<p>Really? What chance would a scientist who is skeptical of global warming have of receiving government funding for his research under a Democratic regime? Isn’t it a Democrat that wants to not only defund them but to shut them up? Contrast that to the scientists that you cite as being the basis for the “consensus” on global warming. Might it be that their funding is coming from the anti-science Republican administration? When you practice one-sided science, it is no longer science, but plain old politics.</p>
<p>Oh, and kluge, you really should go back and check your posting history. A repetitve theme of yours is that Republicans are just mindless rubes who allow themselves to be sold a bill of goods by the evil corporations and special interests.</p>
<p>Fundingfather I read that you continue to defend the Republican Party against all comers regardless of the merits of the arguments being made. </p>
<p>When you insulted me with a typical Republican operatives tactic I was offended but not at all surprised. I was offended by your rude McCarthy/Nixon like vilification of me and since your vilification was so personal I responded as an offended party and not as a dispassionate advocate of a particular policy or political position. I would now like to respond as an advocate and take you up on challenge you gave me a few days ago. </p>
<p>The following quote is from your offensive post, the you mentioned in your post is me. </p>
<p>Perhaps you could offer up some proof that the things said about Kerry by the Swifties were lies? Without such proof, your allegations are nothing but smears against those who honorably fought in Vietnam </p>
<p>The proof I offer up is an article by Fact Check a non partisan organization affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Fact Check specialized in refuting false claims made in statements and advertisements by politicians and political organizations. </p>
<p>Please follow this link to the aforementioned Fact Check article.</p>
<p>When an honest person reads Fact Checks article with its footnotes and further references they will come to the conclusion that the Republican Party and the Swifties were lying to the American people about Sen. Kerrys war time service to his country. To come to any other conclusion a person would have to be a mindless rube who allow themselves to be sold a bill of goods by the evil corporations and special interests.</p>
<p>“He was taking an engineering class during the last election cycle and every day the prof would start off her lecture with how evil George Bush was.”</p>
<p>Wouldn’t this be equally inappropriate if she used this time to discuss the evils of abortion? Seems to me that misuse of class time is the villain here, not what flavor of misuse this professor happened to prefer.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t this be equally inappropriate if she used this time to discuss the evils of abortion? Seems to me that misuse of class time is the villain here, not what flavor of misuse this professor happened to prefer.”</p>
<p>I think the prevalence would matter as would the response.</p>
<p>You apparently did not even read the FactCheck article closely. If you had, you would have seen this:
</p>
<p>So, if fact check can’t tell who was telling the truth after looking at the information, how can you come to the conclusion that you did and smear those who served but have a different view of the events that you would like to accept? So, if this is your “proof” I’d say that you owe the Swifties an apology because there is no proof that they lied - just contradictory stories. However, it is interesting that some of the contradictory stories come from Kerry himself.</p>
<p>And so, Fundingfather demonstrates how a majority of Republicans who got most of their information from Fox News in 2003 came to believe that WMD’s had been found in Iraq. And how a lot of people can develop “skepticism” towards a scientific consensus without having the slightest clue about the actual science which supports the consensus. “Mindless rubes”? No. But after being force-fed propaganda for so long that the ability to rationally assess information appears to have vanished, I do think there are some on the right who can be counted on to believe anything - anything at all - that they are fed by the usual sources of misinformation.</p>
<p>“But after being force-fed propaganda for so long that the ability to rationally assess information appears to have vanished, I do think there are some on the right who can be counted on to believe anything - anything at all - that they are fed by the usual sources of misinformation”</p>
<p>And what makes you so sure that your sources of information are factually correct?</p>
<p>Zoos - I don’t read blogs. I don’t form opinions quickly. If I’m interested in an issue, I research it - preferably going to original source documents. So the bottom line is, I don’t rely on “sources of information” any more than I have to. That’s why I don’t argue the “science” details of global warming - I’ve read enough about it to understand that I don’t have the scientific background to know enough about it to form a personal opinion with validity - and neither do any of the other posters here on CC. I can assess the relative credibility of the scientists on both sides through various means which are within my competence, but that’s about it. And I can assess a whacky conspiracy theory - like Fundingfather’s insistence that the great majority of scientists who actually have competence to assess anthropogenic climate change theory are “just in it for the money.” (Query: what bizarre world view allows one to conclude that there’s more money available for scientific studies which tend to prove that human CO2 emissions do cause a problem than for ones which could prove the opposite? And how do they make the answers come out the way they want, anyway? It astonishes me that people can repeat that obviously false assertion without ever noticing that it makes absolutely no sense in the real world - yet it gets repeated constantly. Amazing.)</p>
<p>As I’ve commented before, the right of today reminds me very strongly of the “New Left” of the 60’s and 70’s - the same “true believer” attitude, the same tunnel vision view of the world skewed by an ideologically doctrinaire approach to the world which allows them to believe obviously falsehoods, coupled with an overbearing sense of superiority and contempt for those who would disagree. Same tune, different lyrics.</p>
<p>"Zoos - I don’t read blogs. I don’t form opinions quickly. If I’m interested in an issue, I research it - preferably going to original source documents. So the bottom line is, I don’t rely on “sources of information” any more than I have to. "</p>
