We can expect damage control after the recent exposure of lies from the global warming so-called scientists. Our answer is that a diploma, government grant, or high paying quasigovernmental job does not a scientist make. The latest damage control talking point is that the 'science' is still rock hard, just a few of the spokespeople got a little carried away. There is still not one word of a scientific nature from the current spokespeople in defense of their proposition that manmade CO2 causes significant global warming. The science is settled, it is 'rock hard.' The dire climate situation is worse that we thought. Instead of being 64.7% sure, we are now 97.8% sure that we are correct about being doomed if we continue the current unsustainable course. (By the way they failed to mention the 64.7% part when they made their earlier dire predictions.)
A strong indication of where the are coming from is that almost invariably they eventually advance the augment that even if there is no global warming, this is still the right thing to do. The 'thing' is often unstated but what they want and have always wanted is a cap-and-trade like scheme. Cap-and-trade schemes, by their own terms, involve new government controls over any enterprise that uses energy.
(There was an elitist demagogue so-called scientist on the Bryan Suits KVI radio show the other day, who used the 'rock hard' talking point)
In any event, we still await a scientific (i.e. mathematical) statement of the global warming theory, if any exists. Then we want to see their scientific defenses of their theory. Then we can take it apart scientifically. If there are other environmental arguments for more economic interference in the way energy is obtained, supplied, and used; those are different questions. We would be glad to refute those and we have refuted those separately. (Which is precisely why they need the global warming deception.) If changes in policy are proposed because of global warming, then we want to have the global warming debate. It was promised and is overdue. They claim they had the debate among themselves and we lost. Public policy should be an open covenant, openly arrived at, shouldn't it?
Showing posts with label demagogues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demagogues. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
When Will Media Take off the Blinders?
As it is hard to find the time to do the searches and research, not to mention the composition, required to write a short post that does justice to a topic, I will again quote at length from a source on the web. (The Wall Street Journal; Best of the Web Today, August 14, 2009):
"The Media and the Haters on the Left Our item yesterday on media coverage of anti-Iraq vs. anti-ObamaCare protests prompted some interesting reader commentary, including this from William White:
The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns.
First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)
Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left.
Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html
The poor job done by the news media in telling us what is really happening is a major cause of most societal problems. If we knew what was going on, we would vote for leaders who proposed solutions to the underlying problems, not to our superficial, though chronic, difficulties. The above quotation and other comments in the cited article demonstrate instances of media reporting based on their own political bias, while ignoring or even concealing obviously relevant evidence that is staring them right in the face. The goals and methods of the left are things that we should know in order to make an informed evaluation of current events. For a long time, the major mass media obviously has wanted us ignorant. Why? That's a good question.
"The Media and the Haters on the Left Our item yesterday on media coverage of anti-Iraq vs. anti-ObamaCare protests prompted some interesting reader commentary, including this from William White:
The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns.
First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)
Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left.
Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html
The poor job done by the news media in telling us what is really happening is a major cause of most societal problems. If we knew what was going on, we would vote for leaders who proposed solutions to the underlying problems, not to our superficial, though chronic, difficulties. The above quotation and other comments in the cited article demonstrate instances of media reporting based on their own political bias, while ignoring or even concealing obviously relevant evidence that is staring them right in the face. The goals and methods of the left are things that we should know in order to make an informed evaluation of current events. For a long time, the major mass media obviously has wanted us ignorant. Why? That's a good question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)