One of you wrote:
"Bill Clinton did not cure homelessness. The media stop reporting homelessness stories because they believe Democrats are the good guys."
Nothing has changed. This morning I found a quote from someone who is a journalist at a msm newspaper:
"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for Obama is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in Arizona. Not a single one is looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. The editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and I'm betting you dollars to donuts same is true at the New York Times and others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking story, but raising any reasonable inquiry into Obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."
and from another source:
"I have a couple friends who work in the MSM, too, and one of them tells me the newsroom is (exact words) “unbelievably cavalier” about any complaints viewers register about their reports, what they ignore, their bias, or the way they edit Republicans vs. the way the treat Dems. “Cavalier” as in, the fix is in, and they don’t even have to pretend to care what half the country thinks or wants."
There's a fascinating cover-up going on in the media. Important facts about Obama's connections, which would cause a scandal if the public knew about them -- his relationship to domestic terrorist, Billy Ayers, for example -- are totally ignored by the media. In contrast, they have teams of reporters looking through garbage bins to try to find some 'dirt' they can turn into a story against Sarah Palin, the conservative Republican Vice Presidential nominee.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
W5 C1 Homework: impressions of the film
1. What are your strongest impressions of this film?
2. Does the film change your perspective on any of the questions you answered previously? Which? How?
2. Does the film change your perspective on any of the questions you answered previously? Which? How?
Friday, September 26, 2008
W4 C2 The War on Terror
Next class, we'll watch a documentary about how Muslims in Canada, America, and Europe are risking their lives to speak out against terrorists like Al Qaeda, who are responsible for massacres around the world over the past decade. In my experience, people have very simplistic stereotypes of Muslims, post 9/11. This film will help you understand clearly the struggle in the Muslim community over the nature of Islam.
The msm have a mixed record in reporting the so-called "War on Terror"; at times, the reporting has been accurate, but too often, it has been misleading. Most people know less about this topic than they 'know' about global warming, which, given 9/11 and everything that has followed, is truly astounding.
Simple question to test your knowledge: which people have suffered the greatest number of deaths at the hands of terrorists?
This film was produced by the Public Broadcasting Service in the US and was supposed to air nationally. At the last minute, the network executives refused to show it. I want to know what you think of their decision. You need to see this in class -- their are no copies on the net or available in stores.
The msm have a mixed record in reporting the so-called "War on Terror"; at times, the reporting has been accurate, but too often, it has been misleading. Most people know less about this topic than they 'know' about global warming, which, given 9/11 and everything that has followed, is truly astounding.
Simple question to test your knowledge: which people have suffered the greatest number of deaths at the hands of terrorists?
This film was produced by the Public Broadcasting Service in the US and was supposed to air nationally. At the last minute, the network executives refused to show it. I want to know what you think of their decision. You need to see this in class -- their are no copies on the net or available in stores.
W4 C2 Can the problem of msm bias be solved?
So we can all see the pattern: with global warming, AIDS, and now homelessness, the msm has hugely exaggerated -- lied -- about the size and seriousness of the problem. Why? One obvious reason is $$ - scary stories = more viewers = more advertising dollars. But money isn't the only reason, and sometimes, not the most important reason. For example, if the msm was only interested in money, they could have continued to hype the homeless story when Bill Clinton became president. But they did not -- they just killed the story. Why? Because it would have made President Clinton, a liberal, look bad -- and the media, 89% of whom voted for Clinton, wanted him to look good.
With Goldberg, I think you agree that bias of any kind in news reporting is bad. Conservative bias would be equally bad. If 90% of journalists were Martians, Martian bias would be bad. The fact is that the huge majority of journalists in the msm are liberal in their thinking and in their social values -- they may be diverse in many ways -- black, white, Asian, hispanic, middle eastern, male, female -- but in the way they view the world, 90% have the same values, beliefs, and convictions.
