There was no climate gate. It was hacked, intercepted emails sifted through and deliberately taken completely out of context in order to fabricate a story that did not exist. Legitimate news sources didn't give much coverage to it because this was blindingly obvious from the start. The bits and pieces released at first weren't a story unless you really wanted them to be, and once the context was provided with the whole emails that became very obvious.
The worst the scientists did was call dishonest idiots dishonest idiots. You're allowed to do that in science (you just have to be polite about it when you publish)
|
There was no climate gate. It was hacked, intercepted emails sifted through and deliberately taken completely out of context in order to fabricate a story that did not exist. Legitimate news sources didn't give much coverage to it because this was blindingly obvious from the start. The bits and pieces released at first weren't a story unless you really wanted them to be, and once the context was provided with the whole emails that became very obvious.
The worst the scientists did was call dishonest idiots dishonest idiots. You're allowed to do that in science (you just have to be polite about it when you publish)
Unless you're Richard Dawkins.
"I don't have to believe in conspiracies: I just have to believe in human greed, and the rest follows from that."
I like to say "History is not a conspiracy, but there are conspiracies in history."
There was no climate gate. It was hacked, intercepted emails sifted through and deliberately taken completely out of context in order to fabricate a story that did not exist. Legitimate news sources didn't give much coverage to it because this was blindingly obvious from the start. The bits and pieces released at first weren't a story unless you really wanted them to be, and once the context was provided with the whole emails that became very obvious.
The worst the scientists did was call dishonest idiots dishonest idiots. You're allowed to do that in science (you just have to be polite about it when you publish)
I was using it as an example of a fabricated story that was cited by other fox sources that spread.
Unless you're Richard Dawkins.
The worst the scientists did was call dishonest idiots dishonest idiots. You're allowed to do that in science (you just have to be polite about it when you publish)
Where?
Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!
|
|
Unless you're Richard Dawkins.
The worst the scientists did was call dishonest idiots dishonest idiots. You're allowed to do that in science (you just have to be polite about it when you publish)
Where?
Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!
Most of his tv stuff has been much more confrontational. Berating schoolchildren for believing in God, for instacne seems a bit over the top.
Why do reality shows get better ratings than Firefly got? Why is McDonalds popular? There are many mysteries in this world.
I think it's the wimmens.
If there so bad why are they #1?
You can call it any thing you want but when your rated #1 in cable news. It's not because you do a bad job.
As for opinion shows. There opinions and most are to the right of center, If thats bad why do they have some of the best ratings for cable news opinion programs?
I would also say that when acquisitions go through behind the scenes, ratings numbers get inflated.
Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!
Harris' End of Faith was way better than TGD.
Coyne's Why Evolution is True was a million times more lucid than tGSoE.And if you want confrontational, check out Hitchens' God is Not Great.
But as for insane things that everyone knows are wrong and never fixes, how is campaign donation reform doing in the US? ;-)There are days when I'd rather have that than world peace.
One could lead to the other. Ike was right with his doomsaying.
BBC all the way! The level of journalistic professionalism is a night and day comparison with American news.
And I'm saying that as an American.
Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!Harris' End of Faith was way better than TGD.
Coyne's Why Evolution is True was a million times more lucid than tGSoE.
And if you want confrontational, check out Hitchens' God is Not Great.
Yes, Hitchens was way more my style.
I'll have to youtube some Dawkins on tv. I only saw him on the Bill O'Reilly show and that was meh, too. But yelling at schoolkids? I've gotta see that!
And don't get me wrong, I liked those two books, I just expected more from "Darwin's Attack Dog" or whatever he' supposed to be called.
|
|
Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!Harris' End of Faith was way better than TGD.
Coyne's Why Evolution is True was a million times more lucid than tGSoE.
And if you want confrontational, check out Hitchens' God is Not Great.Yes, Hitchens was way more my style.
I'll have to youtube some Dawkins on tv. I only saw him on the Bill O'Reilly show and that was meh, too. But yelling at schoolkids? I've gotta see that!
And don't get me wrong, I liked those two books, I just expected more from "Darwin's Attack Dog" or whatever he' supposed to be called.
Not yelling, just harranguing.
Not yelling, just harranguing.Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!Harris' End of Faith was way better than TGD.
Coyne's Why Evolution is True was a million times more lucid than tGSoE.
And if you want confrontational, check out Hitchens' God is Not Great.Yes, Hitchens was way more my style.
