Unwisely, I followed the link and read the post from Jo, as well as sampling the comments, without using a head vice. "8-[
To quote the lady herself, Protection against malevolent dictators comes from a free press. Free? our press is not free! It took Murdoch billions to buy the media in Australia, the USA and the UK.
All it would take to ensure balance in reporting would be to find some humanitarian with enough wealth to establish equal-and-opposite international media, to compete on a level playing field. Imagine if the Koch bros. spent some of their petty cash on such a project, to do some good for a change. Imagine the Koch fortunes being used to save us from malevolent dictators! Imagine Jo Nova getting balanced rebuttals in the MSM!
If "conspiracy theorist" is the taunt you use when you want to win the debate without arguing your points, does that mean we should sit down and carefully debate with those who claim man didn't go to the moon? Or that NASA is using chemtrails to poison people? Or vaccines kill and maim millions of people?
If you have to resort to a "global cover-up is hiding the truth" as your explanation of why you can't listen to the experts around the globe, and why you have to discount all their peer-reviewed papers, then you're in the same company as the people who think we didn't land on the moon.
Oh Good Lord, that man on the moon nonsense again. AGW theory is not nearly as certain as the fact that man landed on the moon.
Should we listen to the experts when they're writing peer review papers or pay closer attention to their emails when these very same experts admit they can't account for the cooling, openly admit to fudging data, and discuss using "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline?
Mark Edward Gillar, it is always a good idea to read peer-review papers rather than personal emails between scientists : when they are less likely to be rigorous with their writing and thoughts. That way, you won't be misled by others who quote bits of emails, or by yourself reading those out-of-context bits of emails yourself. Stick to the science, not gossip. Easy as that.
Unwisely, I followed the link and read the post from Jo, as well as sampling the comments, without using a head vice. "8-[
ReplyDeleteTo quote the lady herself, Protection against malevolent dictators comes from a free press. Free? our press is not free! It took Murdoch billions to buy the media in Australia, the USA and the UK.
All it would take to ensure balance in reporting would be to find some humanitarian with enough wealth to establish equal-and-opposite international media, to compete on a level playing field. Imagine if the Koch bros. spent some of their petty cash on such a project, to do some good for a change. Imagine the Koch fortunes being used to save us from malevolent dictators! Imagine Jo Nova getting balanced rebuttals in the MSM!
Arrrgh - where did I put that head vice?
I don't want to be a global ruler. One continent would suffice for me. Always liked Australia.
ReplyDeleteIf "conspiracy theorist" is the taunt you use when you want to win the debate without arguing your points, does that mean we should sit down and carefully debate with those who claim man didn't go to the moon? Or that NASA is using chemtrails to poison people? Or vaccines kill and maim millions of people?
ReplyDeleteIf you have to resort to a "global cover-up is hiding the truth" as your explanation of why you can't listen to the experts around the globe, and why you have to discount all their peer-reviewed papers, then you're in the same company as the people who think we didn't land on the moon.
Oh Good Lord, that man on the moon nonsense again.
ReplyDeleteAGW theory is not nearly as certain as the fact that man landed on the moon.
Should we listen to the experts when they're writing peer review papers or pay closer attention to their emails when these very same experts admit they can't account for the cooling, openly admit to fudging data, and discuss using "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline?
Mark Edward Gillar, it is always a good idea to read peer-review papers rather than personal emails between scientists : when they are less likely to be rigorous with their writing and thoughts. That way, you won't be misled by others who quote bits of emails, or by yourself reading those out-of-context bits of emails yourself.
ReplyDeleteStick to the science, not gossip. Easy as that.