Further proof that Global Warming is a left wing conspiracy

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/12/greenland.arctic.thaw.ap/index.html

[Slider]

The story makes it clear that we have to make infrasatructure changes in order to deal with the sweeping changes that warming is bringing about. Even if we ignore the whole issue about what is causing the warming, we cannot ignore the consequences of the rise in temperature.

It is unfortunate, maybe catastrophic, that we have a head-in-the-sand moron like Bush managing our long-term environmental policy. It will be suicidal if we let his type of idiocy influence our short-term strategy also.

Slider

[Skeg]

Yeah, last winter I was thinking about global warming...

when skiing waist to chest deep powder, and I thought it was awesome. I'll take more winters like that one. Skiing the POW POW in New England was the best in years. If global warming means many more winters of the deep stuff I'll take it.

I mean think about it we won't be here too long anyway enjoy it while you have it, cuz you can't when you're dead.
;D

[catbbq]

Yeah, last winter I was thinking about global warming...

when skiing waist to chest deep powder, and I thought it was awesome. I'll take more winters like that one. Skiing the POW POW in New England was the best in years. If global warming means many more winters of the deep stuff I'll take it.

I mean think about it we won't be here too long anyway enjoy it while you have it, cuz you can't when you're dead.
;D


My guess is that the regulars will have a field day with this one.

I thought the skiing was better in 2000/2001. I am hoping for a few 3 footers starting in November.

[TrailBate]

Yeah, last winter I was thinking about global warming...

when skiing waist to chest deep powder, and I thought it was awesome. I'll take more winters like that one. Skiing the POW POW in New England was the best in years. If global warming means many more winters of the deep stuff I'll take it.

I mean think about it we won't be here too long anyway enjoy it while you have it, cuz you can't when you're dead.
;D


My guess is that the regulars will have a field day with this one.

I thought the skiing was better in 2000/2001. I am hoping for a few 3 footers starting in November.


Hey, I would love to be convinced that this whole thing is completely natural, and there's nothing we could do about it.

I have nothing against longer, warmer summers, shorter winters, longer biking season.

[truckboy]

But we all have something against worse hurricanes. Something that Nat. Geo. had an article on last month, before Katrina. Atlantic temps rising makes for worse storms.

Anyway, it's a tough theory to prove that greenhouse gasses are the major factor. I suspect they are heavy contributors, but the earth has patterns too long for humans to track, or to have tracked is perhaps more to the point. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe fossil fuels havea lot to do with global warming, but I just can't see how "natural cycles" can be disproven.

[Slider]

Natural or not, it is happening and ignoring it only means we'll pay a much higher price to deal with it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I don't know. I go back and forth on global warming. But I'm much more concerned about pollution in general.

[Skeg]

Don't talk bad about hurricanes!!!
Don't forget that bigger hurricanes mean bigger surf. If it weren't for Hurricanes us east coast surfers wouldn't have any fun out in the water. Ophelia is going to churn up some nice swells so wax up yer sticks and get ready for some nice surfing.

See...not all hurricanes are bad, that's just a stereotype.
8)

[catbbq]

See...not all hurricanes are bad, that's just a stereotype.
8)




If it weren't for stereotypes, I wouldn't know who to hate.

[CsharpDev]

whether something is good or bad depends on your point of view. If you live in the Carolina's and have no electricity, a flooded basement etc. Ophelia is bad, if you're a new england surfer Ophelia is good. If you ski (or snowboard) blizzards and Nor'Easters are great ;D , if you don't know how to drive and don't like to be cold they are bad. If you're a beach bum rain is bad, if you put out forest fires rain is good.

[TrailBate]

when your village starts sinking because of melted permafrost, I think you have a problem.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/28/environment.alaska.reut/index.html

[kernel crash]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the earth come out of an ice age a few millions years ago? Wasn't most of North America under a sheet of ice? So did the cavemen do something to cause global warming or is it just the ebb and flow of natural causes that occurs on its own. Duh!

[slapheadmofo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the earth come out of an ice age a few millions years ago? Wasn't most of North America under a sheet of ice? So did the cavemen do something to cause global warming or is it just the ebb and flow of natural causes that occurs on its own. Duh!



Don't be silly - everything can be traced directly back to a single person's actions over the past five years. Hasn't that been repeated here often enough that you believe it yet?

[catbbq]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the earth come out of an ice age a few millions years ago? Wasn't most of North America under a sheet of ice? So did the cavemen do something to cause global warming or is it just the ebb and flow of natural causes that occurs on its own. Duh!



Don't be silly - everything can be traced directly back to a single person's actions over the past five years. Hasn't that been repeated here often enough that you believe it yet?


