Twice before Stewart has led the media. Back in January he was the first to tweak Obama as Bush 3 and remember the atmosphere where that took place:
As an aside, did you note the hesitancy of the audience to laugh at this stuff? They’re really so besotted, they think they’re not supposed to laugh or question President Obama, who Hollywood is declaring we must “pledge to serve.”
That was back in January when nobody would touch him. It was Stewart’s move that allowed what would eventually follow.
Next Came ACORN, While all the media was pretending the tapes didn’t exist Stewart Struck.
When you have a video on the Daily Show that complements Fox News AND Michelle Malkin vs the regular media then you know you have troubles.
Hey MSM when John Stewart isn’t going to go along you’d better start worrying.
What does this mean? It means that the story that the MSM has ignored is now before the audience. It means that the customers of NBC & MSNBC that has made the green cause their own is openly scooped by a person who openly states that his business is “fake news”
This explains why so many on the left consider him a valuable news source. To them he is “breaking news”.
Stewart is biased, that is known but he is smarter than the networks. He is far sighted enough to know what was coming and got ahead of it, (at least compared with the MSM).
Stewart and his staff’s actions protect his reputation as a newsman & staff. Apparently their reputations are more significant than the reputations of Couric, Williams, et/al. Just think about it, a fake newsman is more worried about getting news out than the people who supposedly do it for a living.
If the media is not ashamed, it’s only because they have no pride or standards left.
Do our beliefs form the basis of our partisan and ideological affiliations? Or is it vice versa?
There’s been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science. But the other point interests me no less.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that Mr. Marshall didn’t spend his thanksgiving in a cave somewhere either in a cave or somewhere neither of those phonenetwork maps have coverage and did in fact hear that there issomenew “globalwarmingnews” outthere.
That is ironic because it is the left — not the right — that is ignoring the growing body of evidence that discredits the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Climategate revealed that data supporting this theory is corrupted by the political agenda and quest for government grants by proponents of anthropogenic global warming at Penn State and at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England.
Today I’m am over an 1:15 into Morning Joe and no mention, the media is doing it’s best to totally ignore this story in keeping with its nichemarketmodel. I presume that Marshall has decided to do the same. He should take a lesson from Paul Mirengoff at Powerline:
In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of “adverse inference instruction,” wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.
To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.
Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that’s inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.
One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.
Ah but one apparently does need to be a person not wedded to the hard core left for their readership or customer base. When you don’t care about your credibility anything is possible.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
They did keep what they refer to as “adjusted” data.
Let’s put this in a way our liberal friends can understand: Do you remember this iconic picture?
The woman above is Rose Mary Woods. She was President Nixon’s secretary who claims to have “accidentally” erased the 18 1/2 minute gap in the Watergate tapes. Lets pretend it is 1973 and All the Watergate tapes were erased and only “reconstructions” created by the Nixon White House were available. Would you have taken the Nixon White House’s word that the tapes were “accidentally” erased? Did you take Rose Mary Woods word? Is that credible?
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17
In the same way, Science without data is “hypothesis” at best and “speculation” at worst.
If you still want to believe in this that’s up to you, far be it from me to tell you what religion you want to follow but don’t tell me it is “settled peer reviewed science”.
And Roger as far as your suggestion to postpone the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, not a chance! The people feeding at the Climate Change troth are going to try to push through one last big score while the gravy train still exists. Time is not on their side. That have to act NOW if they want our money.
How the MSM decides to cover this will be interesting.
Update: My friend Robert Stacy gives me the best blogging anniversary present there is: A top level link! He also touches on a pet peeve of mine:
This temptation to think that we are morally superior to our ancestors, you see, is the road to hell that Scientism paves.
The biggest problem with the baby boom generation is they never grew out of the teenage idea that they were smarter than their parents. That failure as much as the changes of the 60’s are the cause of a lot of the troubles we have today.
As a person who has been an eyewitness to at least one Miracle in person I’ve never understood why believing Christians have no problem believing all those other miracles but not Transubstantiation.
And herein lies what both Robert Stacy and I have over the climate guys. We disagree on this subject, passionately I suspect, but are not only unafraid to debate it publicly we will still be friends when our debate is done.