What do you think could be done to bring balance to the newsroom? (No, the government can't make laws to force the msm to change).
With Goldberg, I think you agree that bias of any kind in news reporting is bad. Conservative bias would be equally bad. If 90% of journalists were Martians, Martian bias would be bad. The fact is that the huge majority of journalists in the msm are liberal in their thinking and in their social values -- they may be diverse in many ways -- black, white, Asian, hispanic, middle eastern, male, female -- but in the way they view the world, 90% have the same values, beliefs, and convictions.
What do you think could be done to bring balance to the newsroom? (No, the government can't make laws to force the msm to change).
W4 C2 Short Assignment: due Friday, Oct 3
Homeless Denied Health Care
Explain first of all, how the average reader might respond to this article. What would they see as the main point? Would they be likely to support any of the suggested policies after reading this?
Next, analyze critically all the problems you can find with this article. It will be easier if you print it out. Everything from the title, to the photo, to the research findings and more.
Is this fair and balanced news reporting or advocacy journalism? Any harm done? To whom?
Approximately 500 words. You don't need to follow a strict essay format, but you may. You should have at least 3 solid paragraphs.
Hard copy and email as Word attachment
Explain first of all, how the average reader might respond to this article. What would they see as the main point? Would they be likely to support any of the suggested policies after reading this?
Next, analyze critically all the problems you can find with this article. It will be easier if you print it out. Everything from the title, to the photo, to the research findings and more.
Is this fair and balanced news reporting or advocacy journalism? Any harm done? To whom?
Approximately 500 words. You don't need to follow a strict essay format, but you may. You should have at least 3 solid paragraphs.
Hard copy and email as Word attachment
W4 C2 Summary/Response Chapter 8: due Sunday Oct 5
"How About a Media that Reflects America?"
You may post this up any time before the due date if you like; I'm just giving you the option because of the short assignment that will be due by Thursday next week.
Don't want to overload you.
You may post this up any time before the due date if you like; I'm just giving you the option because of the short assignment that will be due by Thursday next week.
Don't want to overload you.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
W4 C1 Should readers have to guess what is 'news' versus 'opinion'?
Here's a link to two screenshots from the Star. The first is the way the 'poverty' article looked when you read it; the second it today's version. It's hard to see, but look closely and you'll notice the word "Opinion" above today's version:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcmw4842_145d8scjndd
I guess the editors agreed with me after all :)
But, check out any article under the "Opinion" link in the blue title bar. Every one is called a 'story' - a news article -- not one of them has 'Opinion' above it. If they wanted to make a clear distinction, all they have to do is highlite the 'Opinion' tab in the blue title bar when any of these articles is accessed.
Update: Looks like they just followed my suggestion for some, but not all articles - very confusing.
For example:
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503466
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcmw4842_145d8scjndd
I guess the editors agreed with me after all :)
But, check out any article under the "Opinion" link in the blue title bar. Every one is called a 'story' - a news article -- not one of them has 'Opinion' above it. If they wanted to make a clear distinction, all they have to do is highlite the 'Opinion' tab in the blue title bar when any of these articles is accessed.
Update: Looks like they just followed my suggestion for some, but not all articles - very confusing.
For example:
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503466
W4 C1 In addition to money, what causes the msm to be biased?
From a debate with Marvin Kalb:
BERNARD GOLDBERG: First of all, I make very, very clear that I'm not talking overwhelmingly, I'm not talking about politics; I'm talking about the big social issues of our time. You're right about going after Clinton. The Washington press corps would go after their liberal grandmothers if they thought it would do them some good. I also made very clear in my book that they worship at the cathedral of Nielsen. They would do anything, virtually anything for ratings. We don't disagree about that.
But here's where we do disagree.
On the big social issues: They got the homeless story all wrong by saying that there were far more homeless than they were, saying that they looked just like you and me, and doing way more homeless stories when Reagan was president than when Bill Clinton was president, even though homelessness didn't go away; it only went away on television.
