John: Sorry I didn’t see NPR’s show. You can’t use science to explain to a Liberal’s why their feelings aren’t scientific or wrong. Feelings are always correct!
Many years ago NPR was a reasonably balanced source of information on most topics it covered. In the last 20 years it has become an unabashed promoter of far left liberal causes. It needs to be defunded at the federal level.
As a PhD scientist, I became disgusted with "science" about 25 years ago, when the politicization of it became so apparent. What is really disheartening is that the public "education" system is now pumping out good little comrades who receive their full leftist grooming in college, and if they go on to higher degrees, obtain their elite leftist credentials. If if wasn't so damaging to so many aspects of society, it would be funny to listen to these "scientists" spout their propaganda.
Giving an interview to left wing organizations is a land mine. Unless there is a binding legal agreement that states that the entire transcript unaltered, and un-redacted of the interview is available to the public DO NOT consent to the interview. I would not waste my time with an organization i.e. NPR, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo etc. that has a agenda. I would NOT assume these people are journalist.
John, you make excellent points, but only us in the choir can hear you. Unfortunately, media like NPR are standing obstructively between you and the uninformed public who so desperately (yet unknowingly) NEED to hear what you have to say, for their own well being.
You, (indeed WE, the Royal WE) somehow must find a way to speak directly to the MSM’s huge audience, bypassing that ever-present FILTER. The MSM has their own agenda, and I’m afraid that when truth gets in the way of that agenda, it is simply rejected out of hand.
What NPR published and the manner of their interview with you has a long history in newspaper publishing. It has now fully passed over to broadcast and internet media.
Have you ever wondered why the Media hated, and I mean hated, Joe Paterno of Penn State football. They hated him for the same reason that they currently hate Bill Belichek. They both refused to voluntarily surrender valuable insight into the performance of their teams, because it would be used against them. Why would any rational thinking coach answer the question: ‘What were the failings of your team today, even though you won?” and “How are you going to prepare for the Eagles next week, including overcoming their pass rush that has averaged five QB sacks per game?” Paterno and Belichek gain nothing from granting an interview. If they do, then the Press looks like they have great insight and they sell more papers. And the coach for next week's team now knows how to beat Penn State and the Patriots.
In an attempt to correct the imbalance in the coverage of positive v. negative effects of Industrial Solar and Wind, we in good faith agree to interviews. Over and over again publishers promise to publish honestly what we say, and each time they ignore anything that disputes their narrative. What we find is that we play ‘Charlie Brown’ to their ‘Lucy Van Pelt’. Yet, we still believe that they will be honest and true to once hallowed journalism standards. And then they pull the football away at the last moment. All we have succeeded in accomplishing is to give them valuable insight into how we think and how we intend to modify or stop the adverse effects of Solar and Wind, which they, their readers and their supporters will use against us.
We cannot give interviews to the Lucys of publishing anymore. They will always distort or ignore what we say. We need instead to do what you are doing, John, creating our own information network, read free from their distortions. Dealing with unscrupulous publishers is like the poem below, if you let the public read it silently it delivers gibberish, but if you instead read it yourself, smoothly and aloud, suddenly it makes sense. How the message is delivered makes all the difference.
"End tore few
Ice poke wit hay wrap order tea uttered a.
Buff oral intensive porpoise sit dozen madder.
Depress ears one tit wands stew. "
_________________________________________
Answer below
Interview
I spoke with a reporter the other day.
But for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t matter.
Consider this a Badge of Honor, John. Like the other speakers of truth in matters of energy, your knowledge and experience is merely "misinformation" in a world of cold-eyed revolutioneries bent on halting human progress.
The underlying premise is that we are rapidly approaching a climate apocalypse because of fossil fuel use. It make s no difference to them that China, India, and developing countries are the major sources of emissions and their emissions are growing. If they were really concerned about cost-effectiveness they would support natural gas and nuclear. But that is not their agenda. Killing fossil fuel use is.
John: Sorry I didn’t see NPR’s show. You can’t use science to explain to a Liberal’s why their feelings aren’t scientific or wrong. Feelings are always correct!
Is there a link to their show you responded to?
Your replies were excellent.
Fred Fulcher, PKS
Many years ago NPR was a reasonably balanced source of information on most topics it covered. In the last 20 years it has become an unabashed promoter of far left liberal causes. It needs to be defunded at the federal level.
K.J.