A person pushing real science or interested in truth doesn’t shut down debate. That was the biggest clue all along.
Update 2: In comments the discussion is Tradition tradition tradition…
Update 3: Gad-fry remembers Rose Mary Woods and comes up with his own 60’s connection.
Update 4: Democrat=Socialist has a good point:
If an employer can use computer forensics to find that Jenna Haze video you downloaded on the company laptop, couldn’t any diligent media outlet or United States DOJ (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!) do the same?
That will depend on a couple of things, first to the tapes ACTUALLY still exist? They may not. Secondly it depends on how the data was wiped. If the assumption is that they wanted the data destroyed they would have certainly thought of this.
His suggestion is actually rather ironic considering this story, speak of the Nixon tapes and they are in the News again:
The US National Archives is bringing together investigators to search for scribbled secrets from the early days of the Watergate scandal as the chain of events began that destroyed Richard Nixon’s presidency.
The elusive goal is to discover what Nixon and an aide discussed during the infamous 18189-minute gap in a White House tape recording of a meeting held three days after burglars linked to the president’s re-election committee broke into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate complex, then an office building in Washington.
One of the things that I find interesting about the meltdown concerning “global warming” and the climate change e-mails is how it symbolizes the cultural divide.
Not so much Red vs Blue, Conservative vs liberal, Robert Stacy McCainvs Charles Johnson (great timing changing sides btw Charles) but really in terms of how people look at things and why.
Way back in my HiWired blog days I wrote this to Glenn Reynolds concerning the Haditha debate.
Since the 60’s two unifying forces, for good or ill, were removed from the country: the removal of Judeo/Christian values as the semi-official moral code of the public schools) and the death of the draft/aka Vietnam. (actually ending in the 70’s). These two changes had one thing in common, it took two generations for them to have the following effect:
It is now unlikely that a student going to school today, had a teacher or parent who 1. Served in the military or 2. Was taught that moral code in school. To a whole generation now being born these are things that belong to outsiders. This makes the military and religious people outsiders and strange to one group and vice versa.
One important part of that moral code is truth and honor. Judeo/Christian values stress truth, lies are the work of the Devil. That is why contrary to the pop culture the Church’s role in the promotion and advancement of science and the University system looms large. It is a search for truth and as I’ve said before the only reason to be a Christian in general or a Catholic in particular is because it is true.
The concept of honor comes from the base of truth and is why it is so prominent in the military and also explains why the vast majority of people in the military come from Judeo/Christian backgrounds. The concepts of truth and honor are significant and the shame of violating those concepts are dreadful to a believer. Even if one didn’t believe in the religion itself the shared VALUES of truth and honor of the the Judeo/Christian system applied with great benefit to the culture as a whole.
One of the glories of Science is the reliance on truth. The best science consists of the gathering and measuring of data and the constant testing of it. The whole process of hypothesis, test and conclusion is a relentless search to confirm the known and discover the unknown truths of existence. This relentless search has improved the human condition beyond measure. When Christ says:
“you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
he is pronouncing the first commandment of science. The truth of knowledge frees the potential of the mind in as sure as the truth of Christ frees the soul.
What does this all have to do with the Climate Change e-mails? Just this: In two generations relativism and secular humanism rejection of Judeo/Christan values led to the idea that “truth” is relative and that one need to accept and even celebrate relative “truths” for the sake of various causes. This has been pushed culturally and politically with disastrous (and sometimes comical) results, but when that becomes the case in the sciences then bad things happen.
Would you want to be behind the wheel of a car who’s designer decided that he has his own different standard for how breaking and acceleration should work? Would you want to have him withhold his calculations or defend his actions by calling you a “friction denier”? How would you like to finance his production and have to drive your car under those same rules even if you don’t own one?
The subordination of truth for the sake of a cause and the abandonment of honor as a virtue is bad in any field, in science it leads to societal stagnation and decay. It is why daylight needs to be shined on this fraud and on the elites that decided they were going to protect it for the sake of money, stature and power. If it is rewarded or defended and or ignored then we condemn ourselves and our children to a world of superstition worse than any we have yet experienced.
Update: Nameless? Click on the link to the Glenn Reynolds letter I included in this post or on my amazon reviews and you will find my name very easily.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 