I'll have to youtube some Dawkins on tv. I only saw him on the Bill O'Reilly show and that was meh, too. But yelling at schoolkids? I've gotta see that!
And don't get me wrong, I liked those two books, I just expected more from "Darwin's Attack Dog" or whatever he' supposed to be called.
[Scurries over to youtube]
And if you want confrontational, check out Hitchens' God is Not Great.
The thesis of God is Not Great seems to be religion is bad because religious people do bad things. It's counter to the sort of apologist argument of "OK, but look at all the great things religion/religious people have given us, art, architecture, etc." Which I don't disagree with, but my problem with religion is more about believing in something that is untrue, or at least improbable and unprovable. It has been a couple years since I read it, but I don't remember a lot being said about religious people being wrong about gods existence, just ignorant jerks.
In other words, still not confrontational enough for me :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try Bill Maher's movie Religulous. It's pretty confrontational, with plenty of laughs.
My only gripe is that he picked the most ridiculous dudes he could find as being representative of Christians, which I though was a pretty shabby gimmick. He is pretty funny, though, I have to give him that.
Eh, I agree with Maher sometimes, but he's slipped way too far into "smug douche" territory for me to enjoy him much any more.
When he joined the "anti-vax" circus of antiscience nuts, I lost whatever respect for him I had.
And, yeah, sometime his smirk makes me want to hit him.
Try Bill Maher's movie Religulous. It's pretty confrontational, with plenty of laughs.
Yeah, I liked that. It was funny. Kirth's right, most of his targets were pretty easy, but that didn't make me laugh any less.
Hee hee!
Back to Christopher Hitchens for a sec, he had a pretty famous blow-out (or, at least, as famous as blow-outs among left-wing literati get) with Alexander Cockburn. Years later, and still bitter, AC was dissing CH and said of the latter's dissing of Mother Theresa:
"If you were starving on a street in Calcutta, who would be more likely to give you a sandwich?"
Hee hee!
My only gripe is that he picked the most ridiculous dudes he could find as being representative of Christians
I've found more ridiculous, I'm sure he could have if thats what he was looking for.
which I though was a pretty shabby gimmick. He is pretty funny, though, I have to give him that.
I thought the theme park jesus* did a great job of explaining things. Oddly enough he was the sanest, most insightful interviewee in the film, and Mahr actually left the part where "Jesus" stumped him in the film, which i thought was pretty good.
Unless you're Richard Dawkins.
Well, I meant Publish as to put something in a peer review Journal. Its funny sometimes to read people going back and forth and see a long winded, informed, erudite statement that at its heart says "you're a disingenuous twit and a moron who didn't do his homework"
But look at all the trouble he gets in for relatively mild comments about the religious while a position of "all atheists are immoral" will help you get elected in half of the US.
Well, Calagnar, um... the most popular kid in school is not necessarily the smartest or most truthful kid in school.
It's true! I was both the smartest and most truthful and everybody hated me.
Try Bill Maher's movie Religulous. It's pretty confrontational, with plenty of laughs.
Yep, that was pretty good. I saw it opening weekend. I should watch it again some time.
I've been a big fan of Maher's for years. I used to stay up until like insane o'clock to watch PI in high school, which wasn't on right after the 10 o'clock news in my town for some reason. It was news>seinfeld rerun>nightline>PI. And that's when a ball game didn't push the news back.
Brit news is too timid with their ridiculous libel laws (telling the truth can get you sued there!).Britain's libel laws are completely insane, and everyone there knows it, and yet somehow they never get around to fixing them. It's unreal.
In fairness, we have been trying.
Most of his tv stuff has been much more confrontational. Berating schoolchildren for believing in God, for instacne seems a bit over the top.Unless you're Richard Dawkins.
The worst the scientists did was call dishonest idiots dishonest idiots. You're allowed to do that in science (you just have to be polite about it when you publish)
Where?
Because I was disappointed with The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. Too meh. I want the good shiznit!
Are you referring to this program?
The kids at the islamic city acadamy are pretty scary, they kind of deserved to get berated a little. ;) I mean... "salt water and fresh water don't mix?" are you kidding me?
Back to Christopher Hitchens for a sec, he had a pretty famous blow-out (or, at least, as famous as blow-outs among left-wing literati get) with Alexander Cockburn. Years later, and still bitter, AC was dissing CH and said of the latter's dissing of Mother Theresa:
"If you were starving on a street in Calcutta, who would be more likely to give you a sandwich?"
