Gore, very cowardly, refuses to debate any gw sceptics.  The reason seems to be that he can’t defend his theory.  Why else in the world wouldn’t he stand up and argue for what he vehemently believes is real?  I think it is simply b/c he knows he would be blown away by real scientists who would make mincemeat of him and the nonsense he promotes.  The world deserves a full-blown investigation.

All of those journalists hold culpability in the fraud perpetuated by Al Bore.  They no longer have any journalistic integrity.  They should all be fired and their companies heavily fined for their part in this fraud.  Al belongs in jail.

We’re all about to have Obama stick his hands deeper into our pockets to prove to the European Socialists that he knows how to play by their rules. Mainly based on the “documentary” made by “Super Con-Man” Al Gore.
  I think the Nobel Peace Prize next year should go to Michael Moore. You know,  keeping in line with the Nobel Committee’s reasoning.
  Read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” if you want to understand some of the errors Al Gore has made.

I wouldn’t say Al Gore is always right. But I find the criticism leveled at Al Gore by the right systematically makes mountains of molehills, distorts his words to make him sound ridiculous, and interprets the most innocent inconsistency as proof of a conspiracy. After having investigated several such charges in detail, I can no longer take seriously any right-wing critique of Al Gore’s environmental record. It is nothing but a tissue of lies.

You are kidding, right Carl?  A tissue of lies?  You’ve investigated which charges?  What are your findings and where did you find them?  Come on Carl enlighten all of us right-wingers.

I would just like to clarify that Al Gore for me is no holy cow. He’s a politician, after all, and you can’t judge a politician by the same measuring rod as a scholar. In politics there’s a lot of hypocrisy, and it rubs off a bit on everyone. But to a great extent this is because of the need to keep up appearances and show no vulnerabilities. Fair-minded, pragmatic critique is a valuable source of information. But an uninterrupted diet of many years of unrestrained and obsessive attacks on Al Gore has made me fairly resistant to criticism of him. For me it’s jut noise.

For example the charge that he claimed he “invented” the internet. He did not use the verb “invent”. Look it up in AIM’s quotations section. He was called a liar for saying that Manhattan would be flooded if the Greenland ice cap melted. But it’s a scientific fact. Anyway, discussing an issue like what’s gonna happen over the next century or so, it’s no use to talk about the most likely outcome, as the right insists on doing. The outcome that matters is the worst possible outcome, because that’s the one we must prevent. So there’s a lot of very speculative stuff going on that’s very important, and you cannot approach a complex issue like that with a jackhammer, as you do. I find it a waste of timnme to have to wade through all the distortions and sarcasm I find in right-wing literature on environmental issues, trying to figure out what’s true and whay you made up. I will be glad to read critique of Al Gore, provided that it is balanced and genuinely interested in the issues, not the monstruously malicious rumors I read in the right-wing press.

a-gore is a media supported loser who’s only talent is fooling and profiting from stupid people like the American and European public. Global warming is a hoax put on by people like gore so that they can make huge profits at the expense of well meaning, but closed minded people. They chose hysteria over facts, snake oil salesmen instead science.
There is an expression in the South; “you can fix ignorance, but you can’t fix stupid.”

gore and his jones-town followers are the latter.

Right-wingers are shocked at Al Gore´s lies. Just imagine, making those reckless statements about polar bears! Gore´s rival in 2000, George Bush II, has never made any incorrect claims about polar bears.

But that’s just because George Bush does not screw around with chicken-#### lies. George Bush is a big-time liar. He lied us into Iraq to please his capitalist cronies at Exxon, BP & Texaco. At the behest of the G.O.P., scribblers like Judith Miller wrote mendacious pro-war propaganda in the NY Times. She is now permanently enshrined as an adjunct scholar at a Republican think tank. The head of British intelligence leaked his notes of a meeting with US envoys, stating that the White House was “fixing the intelligence” to justify a war. This note was never disavowed. Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell now admits he was duped by phony intelligence provided by the White House into making his big anti-Iraq speech at the UN that led up to the invasion.

In 2000 the liberals foolishly compared George Bush II to Adolf Hitler. Now that Bush has departed the scene, we can soberly assess George Bush´s historical role and compare him objectively to Al Gore. Al Gore certainly does not cut very dashing figure compared to George Bush in his flight suit.  In historical retrospect, Bush bears a striking resemblance, not to Adolf Hitler, but to Josef Stalin. With some Al Capone thrown in for good measure.

