Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. [Read more...]
The rigid tone, blind appeal to authority and constant use of the terms “denier” and “settled debate” do not reflect true scientific thought or serve the public well.
President Barack Obama recently warned the country about climate change, referencing the recently released National Climate Assessment, mandated by Congress and published every four years as a guide to policymakers. In doing so, he called out skeptics: “Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate. … Climate change is a fact. … Rising sea levels, drought, more wildfires, more severe storms — those are bad for the economy. … Climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now.”
Global warming and its dire consequences may very well come to pass. But with due respect to the president, his experts and everyone complaining about wasted time: The rigid tone, blind appeal to authority and constant use of the terms “denier” and “settled debate” do not reflect true scientific thought or serve the public well.
Science is about explaining nature. The scientist’s role is not to tell the public what to believe. It is to clarify ideas, as efficiently as possible, so the public can understand the questions at hand. [Read more...]
The case for skepticism about climate scientists.
Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio came under attack this week for refusing to submit to scientific authority. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said in an interview with Jonathan Karl.
Nonscientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio’s words “undermine his other assertion,” namely “that he is prepared to be president.” Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had “disqualified himself” from the presidency.
Of all the silly things written on the subject of global warming, Marcus’s and Lapidos’s offerings are surely among the most recent. Apart from that they’re entirely typical of the genre of global-warmist opinion journalism, in which ignorant journalists taunt politicians for their ignorance but have no argument beyond an appeal to authority. Lapidos: “Does Mr. Rubio think scientists are lying? Or that they don’t know what they’re talking about? Either way, what leads him to believe that the ‘portrait’ of climate change offered by scientists is inaccurate?” [Read more...]
Each week seems to bring another incident. Who will the thought police come for next?
Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.
How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.
Each week seems to bring another incident. Last week it was David and Jason Benham, whose pending HGTV show was canceled after the mob unearthed old remarks the brothers made about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. People can’t have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the “right” things in their life off the set? In this world, the conservative Tom Selleck never would have been Magnum, P.I. [Read more...]
The timeline of the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups reveals nothing less than a scandal. It is a scandal that blew into public view a year ago this week and about which the press has been far from curious.
In 2009, the president of the United States commented in a commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. Supporters of the president dismissed critics who worried that the “joke” was a “dog whistle” intended to declare open season on the president’s political opponents.
In January 2010, the president in his State of the Union Address publicly berated the six Supreme Court justices in attendance for their decision in Citizens United, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions. [Read more...]
by Peter Roff
For all the talk of the “war on women” supposedly being waged by the Republicans, there is a distinct and considerable dishonesty going on concerning the way that some people actually talk about the female gender. To wit, let a right-wing celebrity – no matter how minor – say something even mildly derogatory about the fairer sex generally or even a single, specific woman and the epithets rain down from on high like a January blizzard in Minnesota.
The same is not true when a celebrity on the left picks as a target a politician on the right. There is one female comedian in particular who comes to mind, having recently said she wanted to “rip out” Republican U.S. House member Cathy McMorris Rodgers’ uterus.
At least part of her is probably thinking that by being so outrageous, so over the top that she can give her career a boost. That’s why we’re not going to help by mentioning her name. Leave it to say she’s been boldly offensive in her public pronouncements, as during the United States Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case when, according to the DC Examiner, she tweeted, “I would personally like to castrate every Male Conservative Christian so that they have NO reproductive rights.” [Read more...]
by Peter Roff
You have to hand it to the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin and Steve Mufson. In a recent piece that appeared online, the two intrepid reporters exposed the connection between brothers Charles and David Koch — whose legendary philanthropy supports a number of center-right organizations — the proposed Keystone Pipeline and the Republican Party.
The story would be worthy of a Pulitzer for investigative journalism except for one teeny, tiny little thing: It has so many errors in it, starting with its premise, that it wouldn’t be acceptable as a creative writing exercise in a freshman English class.
Working off a report compiled by a so-called activist group, Eilperin and Mufson reach the conclusion that a Koch Industries subsidiary is the largest leaseholder in Canada’s northern Alberta oil sands. Consequently the company – and the brothers – would derive a substantial economic benefit from the construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline. All the agitation by Republican congressmen, senators and governors trying to get President Barack Obama to approve the pipeline is, therefore, little more than “crony capitalism” — an attempt to curry favor and garner future political contributions. [Read more...]
Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.
In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC’s lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.
Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientists in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days — CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as “out of the scientific mainstream” or backed by “oil and coal companies.” [Read more...]
