Why The Press Is Hated...

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

The press wonders – or pretends to wonder – why it’s held in contempt by more than just a small handful of  people. Maybe the pressies should read what they publish.

The other day, Automotive News published the following:

“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s demand for low-emissions vehicles, just as President Trump seeks to review pollution standards the industry opposes.”

This slurry of dishonest or simply idiotic “reporting” is stupendously revealing – all the more so because it is representative of the norm. Where to begin?

Let’s work from the back, since the worst lie – and that is exactly the correct word – squats toward the end of this vile dreck:

“…to review the pollution standards the industry opposes.”

Utter falsehood. I mean, other than the industry opposing part. Which of course is portrayed as all-but-demonic, with sulfurous undertones that practically waft off the page.

The lie worthy of Dr. Goebbels at his best, though, is this business about carbon dioxide being a “pollutant.” In which case – uh oh! – it is time to put giant cones on top of volcanoes and catalytically converting muzzles on cows and for that matter us, too. Carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” in the same way that di-hydrogen monoxide (water) is a “pollutant.”

It does not foul the air. Even slightly.

It does not cause cancer or respiratory problems or acid rain.

Or even acne.

The Automotive News story is despicable because it purveys without comment or qualifier the package-dealing of an inert, non-reactive gas – C02 – with the byproducts of internal combustion engines that do foul the air, contribute to the formation of smog, irritate people’s lungs, create public health problems and cause acid rain.

Those compounds which are pollutants, properly (scientifically) speaking.

Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent component of the atmosphere, like water vapor and nitrogen and oxygen. To characterize C02 as a “pollutant” is either a titanic imbecility or a purposeful attempt to mislead.

It is of a piece with the progagandizing the media performed for the government when it decided it was time to conflate those who (so they said) attacked America on 9/11 with the Iraqi government. You may recall. One minute, it was al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then – as if a batch fax had been sent to every media organ in the country – it was non-stop Saddam. Just as C02 isn’t a “pollutant,” Saddam didn’t attack America. But the press did its best to purposefully confuse the issue, aiding and abetting a Nuremburg-worthy high crime – aggressive war – that went unpunished. Reichsmarschall Goring is smiling cynically, somewhere above . . . or below.

The new Fake News is that carbon dioxide is something like carbon monoxide, or unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, or particulates – a danger that must be regulated and controlled. Not only is the untrue (see above) but unlike the actually harmful compounds classified (accurately) as pollutants, carbon dioxide can’t be “cleaned up” because of course it’s not “dirty” to begin with. The only thing that can be done – here it comes – is to reduce the volume produced and the only known way to do that is to . . . burn less fuel.

In other words, it’s a fuel efficiency fatwa masquerading as an anti-pollution measure. And the object is not to increase fuel efficiency. It is to reduce the size of engines (and so, cars) and make them expensive – so that fewer people can afford to buy them. This is not spoken of openly, but it is the end goal. It must be; a single fool or demagogue could be dismissed as aberrant; this is systematic, organized.

The government – which is a bunch of people – calculated, drew up ad then decreed (in the waning days of Obama’s presidency, knowing his successor might be  . . . skeptical)  that henceforth carbon dioxide would be considered a ”pollutant.”

The media lapdogged that up. No “excuse me, but…”

Nada.

Just willing, complicit, lazy regurgitation. Or something much worse . . .

The reaction of anyone reading the Automotive News pabulum who is in possession of junior high school-level chemistry knowledge will – rightly – be one of outrage. Unfortunately – deliberately – a working majority of the public is not in possession of junior high school-level knowledge of chemistry.

Next item up for dissection:

“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s a demand for low-emissions vehicles.”

God, my teeth ache.

Firstly, it’s not not “dozens of cities” who will be buying these force-produced electric Edsels. It is the taxpayers of these cities who will be forced to buy them (but not own them) via the extorted funds they are compelled to provide, so that government workers can drive around in the electric Edsels.

 

This isn’t supply and demand, market forces. It is make-work and wealth transfer. To characterize it as “demand for low-emissions vehicles” is another despicable upchuck of putrefying propaganda that depends upon the stupefaction (or enstupidation) of the reader, who will only allow the morsel to pass by if he is utterly in the dark about basic economic laws.

And “low emissions”?

Seriously?

How many times must this be whack-a-moled? Electric vehicles do produce emissions, just not at the tailpipe. Does the source of pollution matter? Or just that it is produced?

Bingo, if you picked the latter.