People who studiously ignore these historical facts shouldn’t quibble about a couple of polar bears.

Carl Stoll, When I first saw Al Gore, I read articles on GW, That summers would be hotter and winters warmer. Articles disappeared when winters were colder. Then I found out every planet in solar system is heating up, NOT just Planet Earth. So GW is NOT caused by human beings, it is caused by the sun. Al Gore knows this.

Dear Mr Tremble: Perhaps global warming was just a passing climate phase that’s now over, perhaps everything will turn out fine. But that is not the standard of reasoning required to make life-and-death decisions about the future of this planet. The current (or recent) head of the American Economic Association, Nick Stern, was elected to the position on the strength of the Stern Report he wrote for the British Government, in which he takes global warning very seriously indeed. And that reflects the attitude of the entire scientific community. Global warming is a concept accepted by the overwhelming majority of climatologists. Who knows? They may be wrong. But I’ll take their word for it until further notice.

To Carl Stoll;
A much closer comparison is Obama to Hitler as his (Obama)social/fascism agenda becomes more clear.
Regarding Al G, if you had done even a minimum of current research you would see the NASA, NOAA, and many scientific studies regarding global warming which concludes that global warming IS IN NO WAY CAUSED BY MAN. If you had the ability to accept actual facts you would see that Sun spot activity is directly related to global temperature as proven by the current data. The Sun spot activity is the lowest now then has been recorded…and surprise surprise global mean temperature is dropping surprisingly fast. The ice sheet in the Antarctic has grown the fastest and largest in recorded history.
It is so surprising to me that supposedly intelligent people completely close their minds to proven facts and accept some political hacks assessment of reality.
Please do not embarass yourself more by using the worn talking points issued by the Demos to their unquestioning and unthinking bots.

I’m more interested in the catastrophic effects of polution than the global warming controvesy. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO EMBRACE UNCRITICALLY ANY IDEA IN WHICH DISCUSSION IS CENSORED.  I honestly think that is the basis of all the global warming skeptism. (Does that sound reasonable?)  I can understand the impetus for social and political PC, which is often based on partisan politics in which propaganda and ad hominem attacks rule.  Although this is certainly not the first time the world has been subjected to “scientific PC” (Ask Galileo), to the outright censorship of empirical arguments. Though politics is subject to consensus, the idea is alien to science.  Subjecting science to PC is not just extraordianrily ignorant, it is absolutely insane. Certainly if we are going to ruin our economy with things like “cap and trade,” etc., the public has a right to full and open debate.  Of course, over-population, the root of so many present and future evils, is seldom, almost never discussed in conjunction with global warming, a case if there ever was one of the “Emperor has no clothes!”

Dear Mr Impeachyomama: The Antarctica ice cap is growing. But that’s not because it’s getting colder. Instead, the reason is that more snow falls now than before. And that is due to the large amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere, caused in turn by warming of the Southern Ocean. So the growth of the ice cap is perfectly consistent with global warming.
Your slipshod reasoning is typical for the political right in this country.
If you’re afraid of Fascism, you must have been very concerned when the Bush-Petromafia regime started unrestricted and illegal snooping of all electronic communications. Please tell us about how you protested against that measure.

Carl Stoll, You are right, GW will cause serious problems in the future. I have a neighbor who is in her late 80s. When she was a girl growing up in Outback Queensland the sun was so hot even green grass was burning..so when this takes place in the future even more people will be affected by it because they will not be prepared for it because Al Gore and others have their own agenda for saying what they have said. For those who are Politically Correct they are actually being Information Incorrect.

Carl Stoll is obviously brain dead on Al Gore.
I dare Stoll to do a search including the terms Al Gore and Armand Hammer and then try to dedend the fraud that is Al Gore.

Carl Stoll probably is Al Gorge, or he works for ACORN.

Carl Stoll is obviously a Gore kool-aid drinker. The fact is AG flies around in a private jet, lives in a mansion, and has made untold millions from this GW sham, while demanding the rest of humanity.live in caves. AG is the ultimate snake oil salesman, just like his wife Tipper, who made millions from her so-called “outrage” over song lyrics. They are both con artists and should be thrown in jail. .