Actually the last big ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, but there is some evidence that we are just now coming out of a "mini ice age".

A couple links for the faith challenged...
http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/iceage.htm
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html


As for everything over the last 5 years being one person's fault, I submit to you that even the last ice age was his/her fault as well. How could he/she be responsible for something that happened 10 000 years before he/she was born? He/She is very clever.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Big earthquake in Asia. Over 30,000 dead. The only questions left remaining:

How is this George Bush's fault?
How is this the result of global warming?

Essays due by weeks end. Grammar will be harshly judged.

[Doro]

I dont think cave men had access to aquanet or Ford F-350's.
To say global warming is a natural occurence may hold some truth to it but no one can convince me that the pollution the industrial world pushes off into our atmosphere has no ill effect.

[GeepNutt]

I dont think cave men had access to aquanet or Ford F-350's.
To say global warming is a natural occurence may hold some truth to it but no one can convince me that the pollution the industrial world pushes off into our atmosphere has no ill effect.


Then don't waste your time reading this....

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67#1

[catbbq]

Since the doom-and-gloom guys seem to be DOA, I will play their part.

The George C. Marshall Institute receives funding (or at least did as recently as 2000. They no longer list their funders.) from Exxon, which obviously has a large stake the absense of global warming.

How about an unbiased source? Yeah, your right. No such thing.

[Slider]

It isn't too hard to debunk the Marshall propaganda piece. Just compare one primary data point - the degree to which the temp has risen in the last century - with, say, the EPA info, or NASA's Earth Observatory program. As I've said before, all info is biased. Just look closely at sources, and interpretations, and compare them with others. The truth emerges, and it is often obvious.

The Marshall piece puts it at .5 degrees, and claims that to be nothing. EPA and NASA put it between .5 and 1 degree, and project 1.5 to 5.8 additional degrees by end of century.

A quote from NASA: "Rarely in the Earth’s history has the average surface temperature changed as dramatically as the changes that scientists are predicting for the next century. During the last ice age 20,000 years ago, for instance, the Earth was roughly 5°C cooler than it is today. Since then it has warmed up, although not steadily, to present levels. That’s an increase of roughly 1°C every 4,000 years. Current global warming scenarios predict, at the bare minimum, a 1°C increase over the next century."

So 5degrees less brings an ice age, yet Marshall is claiming that .5degrees more is nothing? On it's face, this is simply dubious.

We can also look at CO2 concentrations for more data. The CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere is both unprecedented, and having massive effects on our climate. NASA's CO2 measurements show that it has risen from 315ppm to 370ppm since 1960 alone. Would you make the argument that this very large increase has no effect on climate?

Also from NASA: "As of now, greenhouse gases afford a plausible explanation for such changes. In the Earth’s distant past, drastic increases in carbon dioxide nearly always coincide with large increases in Earth surface temperatures. Conversely, ice ages are almost always accompanied by a decrease in carbon dioxide. "

So measurements of past atmospheric conditions say that temp is related to CO2, and small temp changes make large environmental changes. If you have better data, or better command of statistics, let's hear it.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

As you say, all info is biased. I could find a hundred sites that disagree with your point of view. And you likewise. My original point was and still is that I'm very skeptical of the prophets of doom running around with the end of the world scenario's when there is still alot we don't know. That's all.

If you've bought into it, fine. I haven't.

[Slider]

We know a lot more than you seem to think. The problem is that misinformation provided by the likes of Exxon and the current administration has obscured the strong underlying scientific analysis of climate change.

I am perfectly willing to go through this issue point for point with you. What better data than NASA's are you reading?

Slider

[catbbq]

We know a lot more than you seem to think. The problem is that misinformation provided by the likes of NASA and the previous administration has obscured the strong underlying scientific analysis of climate change.

[Slider]

That is pure BS. The best research minds in atmospheric science work for NASA. Their work has been peer-reviewed, their results duplicated by other researchers, and the methodology and results subjected to scrutiny by researchers in other countries and other fields. That is what science is all about. It is way more than an ignorant comment from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.

If you are going to call any reseacher a liar, never mind condemn a whole generation of them with a backhanded slap, you need something more than an unfounded opinion. It is a mistake to rely on the interpretation of people who either never read the actual science or have some other reason to deny its validity.

Slider

[BG]

WOW, Now this is some funny ****!!

BG

[Slider]

WOW! That is not even a countering opinion.

Got some specific ideas to offer?

Slider

[BG]

No

BG

[slapheadmofo]

Pffft...NASA SHMASA. What the hell do they know? Not like those guys are a bunch of rocket scientists...

Personally, I think we're going into a global cooling scenario, as will be evidenced by falling temps and snow outside my house in the next few months, where a short time ago I was sweating my ass off. If anyone isn't convinced, swing by in mid January and I'll stuff some cold white evidence down the back of pants.

