The New York Times Sunday was the biggest release day of the week, a long, triple story designed to inspire fear and anger at Trump’s White House climate policy. [emphasis, links added]
This is not an example of a similarly civic journalism, but another publicity piece that promotes global warming stories.
The reporter told readers from the top that President Donald Trump “has severely undermined the administration’s ability to fight climate change to subvert U.S. environmental policy with moves that may have lasting impact on the country and the planet.”
“Can?” This is what the panic of global warming is based on: Yes, possibilities and possibilities.
However, the reporter screamed “Mr. Trump has been trapped in federal climate efforts, making a comeback to limit pollution and promoting the fossil fuel industry.”
Let's not confuse carbon dioxide with pollution, which is what alarmists keep doing. Just because the federal government classifies carbon dioxide as a “threat to human health and welfare” does not mean.
As we all know, this is crucial to life.
Naturally, we cannot improve the fossil fuel industry because it only provides the cornerstone of modernity, nothing can replace it, no, or even no renewable energy.
At this point, there are only two paragraphs Obviously, this story is not journalism. For Green Nonsense and the Democratic agenda, it is the economic agenda from Washington and Blue State capitals.
By the way, we are not alone in noticing the difficult tendency of the story. According to Grok, AI Assistant XAI:
This article shows bias through its emotionally dynamic language, unilateral procurement, selective frameworks and omitted rebuttals, all against Trump’s environmental policy shift.
It takes climate action as a moral and scientific command to treat dissent as reckless or corruption rather than a legitimate policy choice.
Although factual events are reported (e.g., policy changes, legal challenges), The speech favors listeners who have already opposed Trump and may undermine their objectivity to readers seeking balanced views.
We continue our trek:
“He (Trump) is giving up efforts to reduce global warming, even if the world has reached what scientists call record levels, which is driven in large part by the burning of fossil fuels,” the Times said.
“Now, every corner of the world experiences the effects of these rising temperatures in the form of growing hurricanes, floods, wildfires and droughts, and species extinction.”
There is no link to support the paragraph’s claim, nor is there any evidence of the story deeper. Time readers will certainly accept this claim as a fact.
But we are not, because we know that human narratives are speculated, false statements, speculations, guesses, maliciousness, confidentiality, secrets, and yes, outright lies, such as 97% of climate scientists say that human activity raises our level of danger – this is the level of danger of science, otherwise
Most of the rest of the world are also catching up.
People are tired of being bullied and speaking, telling them that they must fall into line and sacrifice, procrastinating late work as avid activists block traffic, tires are cut, watching smug virtuous believers live their weak lives.
We focus on a story on this editorial in a single medium. but New York Times It is regarded as or was once the pinnacle of journalism.
So it stands out, though not alone. The madness of global warming is actually within the media scope.
Reading questions and insights