In 1974 NOAA put floating temperature measuring devices all over the worlds Oceans. The highest it EVER was measured was in 1989 at a .04 increase. That was also the year that the earth’s orbit was closer to the sun which runs on a regular cycle.

Newer satellites have the ability to penetrate water and ice. The reason a piece of Ice the size of Rhode Island fell into the Arctic Ocean, was due to the fact that it was forced by newer Ice forming on the cap. The satellite also detected mountains of new Ice growing under the Arctic waters…I do not believe that an excess of snow caused that to form.

Mark Haprin of the EPA, the senior most scientist in the EPA, published a report on Global Cooling. When he sent the report out to news agency’s Obama had him fired for breaking the Chain of Command, although that is how it has always been done.

You are going to realize the money you no longer have to pay for an 80% increase in Utilities when Cap and Trade passes.

Mt. St. Helens put more C02 into the air than all humans have in the past 2000 years, but the earth always repairs itself. The Ozone Hole has ALWAYS been there, it is a natural balance to allow Carbon Gases to escape.

Gore is a shill, and his only reason in Money, period. He has made himself hundreds of Millions perpetuating this scam.

Bush would not sign the Kyoto Treaty until Russia, China, and India would agree to sign.

This reminds me of Obama’s promise to post all Bills online for five days before they would be voted on, he also promised “No more Pork”. Now the Senate Democrats are at this very moment behind closed doors, discussing the soon to be Social Health Care.

What is really bad, is all the Obamanistas following him like the pied piper, straight into Marxism.

Just wanted to let you know that the New Homeland Security Bill has passed. Things will be different now and Internet surfing as you know it will be tracked by what the FBI calls a ‘nonintrusive method.’ The FBI says you will hardly notice anything different.

For a demonstration, click on the link below:

http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes

(We all could use some levity)

Lest we forget, the U. S. Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 95-0.

Is it not a fact that polar bears are increasing?
Is it not a fact the the world has gone through several climate changes long before Mr. Gore was
even thought of?
Is Mr.Gore concerns about climate change or the “change” he makes by his appearances

Dear Mr. Barton: The issue of climate change is a complex subject and cannot be settled by an occasuinal polar bear count. There is an international organization of climatologists called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is run exclusively by scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of climate. The IPCC seems to think climate change is (1) a grave danger and (2) caused by man. If you disagree, I suggest you contact the IPCC. Its web site is http://www.ipcc.ch/. Good luck.

To paraphase Glen Beck, you cannot argue with idiots.  Global-Warmers are not amenable to facts or to empirical science.  They only need a few selective oversimplified cause-and-effect examples, and even if those proofs they have decided upon as fact (by scientific-journalistic-sociologist consensus), are not strictly correct, it doesn’t seem to matter to them.  Global Warming is a matter of faith, to them, a brotherhood of ego-involved and profit-minded believers, who have raised a belief in global warming to the dizzying heights of PC.  They have made up their minds, and THE ISSUE IS CLOSED. WARNING TO DISBELIEVERS: YOU ARE NEARING THE TIME WHEN ANY OPPOSITION TO GLOBAL WARMING WITH EARN YOU THE OBAMA MANDATED “RACIST” LABEL.

These two polling agencies are not exactly Republican bastions, so her his the latest poll taken by:

New Poll Numbers USA Today/CBS
September 14-15, 2009

Which is most important for the federal government to be working on right now

40% Creating New Jobs
25% Deficit Spending
13% Heath Care
12% Want Oil, Gas, and Coal
09% Fighting Terrorism
<.01% Gobal Warming

Other interesting side notes from the poll are;

91% Do not want Universal Heath-Care
94% Think Obama has not kept his promise on Transparancy
68% Think Obama is not concerned for the American People

Well, isn’t that stunning, less than a single percent on Globa Warming. A better poll question would have been: “Do you beieve Global Warming it real?

What I do know, is the RNC is looking for another Canadidate to replace Olympia Snowe for her thrid trip across the Isle, so Obama can claim “Bi-Partisainship on it’s passage.

Other news:

A Dvision of GM, Opal is being sold to Russia, while Saturn had finally made a decent car, is now closing that facility all together, causing more than an 18,000 job loss. This was these were recommendations of the Car Czar, and we thought the Government was out of the Auto Buisness.