They got the AIDS story all wrong, the worst covered story of the past 50 years, by telling us that heterosexuals were going to be the next wave of people with AIDS.
They're constantly going to the National Organization for Women to get reactions to women’s stories, and rarely going to conservative womens' groups.
So what, besides money, is the msm's motive?:
When you say motive, there's an implication that it's malicious. It isn't. It isn't. The problem is that, if you travel in Washington and Manhattan circles, if you travel with friends who are largely smart, hip, sophisticated, and liberal, that after a while, you won't see your view and their views as liberal views, but simply as civilized views.
I think the msm marginalize conservative views. I think too many people in the big-time media, I think, conservatives, in too many cases, are just right-wing nuts. And let me tell you, it does not mean -- I emphatically say it does not mean -- that the there's a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. The media elites don't come into their offices in the morning, go into a dark room, roll up their sleeves, give the secret handshake and say, "How are we going to not only execute our liberal agenda, but get conservatives at the same time?"
That's not it. They marginalize conservatives mainly.. . I could give you many, many examples, Terry, but mainly by identifying every conservative who's in a story because -- and I think rightly -- the audience needs to know that these people are conservatives, that their views are conservative views and we should know, as they say, where they're coming from. But the very fact that we rarely identify liberals tells you, at least it tells me, that journalists very often think that these liberal views aren't liberal at all, but really mainstream, civilized, reasonable views. And that's the problem, I think.
BERNARD GOLDBERG: First of all, I make very, very clear that I'm not talking overwhelmingly, I'm not talking about politics; I'm talking about the big social issues of our time. You're right about going after Clinton. The Washington press corps would go after their liberal grandmothers if they thought it would do them some good. I also made very clear in my book that they worship at the cathedral of Nielsen. They would do anything, virtually anything for ratings. We don't disagree about that.
But here's where we do disagree.
On the big social issues: They got the homeless story all wrong by saying that there were far more homeless than they were, saying that they looked just like you and me, and doing way more homeless stories when Reagan was president than when Bill Clinton was president, even though homelessness didn't go away; it only went away on television.
They got the AIDS story all wrong, the worst covered story of the past 50 years, by telling us that heterosexuals were going to be the next wave of people with AIDS.
They're constantly going to the National Organization for Women to get reactions to women’s stories, and rarely going to conservative womens' groups.
So what, besides money, is the msm's motive?:
When you say motive, there's an implication that it's malicious. It isn't. It isn't. The problem is that, if you travel in Washington and Manhattan circles, if you travel with friends who are largely smart, hip, sophisticated, and liberal, that after a while, you won't see your view and their views as liberal views, but simply as civilized views.
I think the msm marginalize conservative views. I think too many people in the big-time media, I think, conservatives, in too many cases, are just right-wing nuts. And let me tell you, it does not mean -- I emphatically say it does not mean -- that the there's a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. The media elites don't come into their offices in the morning, go into a dark room, roll up their sleeves, give the secret handshake and say, "How are we going to not only execute our liberal agenda, but get conservatives at the same time?"
That's not it. They marginalize conservatives mainly.. . I could give you many, many examples, Terry, but mainly by identifying every conservative who's in a story because -- and I think rightly -- the audience needs to know that these people are conservatives, that their views are conservative views and we should know, as they say, where they're coming from. But the very fact that we rarely identify liberals tells you, at least it tells me, that journalists very often think that these liberal views aren't liberal at all, but really mainstream, civilized, reasonable views. And that's the problem, I think.
W4 C1: Homelessness facts and figures:
Numbers of homeless in the 80's and 90's, USA:
How would you feel if business reporters sold you on a stock that they claimed would return 40 times its value? Or told you the average house price would increase from 350,000 to 14 million dollars in the next few years?
