[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
why is this or say, reports from scientists that global warming could cause massive die-offs of humans and other species, a "propaganda piece"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the fact that theories, minority theories are presented as facts that makes it a propaganda piece, among others things.

"The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease"

Huh? Why would there be a water shortage. Not only have I never heard of any kind of consensus belief of a water shortage, but considering the advances in desalinization technology, it's patently absurd.

Similarly with the diseases. Who the hell thinks that diseases are going to run rampant because of global warming?

This article starts off by presenting these two off the wall theories as facts, showing the bias of the contributor to those who are aware of what's being done and scaring the bejesus out of those who aren't.

"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations,"

Well, since we've established that by this article's definition, "climate change" automatically includes water shortages and rampant disease, this might well be true. Of course, once they go this route, they can no longer make any claims of a consensus of scientists supporting "climate change" as the kind of "climate change" they support is not anything remotely like the type of "climate change" this article is talking about.

At this point, the article continues on in this vein, with everything stemming from the fallacious assumption at the beginning. None of these things takes "generals" to figure out once you've accepted that water shortages and rampant disease are inevitable. The whole purpose of this article is to distract the reader and make them assume that water shortages and rampant disease are inevitable.

Present what you want the reader to believe as a fact and the underlying assumption of the article and then proceed to talk about the inevitable horrors of this fact. This is basic propaganda here, whether or not the fact is true or not! Even if the we really do have water shortages and disease to come, this presentation is still proganda. It's trying to convince people to believe what it wants to believe through trickery rather than through information. Who cares what the results of this water shortage and rampant disease are going to be. The fact that these things would be bad is obvious to even a complete moron, show me why I should believe they're going to happen. Instead, the article is carefully manufactured to convince the reader these things are going to happen without providing any actual evidence. The fact that a so-called neutral news organization gets away with this kind of obvious propaganda is simply appalling.

My favorite part is right at the end:

"Weaver said that over the past years, scientists, who by nature are cautious, have been attacked by conservative activists when warning about climate change. This shows that it's not a liberal-conservative issue, Weaver said."

1. Pure double talk. First it says "conservatives are the bad guys," then it backs off to try to pretend to erase the blatant bias it just espoused by claiming it's "not a liberal-conservative issue."

2. An irrelevant opinion that has no real bearing on the article. Clearly intended to convince the reader that conservatives are the enemy. This is also very clearly the author's opinion and he quoted someone else solely as an effort to pretend a lack of bias.

3. The quotes aren't "quoted"! By using unquoted quotes, it tricks the reader into believing that the statements in question are fact rather than opinion.

All in all, this article is a ridiculous pile of propaganda. Maybe the ideas presented are true, but if you want to convince me, show me facts, not propaganda. Even an ardent supporter of extreme global warming scenarios should be able to see this article for what it is.