The only way I I can now trust the government, is if is it is shut downh completely, especially with commentst such as, “to date, the government has created or saves 30,000 jobs. I have said before, there is not way in hell to gage “Saved” jobs, the only state with a low job rate is, D.C. since taking office, there have been 250,000 new jobs creating in our government.

Wesley (re: #20 – (The New Homeland Security Bill involving the Internet)

Wes, I hope that this has nothing to do with a bill mentioned in the following email I received yesterday from Ron Paul’s site.

Here’s an excerpt –

[Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality.  That’s why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, “The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.”
Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to “shut down” all private internet in the event of a “cybersecurity emergency” — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.
And Rockefeller’s bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants.
That’s why this expansive new power grab should really be called “The Internet Takeover Bill.”
As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.
It’s also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.
And we’ve already seen the Obama Administration’s reaction to any online speech they deem “fishy.”
In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends’ and neighbors’ emails to help Barack Obama silence the “disinformation” about the Obamacare bills in Congress.
Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man.
If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of all Americans’ access to the Internet.
That’s right.  Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet.

But that’s not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared “emergency,” this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed “cybersecurity professionals.”
If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they’re federally-licensed bureaucrats.
And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread “fishy disinformation” like free-market health-care solutions:  Passing socialized medicine could soon become enough of an “emergency” for Barack Obama to shut them down.
You know, for the public good.]

Is there a connection?

There is a connection, Obama had been discussing this, Rockefeller introduced it in early October, part of the reasons he gave at the time is that more and more Republicans are getting out their vote by learning the truth about the candidates.

Bayh added that it could stop news of what is really going on due to leaks, and Obama’s ears perked upon hearing that news. It was discussed again all through the remainder of October, and became much stronger in its language from the eight until now.

It was actually first talked about after the August break when all the thousands of opponents of the Health Care proposal hit the Democrat Town Halls which almost torpedoed the Heath Care Bill.

In fact, in early September, I talked about this happening right here on AIM, in more than one post. In fact, Glenn Beck will be doing a show talking about the bill on Monday.

What he and the Liberals are trying to do is unconstitutional; they are steam rolling right across the 10th Amendment.

He has promised to keep the plan Deficit Neutral, but he cannot do it otherwise. So they are going through back doors, by using unfair penalties and fines, by 2019 there will still be 25% of the people who this plan does not cover.

I do not even want to get started on Cap and Trade (The Climate Bill), or Globalism.

Thanks Wes,

If this Marxist rogue and his Trilateral buddy, Rockefeller, get this egregious violation of free speech passed, we are in for some dark days ahead, indeed!
I’m definitely going to contact my congressman about this.

Hi Neo,

We are in for some dark days ahead if this keeps going on, as it looks things are moving right along. Obama has already given almost a Billion Dollars to the IMF.

Obama is taking credit for “Saving” 30,083 Jobs saved at $533,000.00 each…my butt…Obama does not make that much a year (legally anyway).

Although the CBO has yet to see, the five Bills come together, just for the Baucus Bill will cost taxpayers well over $500 Billion Dollars.

I remember Obama’s speech about how transparent the debate about Health Care reform would be so out in the open, which he promised it would all be on C-SPAN. Therefore, everyone could watch the debate between both sides of the isle.

Now he is doing all the negotiations behind closed doors with Reid, Dodd, and Baucus. At least Karl Marx was honest about what he was doing.

Excluding what Bush spent, since Obama took office, under him the Deficit has grown to $1.4 Trillion Dollars, now Congress in planning news $200 Billion in a new Stimulus.

Wesley,

The level of resistance from the GOP of Cybersecurity Act of 2009 will be interesting to watch.
Glenn Beck is supposed to cover this on his show today (10/19).

This bill may sound scary, but I think an important factor is to assess the current administration’s attitude toward press freedom in general. And there can be no doubt that, at least regarding the press, Obama has shunned the banana-Republican antics of the Bush régime.