Causes of homelessness:
- the msm --- between 3 and 19 million
- reliable sources --- 200 to 600 thousand
How would you feel if business reporters sold you on a stock that they claimed would return 40 times its value? Or told you the average house price would increase from 350,000 to 14 million dollars in the next few years?
Causes of homelessness:
- the msm --- selfish, conservative politicians like Reagan (PM Stephen Harper today) taking money away from social programs
- Real causes --- mostly personal--addiction, crime, mental illness
Saturday, September 20, 2008
A civilization is destroyed when....
from "The Undefeated City"
I live a few miles from Santa Monica High School, in California. There, young men and women are taught that America is “a terrorist nation,” “one of the worst regimes in history,” that it’s twice-elected leader is “the son of the devil,” and dictator of this “fascist” country. Further, “patriotism” is taught by dragging an American flag across the classroom floor, because the nation’s truest patriots, as we should know by now, are those who are most able to despise it.
This is only high school, remember: in college things get much, much worse.
Two generations, now, are being raised on this poison, and the reason for that is this: the enemies of this city cannot come out and simply say, “Do not defend the city.” Even the smartest among us can see that is simple treason. But they can say, “The City is not worth defending.” So they say that, and they say that all the time and in as many different ways as they are able.
I live a few miles from Santa Monica High School, in California. There, young men and women are taught that America is “a terrorist nation,” “one of the worst regimes in history,” that it’s twice-elected leader is “the son of the devil,” and dictator of this “fascist” country. Further, “patriotism” is taught by dragging an American flag across the classroom floor, because the nation’s truest patriots, as we should know by now, are those who are most able to despise it.
This is only high school, remember: in college things get much, much worse.
Two generations, now, are being raised on this poison, and the reason for that is this: the enemies of this city cannot come out and simply say, “Do not defend the city.” Even the smartest among us can see that is simple treason. But they can say, “The City is not worth defending.” So they say that, and they say that all the time and in as many different ways as they are able.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Maybe the biggest financial collapse in history: what's going on?
September 19, 2008
The Rest of the Meltdown Story
By Neal BoortzWhat in the world is going on here?
You've seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let's change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.
Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin'. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don't really know what in the world is going on here.
Fear not. I'm here to help. I know ... I'm just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we're seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination - closing lawyer and radio talk show host - gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today's headlines.
OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on "greedy" (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.
Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was "redlining." Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd "redlining" claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.
Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the "subprime" mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN: Barack Obama.
These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.
Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we're seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn't want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn't all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed - and now we are left to enjoy today's headlines.
So ... why aren't you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember ... there's an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math.
W3 C2 Homework: The Toronto Star wants you to save the homeless...
... and end poverty.
After reading and responding to Chapter 5 "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness", read the Star article under "Links".
1. Who wrote this 'news' article? See anything doubtful about that?
2. Who are the good guys, bad guys, and in-betweenies according to this writer. That is which of Canada's political parties does he favor/oppose?
3. How does this relate to anything you've read in Chapter 5? For example, pay attention to the paragraph in which the writer identifies who the homeless are.
After reading and responding to Chapter 5 "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness", read the Star article under "Links".
1. Who wrote this 'news' article? See anything doubtful about that?
2. Who are the good guys, bad guys, and in-betweenies according to this writer. That is which of Canada's political parties does he favor/oppose?
3. How does this relate to anything you've read in Chapter 5? For example, pay attention to the paragraph in which the writer identifies who the homeless are.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Week 3 Class 1: Environmentalism and the Media
1. The mainstream confrontational environmental movement and the ecoterrorists:
“Does the end justify the means?”
Some of you agreed with Dr Schneider’s opinion: basically, it’s ok to lie if you’re trying to get attention for a cause you believe is good. Discuss
Some said that it is really the public’s fault if we believe what the msm/activists tell us. We need to do our own research. Discuss
Are you a person who can be easily led? Would you sign this petition?
Penn and Teller: petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
What do you think of this Greenpeace video?
