Jon D Thornton
Aug 24, 2017 · 1 min read

Was he supposed to? Is that how it works? Also, why is “peer reviewed” for “accuracy” in quotes? Shouldn’t all government sponsored scientific reports be peer reviewed before publishing? That this is a departure from the norm would be the real news story. But then, this isn’t a news story is it?

When the August 18 mark hit, instead of signing onto the report, the White House dismantled the 15-person federal advisory committee on climate change.

Yes, very newsy. Or you could have written…

Having lost their rubber stamp for another report of dubious scientific value, these federal employees circumvented the normal process of publishing by sharing it with reporters friendly to their political agenda. As a result of their dishonest methods and abuse of taxpayer property for personal gain they have been fired.

Neither of these two paragraphs are actually news. They are both conjecture and therefore a waste of everyone’s time. I don’t usually waste my time reading these editorials masquerading as news. Nor am I on someone’s payroll to produce such intellectual tripe intended to keep readers beguiled and uninformed. I find such things dishonorable. In your attempt to score some cheap political points you discredit the veracity of the whole global warming theory turned religion.

)