Under the Bush régime all media outlets controlled by the federal government were turned into mouthpieces for the administration’s policy. This had never happened before. Examples are Voice of America, public broadcasting, etc. Likewise presidential press conferences were dominated by boot-licking questions from pseudo-journalists on the GOP payroll. The federal government produced propaganda films and circulated them as news, without revealing their origin. News photos were forged, demonstrations conducted with phony demonstrators, some of whom were paid professional actors. Régime goons would show up at demonstrations disguised as firefighters, to mimic blue-collar support for the régime.

One has to be flabbergasted at this latest example of the most obvious, outright Leftist propaganda I’ve read on these blogs.  Effective propaganda requires has at least some factual basis, at least the proverbial grain of truth on which the clever propagandist can base his distortions, but this Leftist doesn’t even have that.  I usually try to avoid all the back and forth posturings that seem to inundate these forums, but having lived through all the anti-Bush lies and anti-Bush and anti-American slanting of the news for eight years (including the vociferous attacks on Cheney), and seeing now the opposite, all the pro-Obama propaganda which seems to pass for news these days (Including the ignoring of Gore’s gross distortions [a kind word here for something much worse—read the latest NEWSWEEK if you want to be shocked by outright leftist propaganda in print], I must protest.  This latest is really beyond the pale.

I stand by my remarks and am prepared to document them.
Since you evidently read only a narrow section of the media, you are indeed rash in denying my assertions merely because you haven’t read them before.
I make a point of reading left-wing, right-wing and middle-wing media. As a rsult I think I have a more balanced viewpoint than you do.
I will produce the documentary evidence for my assertions in the next day or so.

I assume you will include PBS and NPR.  Also, I will not accept the absence of the Leftist anti-American propaganda, the absence of anti-Bush lies, or even the absence of the blatant Leftist slant predominant in US media (NYT, MSNBC, e.g.,) as proof of pro-American bias.

I’m afraid don’t understand exactly what you mean. I find that to achieve clarity in political discussions it is best to leave out irony, insinuations, vague allusions and any other type of ambiguous communication. Otherwise we’ll never understand each other. Plain words, please.

Mr. Stoll,

Please provide proof of your allegations, or else do not say them. Last night’s election targeted two of the most vociferous Bush Haters, Corizine, and Creigh Deeds. Bill Owens came very close to a defeat by an unknown everyday Joe with no political experience, to mention hardly and personality (not to put the man down). Had the GOP not supported Scozzafava in the first place, Doug Hoffman would have pulled it off. I am saddened by the GOP nominating someone so liberal, more liberal than most Democrats, then turns around and supports the Democrat after promising she would support Hoffman.

The GOP should take a lesson from Scozzafava, become a sheep in wolves clothing to get into office, but I do not believe the GOP/Conservatives are that low.

As for your Media Rant, the former MSM (Mainstream Media) now known as the LFM (Liberal Fringe Media) such as ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, most all newspapers, and many magazines, all have become more like a Government Run System.

Those Media Outlets were Bush Haters really came out of the walls. All Polls taken by the Media themselves, Gallup, Rasmussen, Harris, USA Today/CBS, all had the same results that the all News Outlets other than Fox (they for some reason not counted), showed that 98% of the Media was pro Democrat/Liberal.

The Polls on Fox News were split:

Republican: 40%
Democrat:  40%
Independent: 10%

Without a doubt, MSNBC is the most hateful, vile, and sickening; they should be taken off the air. Had they been on a Non-Cable channel, the FCC would have banned them for many of their crude, nasty remarks. They are the ones who started calling the legitimate TEA Parties (all races, all political Parties) “Teabaggers”. Honestly until I read the News, the word teabagger had a sexual meaning. I looked it up on the Internet, it turned out to be a Homosexual position, bunch of sick people who should have been fired, and the Station Sanctioned.

You set there complaining about something you obviously know nothing about, while the Media does not tell us the truth, that truth is that Obama is turning this country into something unrecognizable. This man could not even run a McDonald’s, but does know how to run the greatest Nation on earth into the ground.

Dear sir:

I reply in verse:

        AMERICA’S IMMINENT DOOM

Woe is you, America!
Now instead of a pink President you have a beige President.
Nothing will ever be the same!
There has been such a decline in public morals.
There is no comparison to the administration of, you know, while we had as President that gentleman, um … what’s his name? You know, the one who’s family is in cahoots with the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia? Who unsuccessfully tried to award a Supreme Court judgeship as a payoff to a political associate who, years before, had sabotaged investigation into his so-called military service? Who fed bogus intelligence to his own Secretary of State, Colin Powell? So he could conquer Iraq’s oilfields?  I can’t remember his name. Well, you know who I mean.