Greenpeace: angry kid video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4
Were you aware of groups like the ALF and ELF? Have you heard of PETA? Any concerns about the connection between mainstream groups like PETA and extreme groups like ALF/ELF?
ALF video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFrVU6vDYQ
Is the previous video about the ALF something that should be shown by the msm? Has it been?
2. What’s the world’s worst disease – in terms of the number of deaths per year?
Brief overview
Video – The Simpleton’s Guide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uARFfWFcV5A&feature=related
Article excerpt: Rachel Carson/mainstream environmentalism/ddt/malaria
Should the msm inform the public about the world’s worst disease? Why hasn’t it? Harm done?
3. Goldberg discusses msm liberal bias with Alan Keyes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uvNJN1XL0A
What stands out for you in this video?
“Does the end justify the means?”
Some of you agreed with Dr Schneider’s opinion: basically, it’s ok to lie if you’re trying to get attention for a cause you believe is good. Discuss
Some said that it is really the public’s fault if we believe what the msm/activists tell us. We need to do our own research. Discuss
Are you a person who can be easily led? Would you sign this petition?
Penn and Teller: petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
What do you think of this Greenpeace video?
Greenpeace: angry kid video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4
Were you aware of groups like the ALF and ELF? Have you heard of PETA? Any concerns about the connection between mainstream groups like PETA and extreme groups like ALF/ELF?
ALF video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFrVU6vDYQ
Is the previous video about the ALF something that should be shown by the msm? Has it been?
2. What’s the world’s worst disease – in terms of the number of deaths per year?
Brief overview
Video – The Simpleton’s Guide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uARFfWFcV5A&feature=related
Article excerpt: Rachel Carson/mainstream environmentalism/ddt/malaria
Should the msm inform the public about the world’s worst disease? Why hasn’t it? Harm done?
3. Goldberg discusses msm liberal bias with Alan Keyes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uvNJN1XL0A
What stands out for you in this video?
W3 C2 HOMEWORK: Summary/Response Chapter 5
As before, one paragraph summary of the main points, then a one paragraph response. With each issue we look at, think about the questions "Is there any harm done?" and "to whom?"
Note, as you read, the words 'liberal' 'conservative' 'activist' 'lobbyist' 'politically correct' 'leftwing' and 'rightwing'. Do this with each chapter.
Note, as you read, the words 'liberal' 'conservative' 'activist' 'lobbyist' 'politically correct' 'leftwing' and 'rightwing'. Do this with each chapter.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Deniers: a few scientists who dispute Al Gore
Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth?
Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community.
No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.
This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community.
No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.
This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
W2 C2 Lying: from activists to the msm to scientists??? to the public
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcmw4842_141c63m3433
Misleading information from activists, to the msm, to scientists...
(We won't even mention politicians :)
Well, maybe we will:
Q. "How do you know when a politician is lying?"
A. "His lips are moving."
Seriously, though -- I understand the shock effect when we've been accustomed to trusting experts and we find that sometimes that confidence is misplaced. It should make us skeptical, but not cynical.
Skeptical means, "I won't automatically trust Greenpeace, CBC, or a particular scientist. I'll have to research the issues I care about."
Cynical means, "I won't trust anybody, any more, because they're probably all spinning, exaggerating, or lying".
To be cynical is too easy; it's just an excuse for not thinking.
Your thoughts?
Misleading information from activists, to the msm, to scientists...
(We won't even mention politicians :)
Well, maybe we will:
Q. "How do you know when a politician is lying?"
A. "His lips are moving."
Seriously, though -- I understand the shock effect when we've been accustomed to trusting experts and we find that sometimes that confidence is misplaced. It should make us skeptical, but not cynical.
Skeptical means, "I won't automatically trust Greenpeace, CBC, or a particular scientist. I'll have to research the issues I care about."
Cynical means, "I won't trust anybody, any more, because they're probably all spinning, exaggerating, or lying".