As a PhD scientist, I became disgusted with "science" about 25 years ago, when the politicization of it became so apparent. What is really disheartening is that the public "education" system is now pumping out good little comrades who receive their full leftist grooming in college, and if they go on to higher degrees, obtain their elite leftist credentials. If if wasn't so damaging to so many aspects of society, it would be funny to listen to these "scientists" spout their propaganda.
The fact that NPR attacked you means you are a voice worth listening to.
In Flanders it is the same situation. Western peoples are destroying themselves.
Same fraud as the vax
Dear John
This fraud is the basis for Acceleration of WT in France and all the population cannot complain.
The tribunals are following passively what the govt decrees.
This tech is not green at all and provides stress by the bucket full.
Plus pollution
Bisphenol A
SF6,
CEM
Microplastics
Rare earth
Torsion levogyre fields
A deadly Coqtail
Giving an interview to left wing organizations is a land mine. Unless there is a binding legal agreement that states that the entire transcript unaltered, and un-redacted of the interview is available to the public DO NOT consent to the interview. I would not waste my time with an organization i.e. NPR, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo etc. that has a agenda. I would NOT assume these people are journalist.
So very frustrating, isn’t it!
John, you make excellent points, but only us in the choir can hear you. Unfortunately, media like NPR are standing obstructively between you and the uninformed public who so desperately (yet unknowingly) NEED to hear what you have to say, for their own well being.
You, (indeed WE, the Royal WE) somehow must find a way to speak directly to the MSM’s huge audience, bypassing that ever-present FILTER. The MSM has their own agenda, and I’m afraid that when truth gets in the way of that agenda, it is simply rejected out of hand.
Russ Babcock
I consider the ability or its lack the distinction between ` modern and ` legacy media .
The Critical Thinker strikes back.
John:
What NPR published and the manner of their interview with you has a long history in newspaper publishing. It has now fully passed over to broadcast and internet media.
Have you ever wondered why the Media hated, and I mean hated, Joe Paterno of Penn State football. They hated him for the same reason that they currently hate Bill Belichek. They both refused to voluntarily surrender valuable insight into the performance of their teams, because it would be used against them. Why would any rational thinking coach answer the question: ‘What were the failings of your team today, even though you won?” and “How are you going to prepare for the Eagles next week, including overcoming their pass rush that has averaged five QB sacks per game?” Paterno and Belichek gain nothing from granting an interview. If they do, then the Press looks like they have great insight and they sell more papers. And the coach for next week's team now knows how to beat Penn State and the Patriots.
In an attempt to correct the imbalance in the coverage of positive v. negative effects of Industrial Solar and Wind, we in good faith agree to interviews. Over and over again publishers promise to publish honestly what we say, and each time they ignore anything that disputes their narrative. What we find is that we play ‘Charlie Brown’ to their ‘Lucy Van Pelt’. Yet, we still believe that they will be honest and true to once hallowed journalism standards. And then they pull the football away at the last moment. All we have succeeded in accomplishing is to give them valuable insight into how we think and how we intend to modify or stop the adverse effects of Solar and Wind, which they, their readers and their supporters will use against us.
We cannot give interviews to the Lucys of publishing anymore. They will always distort or ignore what we say. We need instead to do what you are doing, John, creating our own information network, read free from their distortions. Dealing with unscrupulous publishers is like the poem below, if you let the public read it silently it delivers gibberish, but if you instead read it yourself, smoothly and aloud, suddenly it makes sense. How the message is delivered makes all the difference.
"End tore few
Ice poke wit hay wrap order tea uttered a.
Buff oral intensive porpoise sit dozen madder.
Depress ears one tit wands stew. "
_________________________________________
Answer below
Interview
I spoke with a reporter the other day.
But for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t matter.
The press hears what it wants to.
Consider this a Badge of Honor, John. Like the other speakers of truth in matters of energy, your knowledge and experience is merely "misinformation" in a world of cold-eyed revolutioneries bent on halting human progress.
Mr. Droz - I read much of what you produce.
Most necessary in this day and age.
We need hundreds like you. Keep it up.
Jose R Alvarez, MChE, Villanova University
The underlying premise is that we are rapidly approaching a climate apocalypse because of fossil fuel use. It make s no difference to them that China, India, and developing countries are the major sources of emissions and their emissions are growing. If they were really concerned about cost-effectiveness they would support natural gas and nuclear. But that is not their agenda. Killing fossil fuel use is.
Great info John. Thank you for all you do informing us about 'green energy' the the corruption which goes with it.