Fiffergrund wrote:
I could whip up an angle relevant to gaming if you'd like.
Troll Lord wrote:
If Gore and crew would take a little bit more realistic approach to the debate they would gain more ground. You can't convince people to change by making their lives more inconvenient and hard. You have to make their lives better. So, Gore and crew could put several hundreds of millions into creating companies that can: make safe energy, sell it cheap, and charge little for it. That would win the day in one fell swoop.
Metathiax wrote:
I have never heard of such a flipping of the globe although magnetic poles reversals are supposed to happen once every 250 000 years in average...
Metathiax wrote:
Oh come on, junksite.com would be a far better name for this site. These guys actually use Fox News as an "impartial" source of information! I think I'm going to shed a tear now. If only those guys were as skeptical about the war in Iraq and the rest of the Bush's administration war mongering policies, this would be heaven... How can you second guess every evidence brought to you and yet take what is written there for granted? Just who the hell is this Steven Milloy? Answer : the real life incarnation of the main character of Thank You For Smoking. This guy is like a walking antithesis of credibility. I'm sorry Fiff but you have seriously dropped the ball on this one...
Quote:
I'm a tougher nut to crack than that
Quote:
(Fox News is hardly as error prone as CBS or the NY Times, based on recent track records. They have several opinion shows, but CNN and MSNBC do as well. It just so happens the opinion shows slant right, while the opinion shows of the others slant left.
Quote:
The guy has sources and reasoned arguments. Lots of them. And they are backed up. He provides all of his sources and all of his conclusions are on the money. Refute his arguments if you would - but if you think you'll win the debate simply by saying "Fox News" and "warmongering",
Quote:
You need to pay attention to more 'great flood' theories then. ^_^Part of the theorm was, due to massive ice build up during one of the last ice ages, the weight caused the planet to tilt.
DangerDwarf wrote:
On a related, but unrelated note...
Ever notice how every summer, when watching the news, they can't stop talking about "The Record Breaking Heat"?
It breaks records EVERY year.
When I came to Texas in '94 it was about 101-102 here that summer...and it was Record Breaking. Since then, every summer we have the news channels going on about "The Record Breaking Heat".
So, if it was 101 in 94, and every year for the past 12 years broke the previous year's record.....I suppose I'm in for summer temps of at least 114.
Nah, it'll probably be the same 101-102 just like it is every year.
Ah well.
Metathiax wrote:
Also on a side note, I can see why you guys down in the states are so jaded with your tv news which are always so damn alarmist. It's often more of a show than journalistic work. The only thing missing is a little permanent counter to Armageddon up in a corner of the screen. It's no wonder you don't trust anything they report anymore...
Quote:
A slant right!? Talk about an understatement. I just can't believe your media controling agencies who are scandalized by the slightless things allow such antijournalists to keep their shows on the air. Talk about journalistic ethics...
Quote:
My main gripe doesn't lie with Fox News though, the guy who runs junkscience.com, Steven Milloy, (I feel dirty just by writing his name again) has absolutely no credibility whatsoever as a scientific commentator. Just as in a court of law you have to present your case with clean hands, in science you have to present your case with a clean name. Fail to do so and you can kiss your credibility goodbye without appeal. That guy not only fails, he gets a generous F mark. He literally is a lobbyist for the tabacco, chemical and oil industries. Hmm, I wonder where his loyalty lies...
*EDIT* The source of an information is as important as the information itself.
*Metathiax kicks the ball back to Fiffergrund*
Fiffergrund wrote:
Hey, if they can allow Dan Rather to keep working, if they can allow the NYT to continue publishing their commentary passed off as news, then surely freedom of speech can allow some right-leaning commentary. Unless, of course, free speech only applies to opinions that lefties agree with.
Where are the sources for the allegations that he's a lobbyist? And, if he *is* a lobbyist for those industries, does that automatically invalidate his sourced and well-reasoned arguments any more than it would for paid advocates of Greenpeace?
If his arguments came from a completely different source, would they have substance? My suspicion is that the content of his findings would make him a pariah to anyone finding them inconvenient for their use in the environmental debate arena.
Yes, sources do matter. On the other hand, there are truths that cannot simply be invalidated because they come from someone that isn't liked. I'm sorry you feel dirty typing the guy's name, but quite frankly, that's not a basis for a rational argument against his findings.
In short, he's not offering opinions. He's offering facts. What about them?
Zudrak wrote:
A huge problem in this debate (and most political debates nowadays) is that no one goes into it thinking that they could be wrong. There's no humility. Instead of searching for an answer, people want the facts to suit their prejudice. It's sickening.
As long as Al Gore is the face of the Global Warming initiative, I will oppose it. Dennis Miller said it best last night on The Tonight Show regarding Gore: "I've never seen a guy more uncomfortable in his own skin." I searched youtube for video from the show, but there is none at this time.
Zudrak wrote:
As long as Al Gore is the face of the Global Warming initiative, I will oppose it. Dennis Miller said it best last night on The Tonight Show regarding Gore: "I've never seen a guy more uncomfortable in his own skin." I searched youtube for video from the show, but there is none at this time.
Quote:
then surely freedom of speech can allow some right-leaning commentary. Unless, of course, free speech only applies to opinions that lefties agree with.
Quote:
According to The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosensteil, there are nine elements of journalism. In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing, they must follow these guidelines.
Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
Its essence is discipline of verification.
Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Since the development of professional journalism at the beginning of the 20th Century, journalists have been expected to follow a stringent code of journalistic conduct that requires them to, among other things:
Use original sources of information, including interviews with people directly involved in a story, original documents and other direct sources of information, whenever possible, and cite the sources of this information in reports;
For more information on using sources, see Journalism sourcing.
Fully attribute information gathered from other published sources, should original sources not be available (to not do so is considered plagiarism; some newspapers also note when an article uses information from previous reports);
Use multiple original sources of information, especially if the subject of the report is controversial;
Check every fact reported;
Find and report every side of a story possible;
Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;
Approach researching and reporting a story with a balance between objectivity and skepticism.
Use careful judgment when organizing and reporting information.
Be careful about granting confidentiality to sources (news organizations usually have specific rules that journalists must follow concerning grants of confidentiality);
Decline gifts or favors from any subject of a report, and avoid even the appearance of being influenced;
Abstain from reporting or otherwise participating in the research and writing about a subject in which the journalist has a personal stake or bias that cannot be set aside.
This was in stark contrast to the media climate prior to the 20th Century, where the media market was dominated by smaller newspapers and pamphleteers who usually had an overt and often radical agenda, with no presumpton of balance or objectivity. E.g., see (1).
Quote:
Where are the sources for the allegations that he's a lobbyist?
Quote:
The guidebook Washington Representatives described Milloy as a registered lobbyist employed by the EOP Group in 1996.[21] Milloy is also listed as a lobbyist in the federal United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program.[15] The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics also lists Milloy as a registered lobbyist from 1998 through 2000, with clients including the American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, the International Food Additives Council, and FMC Corporation.[16]
Milloy has denied ever working as a lobbyist, writing in an email in 1998:
I do not lobby for ANYONE. Before I became executive director of TASSC, I did some technical consulting for a D.C. firm which had the policy of registering all its employees and consultants as lobbyists (whether or not they lobbied) pursuant to a new law passed in 1995. I am aware of the listing and have asked it to be corrected since I no longer work for that firm.[22]
However, as of October 2006, Milloy remains listed as a registered lobbyist in the above federal and non-governmental databases.
Quote:
And, if he *is* a lobbyist for those industries, does that automatically invalidate his sourced and well-reasoned arguments any more than it would for paid advocates of Greenpeace?
Quote:
If his arguments came from a completely different source, would they have substance? My suspicion is that the content of his findings would make him a pariah to anyone finding them inconvenient for their use in the environmental debate arena.
Yes, sources do matter. On the other hand, there are truths that cannot simply be invalidated because they come from someone that isn't liked. I'm sorry you feel dirty typing the guy's name, but quite frankly, that's not a basis for a rational argument against his findings.
In short, he's not offering opinions. He's offering facts. What about them?
Quote:
A huge problem in this debate (and most political debates nowadays) is that no one goes into it thinking that they could be wrong. There's no humility. Instead of searching for an answer, people want the facts to suit their prejudice. It's sickening.
Metathiax wrote:
I genuinely would be glad if you could point the excerpts where you think I lacked humility or was prejudiced. I wouldn't want to fall in neither of those traps...
Quote:
tacitly exonerating the other networks of any bias is dubious. GE (NBC), Westinghouse (CBS), and Disney (ABC) all have their agendas, too. I highly doubt their interests will ever align with mine.
Metathiax wrote:
I certainly wouldn't exonerate the other networks of any bias especially since, as a Canadian, I am not exposed to as much american tv as you guys down south. If I were to listen to some of those other networks more often, I would maybe find them as biased as Fox which is nonetheless (in)famous for many of their heavily polarizing shows and casts...
Very interesting/depressing link!
Quote:
As an active rec league hockey player
Metathiax wrote:
Devils fan? I so, both our teams are hitting the ice tonight against each other. Damn Brodeur...
Quote:
Heaven forfend!!! I am a Flyers fan (what a great season we're having, eh?).
Metathiax wrote:
*EDIT* Oh boy, I sure suck in american geography. I've just checked a map to find out that National Park (NJ) is actually closer to Philadelphia than New Jersey. So make that the Flyers instead...
Metathiax wrote:
Yeah, if only Forsberg could play more than 3 games in a row without being injured. This guy is like Glassman from the movie Unbreakable...
Quote:
What a great arena the Bell Centre is and what great fans there are in Montreal.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.htmlQuote:
I STRONGLY suggest that you read the speech at the web address below.
Mr. Crichton argues that ETs cause global warming; he has convinced me!
This is not a joke. I will not explain his thesis more, but I urge you to go to the web address and read it.
Zudrak wrote:
*cough*
Back on topic, I offer the below sent from Col. Pladoh himself via email:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html
Quote:
Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)
Quote:
Quote:
I'm still a young idealist. Maybe with time, I'll also join the ranks of the jaded who have thrown the towel on such "trivial" matters such as the destruction of our environment...
Nice! Call me when you do, it'll be a party
Beautiful. Personally I've started my issue with science and scientists since I learned in the 1950s it was "scientifically proven" that smoking helped with digestion and everyone should smoke after every meal.Quote:
I STRONGLY suggest that you read the speech at the web address below.
Mr. Crichton argues that ETs cause global warming; he has convinced me!
This is not a joke. I will not explain his thesis more, but I urge you to go to the web address and read it.