Leukemia patient Julie Boonstra is the latest American to get caught up in the media fact-checking frenzy. Her offense: Appearing in an anti-Obamacare ad for Americans for Prosperity, in which she said her out-of-pocket costs had become “unaffordable” since her insurance was canceled because of President Obama’s health care law. She also said Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who is running for Senate, “jeopardized my health” by voting for it.
Within hours of the AFP ad’s initial broadcast, media fact-checkers pored over alleged inconsistencies between her comments in the ad and statements she’d made in interviews, then said her numbers didn’t add up. Liberal pundits suggested they knew what was good for her better than she did. Peters sent a letter to television stations running the ad threatening their licenses if the “questionable claims” in the ad were not proven. [Read more...]
by Sean Noble
I firmly believe that anonymous political speech is not a danger to our nation — it has played an important role throughout our history. Anonymity in political speech protects the speaker from retribution, but it also serves a greater good: It allows the public to listen to ideas without any bias toward the messenger.
On Wednesday, The Arizona Republic republished a story about me written entirely by ProPublica, a left-leaning non-profit funded by liberal billionaires like George Soros. ProPublica spent more than 7,000 words painting the activities of my firm and non-profits with which I am involved as criminal.
The ProPublica authors repeatedly use the term “dark money” so as to scandalize the Center to Protect Patient Rights and make legal and compliant activities seem improper. If the money were truly “dark,” these “reporters” and the public would not have broad access to information about the funds granted by CPPR and similar organizations. The public tax records referenced by ProPublica include significant details about organizational details, activities, priorities, and spending. [Read more...]
The nightmare societies portrayed in the George Orwell novels “1984″ and “Animal Farm” gave us the word “Orwellian.” That adjective reflects a vast government’s efforts not just to deceive and control the people, but also to do so by reinventing the meaning of ordinary words while rewriting the past itself.
America, of all places, is becoming Orwellian. The president repeatedly reminds the American people that under his leadership, the U.S. has produced a record level of new oil and natural gas. But didn’t Obama radically curtail leases for just such new energy production on federal lands? Have the edicts on the barn wall of “Animal Farm” been changed again, with the production of new oil and gas going from bad to suddenly good?
Does anyone remember that the Affordable Care Act was sold on the premise that it would guarantee retention of existing health plans and doctors, create 4 million new jobs and save families $2,500 a year in premiums, all while extending expanded coverage to more people at a lower cost? [Read more...]
by Peter Roff
Is there some kind of unwritten law that says the IQ of a sportscaster can be no higher than the average combined score of the ten previous Super Bowls? After listening to NBC’s Bob Costas speak fawningly about the history of the former Soviet Union during the opening of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, you really have to wonder.
As part of his color commentary, Costas called the 1917 Russian Revolution that eventually brought Lenin to power a “pivotal moment” in history. He did so, however, in a manner that glossed over just why that was the case. It should never be forgotten that more than 100 million people around the world – and that’s a conservative estimate – died as a result of what that one event put into play.
Reporters have been telling lies about what the Soviets and their allies did for years. From the New York Times’ Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews – who wrote admiringly about Stalin and Fidel Castro – to television’s contemporary “superstar” journalists, far too many of those in whom rests the responsibility for telling the truth about world events have slanted their coverage in ways that benefited communist aims. Even today, the New York Times refuses to return the Pulitzer Prize Duranty won in 1932 for his dishonest account of the mass starvation in Ukraine. [Read more...]
The Obama administration has apparently decided it’s time to bury the IRS targeting scandal.
No more fake repentance.
No more expressions of concern for systematically violating the constitutional rights of American citizens.
Just end it. Move on. Pretend it never happened.
And why not? After all, President Obama won reelection, his base hates the Tea Party anyway (and believes conservatives deserve any punishment they get), and the media had moved on to covering national catastrophes – like lane closures in New Jersey. [Read more...]
Sarah Palin slammed the ‘lamestream media’ for an MSNBC segment on Melissa Harris-Perry’s show mocking Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandson. Thereafter, the host apologized for causing offense. This marks the second time the cable network has been criticized for a bizarre personal attack against a Republican personality.
by Leslie Larson
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry apologized Tuesday for openly mocking Mitt Romney’s black adopted grandson, after Sarah Palin led the chorus of conservatives who criticized the cable news host. [Read more...]
Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated ‘True’ in 2008 Obamacare’s ‘Keep Your Health Plan’ Promise
On December 12, the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.” An understandable choice. But in its article detailing why the President’s promise was a lie, PolitiFact neglected to mention an essential detail. In 2008, at a critical point in the presidential campaign, PolitiFact rated the “keep your plan” promise as “True.” The whole episode, and PolitiFact’s misleading behavior throughout, tells us a lot about the troubled state of “fact-checking” journalism. [Read more...]