To be cynical is too easy; it's just an excuse for not thinking.
Your thoughts?
W2 C2 PC or not 2 PC? - how political correctness relates to the issues
Last class, we began talking about 'political correctness', rules for what can and cannot be publically expressed. The idea is that certain groups have a right not to be offended. As well there is the idea that the majority group in society must never offend a minority. So, on the presumption that Christianity is the majority religion, PC says that saying "Merry Christmas" makes Jews, Buddists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists etc. feel excluded from society, therefore it is 'offensive'. Ironically, every minority group is encouraged to express its religious customs. PC applies to sex, race, and many other topics as we'll see. So, with that, I'm going to categorize topics we've looked at so far in terms of PC and UN PC views. Note where the liberal msm fits in.
PC
Human-caused global warming
the ‘Al Gore’/Obama theory
“We’re destroying the planet” scare tactics
How did it come about? Activists to the liberal msm to the public to politicians: the result – massive gov’t spending of your $ and many new laws
Disagree? “Denier” – like ‘holocaust denier’ or
“Climate criminal”
UN PC
Natural causes of warming
The ‘Sarah Palin’ theory
“There’s no scientific evidence that humans are causing gw”
Scientists and some environmentalists
PC
Homosexuality
“Homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle”.
Disagree? You’re a “homophobe”
UN PC
Homosexuality
“Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle”
Medical research data: regardless of AIDS, gay/lesbian lifespan is 10 to 20 years less than heterosexual men/woman
PC
AIDS
“Aids is everyone’s disease”
Scare tactics
Activists to liberal msm to public to politicians: result
Massive spending of your $
Disagree? “homophobe”
UN PC
“AIDS” is mainly confined to drug users, prostitutes, and the homosexual community”
Randy Schilts, gay journalist, Ch 6
Michael Fumento, “The Myth of Heterosexual Aids” Ch. 6
PC
Mainstream confrontational environmental movement – eg Greenpeace
“Humans are a cancer on the planet” scare tactics
Activists to liberal msm to public to politicians: spend your $$
Disagree? “greedy corporate capitalist raping the planet”
UN PC
Cooperative environmentalists – eg.
Dr Patrick Moore “Greenspirit”
“Working together, business, industry, and the public can solve our environmental problems”
Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, former Greenpeace leader, wrote “The Skeptical Environmentalist” – a 50 year survey of all environmental issues. His conclusion – in almost every area, we have actually made progress since the 1960’s
PC
Human-caused global warming
the ‘Al Gore’/Obama theory
“We’re destroying the planet” scare tactics
How did it come about? Activists to the liberal msm to the public to politicians: the result – massive gov’t spending of your $ and many new laws
Disagree? “Denier” – like ‘holocaust denier’ or
“Climate criminal”
UN PC
Natural causes of warming
The ‘Sarah Palin’ theory
“There’s no scientific evidence that humans are causing gw”
Scientists and some environmentalists
PC
Homosexuality
“Homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle”.
Disagree? You’re a “homophobe”
UN PC
Homosexuality
“Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle”
Medical research data: regardless of AIDS, gay/lesbian lifespan is 10 to 20 years less than heterosexual men/woman
PC
AIDS
“Aids is everyone’s disease”
Scare tactics
Activists to liberal msm to public to politicians: result
Massive spending of your $
Disagree? “homophobe”
UN PC
“AIDS” is mainly confined to drug users, prostitutes, and the homosexual community”
Randy Schilts, gay journalist, Ch 6
Michael Fumento, “The Myth of Heterosexual Aids” Ch. 6
PC
Mainstream confrontational environmental movement – eg Greenpeace
“Humans are a cancer on the planet” scare tactics
Activists to liberal msm to public to politicians: spend your $$
Disagree? “greedy corporate capitalist raping the planet”
UN PC
Cooperative environmentalists – eg.