First of all, the raw materials necessary to make the hundreds of pounds of batteries per electric car are not gently taken from Gaia’s willing bosom – and the batteries themselves are mini-Chernobyls of toxic waste. Oh, but they’ll be recycled! Except when they’re not. What then? Out here in The Woods, decrepit olds cars abound, left to rot in the backyard. The same fate awaits even shiny six figure Teslas. Which – one day – will be paint-blotched old hoopties left to rot – and leak – in someone’s back yard. Only instead of one roughly 45 pound led acid battery leaching into the earf, it’ll be 400-plus pounds of life-unfriendly compounds.

Does anyone care? Shouldn’t “environmentalists”?

Electric cars, by the way, also produce C02. In fact, they produce more “climate changing” C02 than a conventional car. Not at the tailpipe, perhaps.

At the smokestack.

At the “tailpipe” of the coal and oil-fired utility plants that generate the electricity which powers electric cars. If hundreds of thousands – if millions – of these electric cars are put into circulation, the demand on the grid will be great and the output of C02 even higher.

What then?

The press does not ask such questions. Instead:

“Demonstrating demand” . . . so reads the subhead in the Automotive News propaganda piece.

And yes, again, propaganda.

Words matter. Using certain words conveys a certain meaning. People who deal in words professionally know this, instinctively. As the hawk knows how to dive.

“Demonstrating demand” is a statement, as if of fact, that an entirely fictitious and fraudulent thing is the same thing as the real thing.

Government buying things isn’t “demand” anymore than one is a “customer” of the IRS.

Whatever “demand” is created, is artificial – dependent on wealth transfer, on the coercive power of the government. It is the same sort of “demand” that built the Volga canal in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Automotive News quotes – without comment – a statement made by a Seattle bureaucrat named Chris Bast, who is a “climate and transportation policy adviser” to the city of Seattle:

“If you build it, we will buy it.”

He means: If the government forces car companies to build electric cars, the government will force taxpayers to buy them. This, of course, is not translated thusly.

The loathsome “news” article concludes:

“Tailpipe fumes (my italics) are crucial in the fight to stop global warming.”

The illiteracy is almost as striking as the dishonesty – or the imbecility, you decide which.

Note the conflation – the inert, non-reactive gas (C02) is now a fume. And it is “crucial” in “the fight to stop global warming.”

Not the galloping unchecked assumptions; the blithe acceptance, as of gravitation, of the political “science” of “global warming.”

The awful construction would be enough to make my teeth feel loose. But the oily proselytizing is just too much.

And they ask me why I drink . . . .

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GUS100CORRINA's picture

Why is the PRESS so hated?

Because NO ONE TRUSTS THEM TO TELL THE TRUTH!!

May the corrupt MSM R.I,P.!

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Anyone notice what is going on at FUKUSHIMA lately?

Has any MSM outlet been reporting on the latest activities by JAPAN to arrest the situation? Heaven forbid that there is any type of geological event in the area where FUKUSHIMA is located.

The SILENCE IS DEAFENING!

Perimetr's picture

This is a rant about global warming disguised as a rant about MSM.

the CIA owns MSM, which is the problem that I have with it.  https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/trump-is-challenging-the-whole-cia-media-nexus/

Ignatius's picture

"Fake news" has been a problem since before the CIA was even created, they just took it to an modern, efficient and industrial scale.

vato poco's picture

we hate them because they LIE

TwelveOhOne's picture

Really liked this, from the article:

"Not the galloping unchecked assumptions; the blithe acceptance, as of gravitation, of the political “science” of “global warming.”"

Especially the "as of gravitation" -- we blithely accept information from Jesuits and Masons, that the axis' tilt is 66.6 degrees (measured from the horizontal -- you're probably more familiar with the 23.4 degrees from the vertical), and that the Earth travels around the sun at 66,600 mph.  And that, without any physical barrier, one can have "vacuum" next to "non-vacuum" because of the magic of gravity.

cue in cue's picture

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM

Lordflin's picture

I up flagged you as this seemed the perfect rejoinder to TwelveOhOne's post...

Syrin's picture

The deep Pacific is dead.

Benito_Camela's picture

Only thing I read about was the mileage standards, ala CAFE, which the auto industry has indeed been fighting tooth and nail for decades. I think the part about low emissions was either a misprint or it's a canard here, being employed to distract. So to ask why the press is hated and use this as an example is pathetic and ridiculous. It is indeed true that Trump wants to lower fleet MILEAGE standards. And anyone who was alive in, oh I don't know....two thousand and fucking 7 (2007) knows damn well there's a demand for high mileage vehicles just around any given corner when the petrodollar, OPEC, and Wall Street speculators are in control of the price of a gallon of gasoline. 