Now I’ve lost the thread …

Don’t believe it? Go to gregpalast-dot-com

Dear Wesley in Dallas:

You make some very interesting claims about the media, most of which I am not qualified to comment on.

Many serious academics write about the media. I am thinking for example of Harold Wilensky, who in his book “Rich Democracies” (Univ of Calif Press 2002, p 154) writes that there are three principal theories of why the media say what they do: (1) there’s the theory that says that the media say what they say to advance the interests of the owners of the mass media; (2) there’s the theory that says media content is determined by the occupational and practical activities that must be carried out in order to produce the news, transmit it and present it; and (3) there’s the theory that stresses differences between country and country, depending on local regulations, traditions, etc. Professor Wilensky writes: “in my view the first theory (no. 1) explains less than the other two (nos. 2 & 3).”

In other words, after having considered various theories and the evidence supporting each theory, he concludes that the theory according to which the media supports the interests of their respective owners, which you apparently espouse, is less backed up by the evidence than the other two theories. That does not mean of course that there is NO evidence to back it up, just that it is apparently not such an important factor.

A study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research “What Drives the Political Slant of Daily Newspapers?” http://www.nber.org/digest/jul07/w12707.html reaches the conclusion “The ideology of the owners doesn’t correlate in any significant way with the political slant of their newspapers’ coverage. When a single owner owns multiple papers, the authors find that each paper’s language is tailored to its own market, rather than toeing a single, corporate line.”

On the other hand I don’t necessarily completely agree with these authors and tend to agree with you that there are certain cases of clear political manipulation. In some cases, like Fox News, for example, the owners are waging an ideological crusade, presumably in their own interest.

In my opinion there is strong evidence for a conspiracy, but NOT a liberal conspiracy, but rather a conservative conspiracy, in the presidential campaign of 2000. The two best-known reputedly liberal newspapers in the country, the New York Times and the Washington Post, both assigned reporters to cover Al Gore’s campaign who describe themselves as “conservatives” (Ceci Connolly and another broad). These two journalists then proceeded systematically to ridicule Gore throughout the campaign, which no doubt cost him a fair number of votes. Meanwhile G.W. Bush’s correspondents were enthusiastic about him & “got the message out”.

My assertion of the tendentious press coverage of Gore is confirmed by a conservative journalist of impeccable reputation, Harold Evans. I stumbled upon these words by Evans through a link provided by Accuracy in Media, no less. Harold Evans was the editor of the Sunday Times (London) for 14 years, which he left over editorial differences with Rupert Murdoch. He has been the editorial director of U.S. News and World Report, the New York Daily News, and Atlantic Monthly magazine… etc. No suspicion of liberal tendencies here, are there? Well, Harold Evans wrote the following in The Guardian of Nov 1, 2008:

“… the American press likes to think of itself as more superior and detached than it actually is. In 2000, the mainstream media did a great deal to elect George Bush by portraying Al Gore as a boastful liar.”

Now according to your theory that cannot have happened. But it did. So your theory needs some retouching, to say the least.

In my work in economic research I have found that many things people say sound perfectly reasonable and convincing – until you verify the facts. And even when you know the facts, like Wilensky and the authors of the NBER article, there can be disagreements over their interpretation.

So just because your theory sounds reasonable to you, who are apparently not even a specialist on the media, does not mean it’s true.

There’s another serious objection to your NY Times theory: The New York Times journalist, Judith Miller, was instrumental in persuading the American public in 2002 that President Bush had solid grounds to suspect Saddam Hussein of producing weapons of mass destruction.

“What?” you say, ”the NY Times supporting Dubya?”

I cite now from the Wikipedia article on Judith Miller (2009-11-12) “Miller [wrote] “Mr. Hussein’s dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq’s push to improve and expand Baghdad’s chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war.” Although Miller conceded that some intelligence experts found the information on Iraq’s weapons programs “spotty,” she did not report specific and detailed objections, including a report filed with the US government more than a year before Miller’s article appeared by retired Oak Ridge National Laboratory physicist, Houston G. Wood III, who concluded that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges.