Dr Patrick Moore “Greenspirit”
“Working together, business, industry, and the public can solve our environmental problems”
Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, former Greenpeace leader, wrote “The Skeptical Environmentalist” – a 50 year survey of all environmental issues. His conclusion – in almost every area, we have actually made progress since the 1960’s
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Famous scientists who stand up against global warming...and the price they pay
The author, Larry Solomon, is an environmentalist who began a series of articles for the Canadian newspaper, The National Post, seven years ago. At first, he believed in the Al Gore theory; as he researched the issue, he changed his mind. Click on the image to see his articles
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
W2 C1 Homework: AIDS is a problem, so scaring the public into spending money on it must be good, right?
The 18 most serious diseases in North America:
$ spent on Aids compared to other diseases:
The pie chart shows the proportion of research $ spent on Aids relative to other diseases. The bar chart shows the amount of money spent per death:
Questions for homework:
1. Define 'gay activist or lobbyist'. Used 18 times in Ch. 6
2. Define 'political correctness'. Used on p's 85/86/88/89 in Ch. 6.
3. Michael Fumento published his book "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" in 1990. AIDS peaked in Canada in 1993. In 2005, 272 people contracted HIV, and 5 died of full blown AIDS. Yet AIDS continues to receive 15 to 20 times more research money than 17 other much more serious diseases. Why?
Friday, September 5, 2008
W1 C2 Homework - summary/response to Ch. 6
Read, summarize, and respond to Chapter 6 of Bias by Sunday night. Post your summary/response here. The summary should be a single paragraph of about 150 words (more if you like). In your opinion, what is the main point of the chapter? What are the 3 most important pieces of evidence that support the point? There's no one right answer. Just do your best to fairly represent Goldberg's argument.
Next, in a separate paragraph, express your opinion of what you've read. Agree, disagree, or both? How does what you've read relate to your own experience? How do you feel about the Msm's handling of the issue? Any connections to how they've presented the global warming issue? Why do you think the msm, in both cases, is one-sided?
You don't have to answer all the above questions. They're just to get you thinking. The response paragraph should be about 150 words too.
I'll show you how I mark posts in class and homework, and summary/responses next week. Don't worry about having perfect grammar. I'm interested in what you really think. If you make your best effort, you can get excellent marks.
Next week, I'll give some suggestions about the essay. I'm starting with Chapter 6 because it plays nicely into another environmental issue we'll look at next week. I want you to read the introduction too, because it gives you a good feel for who the author is and why he wrote the book, but just respond to Ch 6.
Anyone who would like to discuss the book outside of class, see me or email me. I can spend an hour once a week with a small group to discuss/clarify points in the book.
Next, in a separate paragraph, express your opinion of what you've read. Agree, disagree, or both? How does what you've read relate to your own experience? How do you feel about the Msm's handling of the issue? Any connections to how they've presented the global warming issue? Why do you think the msm, in both cases, is one-sided?
You don't have to answer all the above questions. They're just to get you thinking. The response paragraph should be about 150 words too.
I'll show you how I mark posts in class and homework, and summary/responses next week. Don't worry about having perfect grammar. I'm interested in what you really think. If you make your best effort, you can get excellent marks.
Next week, I'll give some suggestions about the essay. I'm starting with Chapter 6 because it plays nicely into another environmental issue we'll look at next week. I want you to read the introduction too, because it gives you a good feel for who the author is and why he wrote the book, but just respond to Ch 6.
Anyone who would like to discuss the book outside of class, see me or email me. I can spend an hour once a week with a small group to discuss/clarify points in the book.
W1 C2.2 How the Al Gore view is affecting kids
Following are two short articles that show how the public's belief in the Al Gore alarmist point of view are affecting kids. What do you think?
