Difficult to get through that when it contains sentences like this:
Quote:
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.The ice is back.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
|
What's wrong with reporting the NEWS and not instilling political/personal bias into the article? Who owns the National Post again?
I mean this is the exact kind of thing that some people who are a little skeptical about global warming could read and say to themselves, "I knew it was all hippie nonsense fabricated by those left-wing tree-huggers," and shrug off anything to do with gloabal warming in the future.
If we are going to keep the debate open and honest, it needs to be centered in scientific fact/theory (like this article attempted to do, before getting all thos not-so-subtle jabs in), and not name-calling, accusations, and political interest.