BrownCoat's picture

"being employed to distract"

... or inform. MSM tends to create an opinion rather than present facts.
I was looking at wind generation a few weeks back. The study took into account the damage that rare earth material extraction caused when figuring out the environmental impact of wind turbines. Therefore, it is fair game for the environmental impact of batteries and electric generation be part of the equation for vehicles. That is, if the objective is environmental and not forcing economic penalties on consumers. (I still have trouble with airbags killing and maiming people in accidents.)

The part about making cars very expensive may be an opinion. It is something I never heard before (in MSM). I have heard loonie Liberals extoll the virtues of public transportation. Those Liberals forget the heavy subsidies used to fund the less convenient (and costly) alternatives to private transport.  

Toonces Feline's picture

Virtually all mainstream media is a Democrat-controlled propaganda machine.

Toonces

 

nmewn's picture

But I do love how they whine like little bitches who have just crapped in their diaper when their complete lack of objectivity & any journalistic integrity or ethics is pointed out to them, while at the same time they jump up on their soapbox proclaiming their love & devotion to freedom of the press & speech and how it would be a federal crime...nay...a heresy against "progressivism" itself, punishable with our souls burning in hell for all eternity if we were to strip them of their cherished First Amendment that allows them to be nothing more than the Goebbels inspired propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

Too late, the jury is back and the foreman is now being asked for its verdict.

Guilty on all counts. And the sentence is death. 

Now, how's that for a headline? ;-)

buckstopshere's picture

I trust a few.

They can be useful. Back in the day I had the personal phone number of a prominent UK journalist. I commented on one of her news stories, and she replied with her number and other contact info. I guess this is how journalists develop their contacts and inside sources.

MD's picture

How hot does the global average temperature need to get, how many droughts do you need to see, how much of the polar ice caps need to melt, how much of the artic methane needs to be released, before you people will entertain the POSSIBILITY that humans emitting carbon dioxide is what's causing all of this??

Newsflash: the big companies are using you. Keep indiscriminately burning all the non-renewable oil, though. God forbid, we try to conserve a finite resource.

Even if you DON'T believe in global warming, it makes sense to conserve a finite resource (oil) so that future generations can use it, too.

buckstopshere's picture

How long ago was the Midwest buried under hundreds of feet of glaciers even during the summers?

MD's picture

It's the *rate of change* in temperature that's unprecedented. At the end of previous ice ages, it's estimated that the earth warmed 4-7 degrees Celsius over a period of 5000 years. The earth has warmed nearly 2 degrees C in the past 100 years, and is projected to warm 4-6 degrees C in the next 100. This is the fastest period of warming in tens of millions of years.

buckstopshere's picture

What is the probability of a nuclear winter in the next 100 years?

What is the probability of a multitude of volcanic eruptions unleashing huge amounts of volcanic ash to block out sunlight in the next 100 years?

What is the probability of a greatly diminished human population to consume fossil fuels as a result of disease, war, shortages, and so on in the next 100 years?

What is the probability that artificial intelligence will learn to exterminate humans with biological weapons in the next 100 years, so that it may protect itself?

James TraffiCan't's picture

I predict, that we don't make it out of here alive!

Beam mu up!

fleur de lis's picture

Thanks for keeping James Traficant's name in view.

He was one of the few DC officials to defend America's interests no matter what favored group disliked it.

And there has always been a poisonous nest of favored groups in the DC swamp.

To bad for him and all of us that they got to him in the end.

The FBI/NSA/CIA blah, blah, blah were too busy spying on us to solve his murder.

 

 

The Gauleiter's picture

....and what is the probability it won't rain during my vacation in 3 weeks....hmmm ?

QEsucks's picture

What an imposition. Yes, I accept your apology. I had to log in to downvote you. You're welcome.

MD's picture

Oh no, you read a point of view you didn't like! (Yet somehow you can't refute it). You poor snowflake.

LightTrumpsDark's picture

Virtually all the temperatures from 100 to 50 years ago were adjusted down by a degree or so.  Look it up silly billy.  Global warming is fake news.  Read up on the  Iron Mountain meeting and the need for a theme by which the bankers and elite can create a one world government.

Bendromeda Strain's picture

This is the fastest period of warming in tens of millions of years.

You people double down with this crap after being caught repeatedly cheating and lying. Mann's tree rings were a scandal, but the East Anglia emails were the nail in the coffin. STOP LYING. This is just another flank attack on civilization by globalists and Marxists. It certainly true about the watermelon aspect of the AGW crowd - green on the outside, red on the inside, with a hard black seed where the heart should be.

spfoo's picture

Oh but you have missed that the famous East Anglia e-mails vanished and the story was completely changed from the original. Now it seems more like a "misunderstanding" rather than the blatant alteration of unique climate data that really happened. And the main author is even back at his job! Unbelievable.

 

ThreeRs's picture

I would love to have a look at your "eye" into the past tens of millions of years.