Kids Fear Global Warming More Than Terrorism, Car Crashes, and Cancer, According to National Earth Day Survey
National Survey of Middle School Students Shows Kids Believe More Needs to be Done to Save the Planet
While recent polls show that American adults are most concerned about the war in
Some of the most intriguing findings from the BrainPOP global warming survey include:
- Nearly 60 percent of children said they feared global warming and environmental disasters-such as hurricanes, tornados and flooding-more than terrorism, car crashes, and even cancer (22.3 percent feared terrorism most; 14.6 percent cancer; 5.9 percent car crashes).
- Nearly one-third of children reported thinking about global warming a lot and worrying about how the effects of global warming will change the planet and directly impact their lives.
- Another 41.2 percent think about it sometimes and say that they are somewhat worried
- Roughly 60 percent of children surveyed believe that more needs to be done in their community to help the planet and stop global warming.
- When asked what effect of global warming worries them the most, the majority of kids surveyed are most afraid of the toll it will take on the lives of people.
Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank
Posted: May 09, 2008
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Students at a California public school have written a series of letters to Chicago's Heartland Institute, which works to discover and develop free-market solutions to society's problems, attacking its members for "destroying our planet" by refusing to endorse the politics of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" film.
- "We feel that it is wrong what you are doing. We know that you know that global warming is NOT we repeat NOT a myth, And we think it is selfish that you would take money over yours and your peers lives."
- "We feel upset because you are making Global Warming worse instead of helping it. We know that almost half of the country knows that G.W. is a crisis. We know that you could help the environment with the $800,000 you have."
- "I think you are fools for denying G.W. you know it could kill us all & you're just adding to it. We are going to tell you about global warming. I don't care if you don't want to read, but I'm making you read it you horrible people," I want you to help stop G.W. not increase it," said one letter.
- "I do not think that what you are doing is right because you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in asia,
W1C2 60 Canadian Scientists appeal to the Prime Minister to review climate change policy
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next."
The quote is taken from an open letter to the Prime Minister by Canadian scientists in 2006. What are your thoughts?
The quote is taken from an open letter to the Prime Minister by Canadian scientists in 2006. What are your thoughts?
Monday, September 1, 2008
W1 C1 Homework: Are we causing a planetary climate disaster?
Choose 'comments' below and answer the questions the day before next class or earlier. Post using the same nickname for the whole semester. Don't use 'anonymous'. If anyone needs help, see me in my office.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a documentary we began to watch in class, along with links to Al Gore and Glen Beck. If you missed class, watch Al Gore, the Glen Beck, then the Global Warming Swindle. This documentary will be the focus of your first essay, due in two weeks.
Al Gore: "We are facing a planetary emergency" - from 5 minutes to 8 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeLGy3JoAg
Glen Beck: "Our GDP will be reduced by 3 trillion dollars"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
We’ve all heard that "scientists agree" or "the scientific consensus is overwhelming" or "the debate is over". Take a look at this petition, written to the US government in 2000, urging the government not to sign Kyoto. Look at the names/qualifications and the number of scientists—30,000-- who signed.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
1. Have you or people you know made lifestyle changes due to fears about global warming?
2. Is the "debate" over?
3. Has the mainstream news media -- msm for short-- fairly and accurately informed the public about 'climate change'?
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a documentary we began to watch in class, along with links to Al Gore and Glen Beck. If you missed class, watch Al Gore, the Glen Beck, then the Global Warming Swindle. This documentary will be the focus of your first essay, due in two weeks.
Al Gore: "We are facing a planetary emergency" - from 5 minutes to 8 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeLGy3JoAg
Glen Beck: "Our GDP will be reduced by 3 trillion dollars"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
We’ve all heard that "scientists agree" or "the scientific consensus is overwhelming" or "the debate is over". Take a look at this petition, written to the US government in 2000, urging the government not to sign Kyoto. Look at the names/qualifications and the number of scientists—30,000-- who signed.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
1. Have you or people you know made lifestyle changes due to fears about global warming?
2. Is the "debate" over?
3. Has the mainstream news media -- msm for short-- fairly and accurately informed the public about 'climate change'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
