudoscience”

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
January 20, 2018 9:37 am

Thanks for the link. Excellent presentation by Ivar Giaever.

January 20, 2018 3:46 am

Excel has been a pain to properly label axis.
Those are degrees F

Eyal Porat
January 20, 2018 8:32 am

Apparently there WAS a collusion: between Russians and Hillary’s team.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights