The 2017 Associated Press (AP) yearly style guide is out, and it boasts numerous changes where the wire service again favors liberal biases over impartiality or conservative ideals. This is most telling in areas of abortion, illegal immigrants, terrorism, guns, and climate change.
The AP Stylebook is ostensibly a middle-of-the-road guide that most journalists can rely on for universal rules of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and word choice. Yet with each edition, AP’s covert bias becomes more pronounced, none more so than this year.
Even climate change has been updated. Having previously told journalists to refer to global warming as “climate change” and to call climate change skeptics “doubters,” AP is ready to move on and squash the climate resistance once and for all.
In the new edition, the AP Stylebook tells journalists to stop calling climate change skeptics “deniers.” It tells writers to “describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute that the world is warming from man-made forces” and “use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.”
But above all, never use the word “skeptic,” the guide warns. Skepticism is one of the very cornerstones that science is built upon. Calling someone a skeptic invites discussion and tells the reader that other people don’t subscribe to all tenets of global warming theory. In an attempt to dismiss skeptics, writers and editors use the pejorative term “deniers” into copy in both print and web.
The new entry also includes a lengthy dissection on why man-made global warming is backed up by verifiable, accurate substantiation. Sounding like PolitiFact, AP instructs journalists that climate change theory is now fact and man-made warming is the consensus belief. But there’s no such thing as consensus in science, and climate change theory changes weekly.
Read rest at LifeZette
Why are they at the leftists AP so afraid of anyway Its just their afraid of this entire Climate Change/Global Warming poppycock being proven as a hoax
AGAIN, we get the always ugly and always SPURNING PLOVER…
SCIENCE is not leftist or rightist….it is SCIENCE……
Killer Coal and BIG Oil have spent Billions to sully legitimate Science
in order to enable the Continued COAL & OIL ENERGY MONOPOLY
and the $1/3 TRILLION in profits that monopoly funnels into the billionaires pockets…and the additional $1 TRILLION in Corporate WELFARE…..subsidies, supports, industry specific tax breaks, industry specific tax deferrals, free infra structure and infra structure maintenance, free land and free land use, even a foreign aid program which, on a DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR basis aids foreign nations that subsidize our profitable industry..
…
“….THE Low Costs of Solar Power
and Wind Power and Natural GAS:
Crush Coal Electric rates,
Crush Nuclear Electric rates,
even Beats Natural Gas Electric rates.
December 25th, 2016
“We already published a great article from Nexus Media regarding Lazard’s new report showing the extremely low (and falling) costs of solar power and wind power.
“However, I’ve been wanting to highlight these awesome new findings since Larmion shared the updated report with us earlier this month, and I want to break out the amazing news in 5 specific ways.
These are 5 messages that I think anyone wanting a better US economy (or a better economy in practically any country), anyone wanting national energy freedom (aka energy independence), anyone wanting to advance the most cost-effective choices for electricity generation, and anyone wanting to make logical energy decisions should know and share with others.
….
“1. Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty KILLER COAL Energy
The first point is the very basic fact that new wind power and/or solar power plants are typically cheaper than new coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants — even without any governmental support for solar or wind.
Not only are they typically cheaper — they’re much cheaper in many cases.
….
2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty KILLER COAL Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)
The estimates above are supposedly “unsubsidized,” but if you include social externalities as societal subsidies (I do), the estimated costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are hugely subsidized in those charts.
….
3. Solar & Wind Became Much Cheaper In The Past 7 Years (85% and 66%, Respectively)
No, wind and solar costs didn’t roll off a cliff because of Obama, but his staff did help to hasten the roll to some degree. Programs like SunShot have helped to bring down costs even faster than they were coming down anyway, as did greater deployment of renewables — with greater production and deployment, costs come down almost automatically.
….
4. The Lowest Solar Costs Shown In The Lazard Report Are Considerably Higher Than Globally Recorded Low-Price Bids
I won’t go into much detail right now, but I will update this article as more record-low prices for solar power and wind power are reported. For now, though, note that we’ve seen solar project bids for under 3¢/kWh in the UAE and well under 4¢/kWh in Mexico — prices that are well below the Lazard’s low-end estimates for the US.
….
People Can Get Lower Prices But More Jobs With Solar & Wind
Whether American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, or [fill in the blank], solar and wind power don’t just mean lower prices — they also typically mean more jobs. Much of the price of dirty energy power plants is in the fossil fuel — the physical resource. When we buy that fuel, much of the money goes to the billionaires and multimillionaires who “own” the fuel — the coal mines and the natural gas wells.
Sunshine and wind, of course, are free, but distributed solar and wind power plants have to get built and installed — those are things humans do. When we pay for solar and wind power plants, we pay for human labor, and often help create or support local jobs.
We don’t actually have to choose between low prices or jobs or protecting our air, water, and climate — we get all of those things with renewable energy options like solar and wind energy.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/ ”
*
* http://www.climatechangenew…
You are so very wrong. Some areas of the world will benefit from panels and windmills, but not everywhere. So do you really ‘think’ that ‘clean’ (which it’s not) energy will supply the power needs of the world? I strongly suggest you go back to your drawing board and critically rethink your hypothesis.
By the way may we ask who signs your pay check? One must wonder!
I would also recommend you do some basic scientific study, because science is NEVER settled. If Einstein were alive I feel sure he would agree with that statement.
Again, leftists redefining our language and limiting free speech to have their way… And these are the “enlightened ones”.