Thursday, January 14, 2010

Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?

Like making up the "controversy" about global warming.

Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?


Kevin Scheunemann said...


So is it official?

Can I call you a "global warming scam truth denier?"

Have you checked temperature in FL this past week? They lost hudge strawberry and orange crops because it was so cold.


Its cold outside.

If global warming is happening and YOU want to stop do I know you are not being paid off by the Natural Gas lobby?

I want my winter gas bill to be less through a warmer winter.

Why do you support consuming more natural gas with colder weather?

Why would you oppose a longer growing season?

Seems counterproductive to me.

(Naturally, this assumes a God-like liberal mentality that one can control the climate and the massive natural CO2 emissions that occur everyday!)

Mpeterson said...

Tsk tsk. And here I was hoping you'd stop trolling.

Anonymous said...

One can easily control the climate, Kevin. Just launch the nukes!

You should be for global warming, Kevin. It would eliminate the liberal influence NY and LA have on "conservative" god-fearing, Midwesterners.

Get out the shotgun and my Bible and bring on the 2nd coming!

By the way, the whole week is relatively warm during the day.

Anonymous said...

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

Permafrost in Siberia. Methane emissions from the Arctic permafrost increased by 31% from 2003-07, figures show.


...sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

...Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.


Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates.

David Adam, environment correspondent
Thursday 14 January 2010 19.00 GMT

DanBack said...

None of this Liberal Climate-Worship is true. The Earth is only 10,000 years old, dontcha know?

This is for you Kevvy:
Gay Teen Worried He Might Be Christian

""I don't know what's happening to me," Faber admitted to reporters Monday. "It's like I get these weird urges sometimes, and suddenly I'm tempted to go behind my friends' backs and attend a megachurch service, or censor books in the school library in some way. Even just the thought of organizing a CD-burning turns me on.""

DanBack said...

Where can I see the Mary Weigand stand-up routine?

From the paper this morning:

Once again Mark Peterson exposed his amoral and anti-God sentiments when writing about sex education classes in public schools. By his words I understand he does not believe people can live a life according to God’s standards. I find that nonsensical for several reasons, three of which I’ll share.
First of all, in generations past, sex outside of marriage was not an activity society accepted; therefore most people exercised selfcontrol and waited for marriage for a blessed sex life. It was good for society and good for them personally. And, it was attainable.
Secondly, he cites a study saying, “Young people who participated in abstinence-only programs were just as likely to have sex before marriage as their peers who didn’t participate.” I easily found studies showing the opposite.
Abstinence-centered programs for kids work well when done right. Abstinence-centered programs need to be reinforced year after year. Kids need to hear the message that waiting until marriage to enjoy sex is attainable and better; kids want to hear the message that they are worth waiting for. If we present anything less, we are letting them down.
Just imagine the impact of abstinence-centered programs in schools at the rate of Mark Peterson approved programs telling kids, “don’t do it, but if you do, use a condom.” Those types of programs do not bring a message of hope and success to kids. The message is they are bound to fail, so deal with it.
Teachers teach for results. We need teaching to reinforce values, which build up kids and help them attain the best; programs that teach kids how to wait until marriage for sex, why to wait and the benefits of marriage. Let’s keep on that track.
Thirdly, since God created sex for marriage, then waiting until marriage is attainable and best.
Mary Weigand
Town of Trenton

Brian Huber said...

The answer to the question lies simply in politics. For climate-change deniers, any chance to disprove the theory of climate change is not to be passed up. That's why Fox News picked up the ocean current story cited in the post. With the flap over the university e-mails from England, climate-change deniers are trying to extrapolate to the tenuous result that global warming is a hoax from the unsurprising fact that people might try to suppress information contrary to their own held beliefs. Shocker! It happens all the time.
Of course, the controversy died down substantially when reputable news sources like the AP examined the story more closely and found that the angst surrounding the killed e-mails did nothing to disprove the science showing climate change over the past century.
And of course, some will point to freezing in Florida as proof that global warming doesn't exist, not understanding that the science to this point has predicted great variability (that means swinging between temperature, precipitation and other weather extremes) would be the result.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Would this be the Brian Huber of early to mid 1990's UWM Post fame?

Kevin Scheunemann said...



"The head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists said Saturday he would not resign despite a recent admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off.",2933,583711,00.html

Is your global warming faith shaken yet? or do you still purport these "errors" to be sound science?