I'm actually gonna go with Chris Hitchens on that one.
Everything I know about Mother Theresa (not much but some videos or her talking) leads me to believe she would prefer that I starve to experience the suffering of Christ.
That is some sword-n-sorcery cult-leader talk.
Chris Hitchens would probably just require that I stroke his ego in order to attain sandwich.
(forgive me if I missed the point of the anecdote)
Oh, it was a total, no-holds-barred brawl. I think they just grabbed whatever weapons were at hand.
"The intelligentsia are like the Mafia; they only kill their own."--Woody Allen
Point of order! The study's "control group" seems to also watch television. How do we know it's not just the general imbecility of television viewers in comparison to we brilliant (not to mention charismatic) Internet-prowlers? I mean, confusing 'I watched the news on TV' with 'I am well-informed' cannot be an error unique to viewers of just one channel, ?no es verdad?
I dislike Fox News' methods and cannot watch it without offending its believers with loud guffaws and/or facepalming, but I don't want to go around referring to a 'silver bullet' that turns out, on closer inspection, to be a chocolate bullet covered in tinfoil.
I was just posting an interesting article related to the topic at hand. While I no longer subscribe to television therefor don't watch any televised news, I do get all of my news from the internet which does include articles from Fox News. I personally have no problem with them as they are just one of seemingly infinite sources available to me.
You probably don't want to know how I feel about virtually all mainstream media.
You probably don't want to know how I feel about virtually all mainstream media.
What's funny to me is people that think there is such a thing as non-mainstream media, especially as it relates to news.
What's funny to me is people that think there is such a thing as non-mainstream media, especially as it relates to news.
You probably don't want to know how I feel about virtually all mainstream media.
I, and many others, are the non-mainstream media. The internet is full of opinions, even ones that don't get good ratings.
I, and many others, are the non-mainstream media. The internet is full of opinions, even ones that don't get good ratings.What's funny to me is people that think there is such a thing as non-mainstream media, especially as it relates to news.
You probably don't want to know how I feel about virtually all mainstream media.
Not seeing media there -- I'm seeing a new political party that if it succeeds I give all of... lets call it five minutes before it's the same as the current ones.
Also if that media service does provide news I'm kind of curious where its stories are coming from... mind sourcing them? Because I'm fairly comfortable guessing that any 'major' story it does will source back to a reporter in the AP or other such media organization.
I'm seeing a new political party that if it succeeds I give all of... lets call it five minutes before it's the same as the current ones.
I'm so tired of this argument. It's terribly irrational. They can't go corrupt else they lose ALL of their power and influence. The only reason anyone supports them is because they are not corrupt. If they roll over in five minutes, they're history before they even have a chance to make history. If and when they became corrupt, it would *have* to be a long gradual process so that people wouldn't really notice it. Did our founding fathers sell us out in five minutes? No, that's why we still hold them in high regard.
Some people are not influenced by money and ego. The Libertarians, Greens and Constitutions are those people at this time. Why is this less preferable than people who already sold us out ages ago?
Did our founding fathers sell us out in five minutes?
Well...John Adams really tried to.
*ducks*| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on - I had a post here but then I realized I'd already snarked about "all TV viewers being slowly consumed by Intellect Devourers" earlier in this thread. So, uh, carry on. :P
Don't be ridiculous. Those poor things would starve to death on TV viewers.
-Rupert Murdoch: making the world safe from the intelect devourer menace one broadcast at a time!
I, and many others, are the non-mainstream media. The internet is full of opinions, even ones that don't get good ratings.What's funny to me is people that think there is such a thing as non-mainstream media, especially as it relates to news.
You probably don't want to know how I feel about virtually all mainstream media.Not seeing media there -- I'm seeing a new political party that if it succeeds I give all of... lets call it five minutes before it's the same as the current ones.
Also if that media service does provide news I'm kind of curious where its stories are coming from... mind sourcing them? Because I'm fairly comfortable guessing that any 'major' story it does will source back to a reporter in the AP or other such media organization.
I'll bite and suggest a form of 'non-mainstream media' and that would be live streaming and citizen journalism, with stories propagated through twitter and you tube.
I am fairly certain you could also include some more organised groups such as democracy first, as non-mainstream media.