Shortly after Miller’s article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller’s story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges. Miller said of the controversy, “[M]y job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal.”

In other words the New York Times journalist Miller thought her job was uncritically to tell us what G.W. Bush thought, and if she had any doubts, to shut up about it. The moment her shady story was published, the administration pointed to it to justify attacking Iraq. It would seem here that the NY Times was acting as a GOP mouthpiece. Mrs. Miller now has a cozy little job in a Republican think tank.

I realize it’s very frustrating to find that your theories don’t agree with the facts, but believe me: it happens to everyone.

Carl,

There is a difference in the media before and up to 2002, when Harold Wilensky wrote about the Media. But one must be blind to all the changes the Media have gone through.

They had good reason to doubt Gore, after making some outrageous claims, such as an example, that he said he (Gore) invented the Internet, when anyone with any intelligence knows a University created the Internet for Military Communications in the beginning, and was paid for by the Government for it’s works via Grants.

Then Gore made the claim that the book Love Story was written about him and Tipper. During his tenure as VP for Clinton, Bill held Gore down, according to Hillary there had been many arguments between Clinton and Gore, for “Talking too much”.

As for Judith Miller, I would not call her a conservative, but she wrote thing the Times did not like, and early on, the Times let her go (mutually). She is now a regular contributor as a Fox News Analyst, however her appearances on Fox, she takes a Democratic viewpoint most of the time.

The MSM turned against Bush in 2006, the criticisms have become more and more vile to the point to where they allowed Op-Ed’s to actually compare Bush to Hitler.

It was not Bush who changed, the Media changed drastically when Obama began his run as a Democrat vying for a bid for the White House. Then they began gushing over Obama as if he was the Saviour himself, completely in the tank for him. They didn’t much care for Bill Clinton because he governed from the Center

At no time do I remember the Media supporting Bush to the point of getting him elected. They criticized Bush in the Florida voter disaster. Team Bush’s lawyers file with the Supreme Court only because the Florida Supreme court would not allow Military Ballots to be counted, but they did allow weeks old ballots in Broward County to be counted, although they had been accidentally discovered in a storage facility (the type where people store furniture, and such). The excuse??? They must have been put there by a precinct worker inadvertently.

Now just how in the hell did they know about those “ballots” being there in the first place? In another instance, there were thousands of ballots found in the trunk of a precinct worker automobile, and were ALLOWED to be counted.

Believe it or not, there was a time when I trusted the media. Now the Media claims that Free Speech allows them to report what ever they want to report. Several years ago there was a Bill to have a Constitutional Amendment proposed to regulate honesty in the Media, it was simple and in my view did nothing to disallow them their views, but in investigative reporting would require no less than two sources, and prove it without them having to disclose who the sources were, just as it still is today. It was the other part of the Bill the Media did not want anything to do with, and that was to allow dissenting sources to appear in the same story, the reasoning was there is nothing in the way of them to tell the truth, and no incentive to do so…

Since it takes two thirds of each House to pass a Constitutional Amendment, it was easily defeated before it could come to a vote.

The complete lack of the truth is what drives people crazy. The job of the Media is to inform people, they are not doing that, not even close.

Thus the title of the Al Gore video “Al Gore & the Death of Journalism”.

Dear Wesley:

You complain that “Then the [media] began gushing over Obama as if he was the Saviour himself, completely in the tank for him.”

So what does that prove? In 2000 the media were completely in the tank for GW Bush. You say you don’t remember that part, but that’s like saying you don’t recall any airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center. The quote from a reliable, non-liberal source, Harold Evans, which I cited, proves conclusively that the media were pro-Bush in 2000.

And they were in the tank for Jimmy Carter in 1976, and for bla bla bla bla bla.

Wesley, your problem is that you’re trying to find out the date by watching the second-hand move across a clock.

Why don’t you read something about history of the American press? Read about how superficial and fashion-oriented campaign reporting is. You have no standard of comparison. You don’t know what happened 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I’ll send you some web links about how shoddy US press coverage is.

I close with a cite from the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce:

“They who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.”

Opinions that are not based on verifiable objective knowledge are not worth very much.