<p>So what you are saying is that you are your personal arbiter. Fine. As you should be. As should we all be. What gives you the right, based on absolutely no information about what people read, know, do for a living, anything, to determine that you are right and they aren’t? What also gives you the right to dismiss others’ sources of information when you have no idea what those sources were or how those opinions were arrived at? You do this a lot, Kluge, disdainfully post about blogs, Fox News, etc. when the poster with whom you are disagreeing hasn’t even said how they arrived at their opinions. You just seem to assume that if someone disagrees with you, it must be because they get their news from Fox News (which is often right, by the way, and when it’s wrong it’s often on the opinion end, to which I see you an O’Reilly and raise you an Olbermann). Your posts make it clear that you find it inconceivable that anyone could disagree with you. Intelligent, educated, informed people of good will really can come to different opinions than you. I find many of your posts fascinating, informative and sometimes amusing, but you’re just one voice among many.</p>
<p>“As I’ve commented before, the right of today reminds me very strongly of the “New Left” of the 60’s and 70’s - the same “true believer” attitude, the same tunnel vision view of the world skewed by an ideologically doctrinaire approach to the world which allows them to believe obviously falsehoods, coupled with an overbearing sense of superiority and contempt for those who would disagree. Same tune, different lyrics.”</p>
<p>To that I would say look at your own posts and those of people on the left here on CC. (Pot? Kettle?) The overbearing superiority on this particular message board comes not from the right, and the jury is still out on which side is believing obvious falsehoods.</p>
Now there’s a non-sequitor if I have ever seen one. It is so out of left field I don’t even know where to begin to address it. But, I wonder where people like Tommybill who “know” that the Swifties are lying get there information? Or where people who “know” that there were no terrorists in Iraq get their information? Or where people who “know” that Bush lied about WMD get their information. There is a lot of disinformation floating around on both sides. Yesterday I was speaking with a “highly” educated co-worker who was convinced that the Patriot Act gave the governemt legal authority to spirit US citizens away to Guantanamo for detention without trial. Where do you think he got that bit of disinformation? I doubt that it was Fox news. </p>
<p>
kluge, do you really have to resort to such underhanded tactics as putting words in people’s mouths? The irony is that this is the same assertion that you and other’s have made about the skeptics - they are all on the payroll of the oil companies. Do you even own a mirror?</p>
<p>Oh, this is too rich - quoting a study by the Center for Public Integrity as part of the same discussion about Fox News being biased/wrong. I rest my case.</p>
<p>“Oh, this is too rich - quoting a study by the Center for Public Integrity as part of the same discussion about Fox News being biased/wrong. I rest my case.”</p>
<p>FF reminds of that study that came out and asked people if they believed the NOW proven incorrect statements that "SADDAM had WMD’s " or “Al-Qaeda and Iraq…”. Viewers who listed Fox News as their primary source had statistically significant higher numbers believing it was true</p>
<p>Fundingfather - I apologize. You did not repeat the claim that the consensus on anthropogenic climate change was due to scientists chasing grant money which was biased in favor of that opinion in this thread. I must have confused you with someone else. On the other hand, I never claimed that all of the “skeptics” were on the payroll of the oil companies - only that there’s a big pot o’cash there for anyone who can actually come up with a scientifically defensible counter-theory, and that there certainly are people out there trying. (Oh, and also that the coal companies have paid some of the “skeptics” - that’s documented.) </p>
<p>FF & Zoos - I happen to agree with you about the CPI “study” - they took a lot of known data - that lots of people in the Bush Administration oversold the case about WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq - and packaged it all up in a way that made it seem to prove more than it did. You’re right to be skeptical about stuff like that. Now, if you can just apply that degree of independent thought to the similar stuff (same tune, different lyrics) you get from your usual blogs, we could all sit down and sing Kumbaya together. </p>
<p>Zoosermom - it’s also a documented fact that Fox News consumers were the most likely of all Americans to be misinformed about the objective facts of what was discovered in Iraq after the facts were well known. I don’t watch any of the TV “news” programs so I can’t comment from first hand knowledge. Just basing my opinion on documented evidence.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom - it’s also a documented fact that Fox News consumers were the most likely of all Americans to be misinformed about the objective facts of what was discovered in Iraq after the facts were well known. I don’t watch any of the TV “news” programs so I can’t comment from first hand knowledge. Just basing my opinion on documented evidence.”</p>
<p>The documented evidence put forth by another institute funded by organizations that often (always?) have a left-wing agenda. The survey put forth by gottaloveUCLA is similar to what was cited above and upon which we agreed. Neither has clean hands and neither is the ultimate authority on the things that their surveys or studies purport to prove. The latter also works from the premise (with which I don’t agree) that the full story has been written on the Iraq war. Too early for that and much too much nuance.</p>
<p>"
Now, if you can just apply that degree of independent thought to the similar stuff (same tune, different lyrics) you get from your usual blogs, we could all sit down and sing Kumbaya together. "</p>
<p>Ewww. (the song, not you). Kluge, respectfully, again, you don’t know what we put independent thought to. I read blogs for the enjoyment of it, but I also consume information from many other sources. (My name is Zoosermom and I’m a news and information addict.) You simply are not in a position to be the arbiter of whether my or FF’s sources are appropriate because (a) you don’t know what they are and (b) it seems that no matter the sources, you’d discredit them because they don’t bolster your opinions. We take you at your word that you have arrived at your opinions, priorities and philosophy through dint of education and skepticism. What makes it so hard for you to comprehend that others can use the same methods and achieve different results? It is not through faulty research that people come to different opinions, it’s because of different priorities, philosophies and experience. You seem to be saying “if you do things my way, you will get to where I am.” Not true and boy would that be boring.</p>
<p>If you don’t watch those news shows, how can you offer an opinion? Because left-wing funded organizations tell you to?</p>
<p>Funding father…you point out the report says, At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.</p>
<p>The reports also says, But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry’s former crewmen, and by Navy records.</p>
<p>All I claimed was, To come to any other conclusion a person would have to be a mindless rube who allow themselves to be sold a bill of goods by the evil corporations and special interests.</p>