 

Oh, I would so love a look at your oracle there.

 

Since tens of millions of years ago no one was recording the weather data.

 

When was parchment created again? How about written language?

 

You extremists make me sick.

TheReplacement's picture

If you went back about 12,000 years or so the projected rate of temperature DECREASE was probably pretty significant too.  You need to stop looking at weather as a stock trend that will always keep going up as long as the Fed keeps buying.  Someday they will stop and it will all come crashing down.  Cycles and shit and I'm not talking about that fag with the communist motorcycle parked in the FedRes parking lot.

skinwalker's picture

The sun is a finite resource. Should we save it for future generations as well?

MD's picture

The sun is going to last for billions of years. Cheap oil is going to last 20 years, tops.

onasip123's picture

Anthropogenic global warming is a religious belief. It's not science.

MD's picture

Funny you say that, because I'm the one who has been providing links to scientific papers, whereas others who replied to me simply call me names and dismiss my claims out of hand. The "humans aren't causing global warming" crowd seems more dogmatic, religious, and ignorant than anything I've written.

BrownCoat's picture

@MD,

Homework: read the book "The Limits to Growth" published in 1972. Many of the resources listed were predicted to run out by now. The "scientific" projections were wrong.

MD's picture

I own a copy of Limits to Growth.  Nowhere does the book state that resources would "run out" by 2017.  If that's what you got out of the book, you missed the point.

onasip123's picture

Anthropogenic global warming is a religious belief held by those who hate people. Thanks for telling me so much about yourself.

BrownCoat's picture

The author addressed your concern: "put giant cones on top of volcanoes and catalytically converting muzzles on cows and for that matter us, too"

Go for it dude! I'll hold your beer while you...

SmallerGovNow2's picture

I don't think anyone here is against conservation.  Just not in response to lies that manmade CO2 is the sole and only cause of climate change.  The earth naturally puts out 95% of all CO2 emissions on the planet.  Man's contribution is an after thought.  And then there's this... CO2 IS PLANT FOOD IDIOT...

MD's picture

If the earth "naturally puts out 95% of CO2 emissions" (what does that even mean?), then explain why we see a massive spike in CO2 atmospheric concentrations in the past 100 years. The highest level in over 500 thousand years, the fastest increase on record, and it corresponds perfectly with the beginning of the industrial revolution.

What do you think is causing that???

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

BrownCoat's picture

I think 1/3 of the human population located in India and China are to blame. They should clean up their own mess! Anything, anything done in North America or Europe would have NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on the pollution coming out of those two countries (India and China).  If you are worried about so-called global warming, berate China and India. Otherwise, you are missing the mountain by focusing on the molehill.

MD's picture

I agree with you.  China is the biggest CO2 emitter, India is number 4.  The US is number 2, and the EU is number 3.  We all need to cut back dramatically.

401K of Dooom's picture

"How hot does the global average temperature need to get, how many droughts do you need to see, how much of the polar ice caps need to melt, how much of the artic methane needs to be released, before you people will entertain the POSSIBILITY that humans emitting carbon dioxide is what's causing all of this??

Newsflash: the big companies are using you. Keep indiscriminately burning all the non-renewable oil, though. God forbid, we try to conserve a finite resource.

Even if you DON'T believe in global warming, it makes sense to conserve a finite resource (oil) so that future generations can use it, too."

 

I'll agree with your point that th elarge companies are using us.  That includes the virtue signaling tech giants like Apple and Amazon.  When humans emitting Carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming is too much.  If that is the case, what about the plants that need CO2 to live?  Will they be given carbon credits to live with?  So we want to conserve the petroleum for future generations?  Why the need to use electric cars?  Also has anyone else noticed that there are a lot of new accounts with ZH these days?  Especially after the loss of the great Cankles on Nov. 8th, 2016?

MD's picture

The fact that plants need CO2 to live doesn't disprove the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased to record levels in the atmosphere in a record short time.

MD's picture

I've provided facts and scientific papers, you and others called me names and engaged in personal attacks.

Who's the crackpot?

Yen Cross's picture

   Who cares??? 

    Did I forget to mention, how light the macro calender is, this week?

laomei's picture

It's because kikes. We all hate kikes, even if we don't want to admit it to ourselves. The cuckiest shitlibs are the ones most ashamed of their own thoughts.  In the end it all boils down to us white people being very aware that kikes are not white and they are genocidal.  This realization has come in every single society they have ever infested and the result is always the same.  NEVER FORGET.

Colonel's picture

China is next the host for the parasitic kikes just like it was in the past.

https://www.darkmoon.me/2014/china-jews/

 

August's picture

Darkmoon article - well worth reading.  Thanks.