Regards, Carl

Come on Carl, just how bad is YOUR memory? Bush received favorable Media attention from the Terrorist disaster in the WTC Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and his praise for those who took down that last plane heading for the White House…Where the passengers took over the plane and crashed it in Plattsburg, Pa. They turned on him in 2003 and never looked back, complaining about Iraq, with the Media ignoring the had Bush approval of Both Houses to go to war against Iraq.

The LeftStream Media (formally the Mainsrteam Media have yet to report on any of Obama’s huge mistakes (most likely why you have not heard the truth)

Reagan never complained about the mess Carter left him (including a very strong recession), Bush never complained that he was left with Clinton’s recession (so much for a surplus!), yet still to this day, Obama is still blaming Bush for the economy, doing some fact checking from the CBO, I found this stat:

Spending deficits

Clinton = $1.6 Trillion (8 years)
Bush = $1.8 Trillion (8 years)
Obama =$3.5 Trillion (11 Months)

As for research, have you possibly tried looking via the Freedom of Information Act? I do, and so should you, it may just surprise you as to what you will find by looking in the right places.

Now we have this mess (and yet another lie):

Media bias is one thing. But we have just witnessed one of the greatest scandals of modern science, and it barely made the front page of the New York Times. Most Media Outlets never even mentioned the emails.

Late last week we got the word: hackers broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit server.  The stolen emails and documents were later made public.

1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

  2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.

  3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.

  4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

  5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

Again: we’re dealing with fabricated and deleted data, and an orchestrated effort to undermine global warming dissidents.  Faked data in particular is a big deal: many politicians are using eco-alarmism based on fear of global warming to assault American freedoms.  So what does this mean for America if it turns out that all that global warming was a sham all along?  What does it mean for America if it turns out that a few scientists at the top were actively involved in scientific fraud to promote their own agendas?

It is not too surprising to find that many “scientists” have been strategically promoting false data when it comes to global warming; it is far more surprising that major news networks are completely ignoring one of the largest scandals the modern scientific world has ever seen.

The fact is, this information could completely destroy any credibility global warming alarmists once claimed.  And with the American economy hanging in the balance with the Cap and Trade legislation (The Climate Bill), it is dismaying, though not terribly surprising, that major news organizations are not plastering this information on every front page.  It is shameful that “respectable” newspapers and networks are devoting more time to the Gosselins, Taylor Swift and Twilight than to covering the story that could make or break our constitutional republic.

Just open both eyes…

Dear Carl, I did not say it would be over soon. When this ice age ends in the Northern Hemisphere the SUN will be so very hot, it will be scorching heat. The people will not be prepared for it because of Al Gore. As for Bush it was in the news at the start of the Iraqi War that Saddam had buried his WMDs in Syria. I found out it was true. Now the Media and Bush haters do not want to be reminded about it. I wish I had been able to keep those articles now. Hopefully someone will come up with that information.

From Post #40:

“Why don’t you read something about history of the American press? Read about how superficial and fashion-oriented campaign reporting is. You have no standard of comparison. You don’t know what happened 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I’ll send you some web links about how shoddy US press coverage is.”
————
How about I go back 40 years and longer, they were not near a Progressive Media until 2006, when it peaked to pro democrat, now they will not even report on “REAL NEWS” if it concerns anyone in the Administration, but will if only to defend the Progressives in power.

Try reading the warnings of Thomas Jefferson on the Press, George Washington, Thomas Paine…

The media was critical of FDR on many occasions (there was split coverage), as they were with LBJ, two other Progressive Presidents. Trust me, I know my History much more than most, just as I know the truth behind Hitler and Stalin, there has been much erased regarding the two of them. Do you or anyone else know of Stalin’s atrocities and in which country, and what was the atrocity he committed?

What if any is the difference between FDR, LBJ, Obama, and Saul Alinsky? FDR extended the Great Depression for 10 years longer than it should have been, and what exactly brought the country out of the depression…

Great situation! I’m merely starting attempted latest community management/marketing media and seeking to learn how to make it well – resources like this clause are unbelievably reformatory.

Vinyl Wall Stickers

Very well and established purposes of the internet are to display meanings
like this, I do thank you very much for your time.
wall decals

Outstanding task ! Your blog site has provided me most of the knowledge I wanted .
Locksmith Wayzata

nTLLvMm