Even some hackivist and slactivist groups could arguably be included, see the twitter surcomvention of the Trafigura super-injunction or anonymous operations such as Project Chanology produce and propogate media related to their cause.
So I am not sure I can agree there is no such thing as 'non-mainstream media'.
Some people are not influenced by money and ego. The Libertarians, Greens and Constitutions are those people at this time. Why is this less preferable than people who already sold us out ages ago?
Of course they are -- and they walk on water too. For me it's a case of them not to date exhibiting the intelligence needed to get to their 'ideal state' without having first ruined everything else.
The Khmer Rouge was doing what it was doing for the same reasons.
"But the Khmer Rouge were communists! We're different!"
Of course you are. Show me a full on solid plan of how you are going to get there without blowing up life as I know it and you'll get my support.
Until then you're just another squawking radical.
...Some people are not influenced by money and ego. The Libertarians, Greens and Constitutions are those people at this time.
How nice of them to form readily identifiable groups!
But seriously, if there is any truth to the idea that these parties are less corrupt than the majors, things would change quickly once they rose to prominence. Money attracts the corrupt. How would they be kept out? The only effective way to fight corruption is for the majority of the public to get educated, involved, and actively engaged in uncovering and eliminating corruption.
Yup -- we're screwed.
Of course you are. Show me a full on solid plan of how you are going to get there without blowing up life as I know it and you'll get my support.Until then you're just another squawking radical.
All three of these political parties have websites that fully last out what they stand for and we can hold them to that. Now compare them to the Democrat and Republican websites. They stand for very little especially once you strip away the stuff you know is total bs. Might these these third parties be full of it? Maybe. I highly doubt they would be bothering with such a seemingly lost cause if they were, though. Odds are definitely in their favor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point out that Ralph Nader hasn't "sold out" despite something like 40 years as a leader in the field of citizens rights. He has produced dozens or hundreds of solid proposals over the years, and come up with detailed presidential platforms far more realistic then "Hope N' Change".
You can counter that his lack of selling out is because he hasn't achieved REAL power or something, but that is a self defeating argument, and more proof that good people face great difficulty in our Dollar Uber Alles system.
Also, this: Being successful in our society isn't a sign of having morals.
Anybody have something to say about Fox News? OK, I have one: I get a creeped-out feeling whenever they speak of Those Who Believe Differently, because of the blithe assumption - never called out, never questioned - that T.W.B.D. are... subhuman. Not as worthy of respect as us smart, True Believing people.
(This is not a statement of objective fact or something I'm conducting a popularity poll on! It's my subjective, personal impression. If you disagree, just shout 'Wrong!' at your monitor and pretend this post just says, "I like guacamole.")
But it's your right to believe that about them, too, Lincoln. And you may actually be right.
|
|
Fox News viewers actually less informed than people who don't watch the news at all.
Is anyone actually surprised?
Fox News viewers actually less informed than people who don't watch the news at all.
Is anyone actually surprised?
No. Propaganda intended to misinform will usually do just that. "The most trusted source" doesn't mean it's the most trustworthy.
But look at all the trouble the Pope gets in for saying violence is wrong, while a position of "all Christians are immoral" will help get you elected in half of the US and some parts of Europe.
Which half of America is this? There is NO WHERE in America where you can make that kind of statement about Christians and not instantly alienate 3/4 or more of your constituents.
I'm from new york... center of that east coast elitism infection the "real America" (the parts that decided to succeed from the us at one point) wants to eliminate.
Look at all the trouble Israel gets in for defending itself from car bombs and children with bombs strapped to their chests, while a position of "we need to withdraw support from Israel" will get you elected in half of the US.
Israels problem is that its idea of defense is to grab land , indiscriminately blow up buildings with helicopters, and imprison peaceful demonstrators by the thousands and hold them without trial.
And again, saying that will get you unelected ANYWHERE except, oddly enough, Kiras Joel (a 99% hassidic villiage). It does not go both ways. While slights against atheists aren't tolerated well in the blue states, slights against Israel or Christianity aren't tolerated well here either.
One side not being perfect doesn't mean that both sides are the same. There are degrees.
All of them. To claim that MSNBC is better than FOX is to claim that (in New WoD terminology)
I do not see MSNBC making up stuff whole cloth. They have a definite view of how things are but that view is reasonably connected to reality. I think MSNBC is generally honest in how it sees things, while fox maintains a "you are right or your are right out" policy.