[catbbq]

Technically, according to my physics prof, rocket science is pretty easy. Just a few simple equations. Its the mechanical engineering that is tough.

[Mr_Cheeze]

The funny thing is that anyone might believe that NASA is somehow unfettered by bureaucracy and politics and that their findings are not agenda driven. These guys have every bit as much at stake as those in the energy industries to justify their jobs and the HUGE gobs of money they receive (and waste) from the government. Global warming is good for NASA. It promises them continued funding.

Before you get your panties in a knot, I'm not necessarily doubting NASA's research. Point is, they are hardly immune from politics. In fact, they are right in the middle of it.

[Slider]

Nevertheless, the published research from NASA and many independent sources (I can cite lots of references on this) shows that:

1. In the past, when CO2 levels rose, the earth warmed
2. CO2 is rising dramatically
3. Temps are rising dramatically

This is the crux of the global warming case. Feel free to slam NASA, or the AES, or NCAR or any other research group that says something similar, but you can't weaken their case unless you can cite well-founded research that says otherwise. The problem is that there is no well-founded research that says otherwise. There are lots of baseless claims like those of the Marshall, um, lobbyists, that fudge the data and offer poor analysis if it, but virtually all researchers that use primary source materials are led to the conclusion that rising CO2 means rising temperatures on earth, and that we are witnessing unprecedented amounts of man-made CO2 being introduced to the atmosphere.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

So maybe Bill Bennett was right. We can start by aborting the black babies. Reduce crime AND some extra CO2 to boot. Hell, for that matter, maybe we should just nuke the entire Middle East... and France... and China. Less people, less CO2. More oil for us.

Damn, I'm good at this solution stuff.

[Slider]

I'm thinking we really only need me, my wife, and maybe 250 carefully chosen friends to inhabit the planet. Can't nuke the rest, though. Fallout sucks. Maybe some sort of epidemic. My wife is bound to wonder about the over-representation of attractive young women among the survivors. I'll claim the viral strain was less lethal for them, and we need to repopulate with resistant offspring, starting now.

As for Bennett - WTF was he thinking? I mean, I don't care how you place that quote in context, it was pretty loony to say it. Could have as easily said: Abort the poor, or kill all criminals, or lobotomize the violent. By saying "black babies" he revealed an underlying racism of which he seems totally unaware.

And global warming is very real.

Slider

[catbbq]

Night Of the Comet

[kernel crash]

"As for Bennett - WTF was he thinking?"

Yeah. He's been around long enough to know how this game is played. And hey, could I be on that short list to help repopulate the earth?

[BG]

"Night Of the Comet"

Look, if you're trying to scare me, you're doing it okay?
(samantha, i believe)

BG

[GeepNutt]

OK, here is the real answer.... Aliens

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[Slider]

Chrichton's thing about global warming is pretty much well-written gibberish. He goes into this long-winded description of SETI, nuclear winter, and Bjorn Lomborg as if they had some sort of relevance to the scientific foundation for global warming. The argument is pure Straw Man.

The one time he actually does address the scientific foundation for global warming, he is simply wrong. He claims that the data in support of global warming theories is derived from computer models, which is not the case. The data for global warming is purely empirical. The measurements are real, not the product of a model.

The methods are simple: You measure the temp of the earth in various ways, you measure the amount of CO2 in various ways, and you compare your results to the geologic evidence of past climates.

Ever read any other Crichton essays? He's a little, well, odd. In everything I've ever read by him, I always got the feeling that there was a screw loose. He's very clever, and writes well. But It always seems like he's just a little out of touch with reality.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I have to wonder how well you read the speech if your conclusion is that his points are tenuously connected. The connections between SETI, nuclear winter, second hand smoke, the green movement, and global warming is that of supposed scientists falling back on politics and semantics by claiming "consensus" to somehow prove that their claims are credible; and that those who subscribe to said consensus are not any different than one who subscribes to a religion. Chrichton makes a well thought out argument. Although it is not surprising that you would vehemently disagree with his reasoning, since it disputes the so-called credible science behind global warming that you support as hard and unquestioning. It just isn't. It is, of course, your perrogative to believe whatever science you choose; but don't pretend that it is anything more than that, a belief, not completely unlike religion. There is science on both sides of this debate. Which is correct? Well, I guess that is up to each discerning person. Not everybody, though, on the side versus the pro-global warming movement is anti-environment.

Again I say that maybe all of this "green science" is right. Perhaps the overpopulation of peoples and the increasing worldwide usage of fossil fuels is resulting in greater concentrations of greenhouse gases. Perhaps. But the science is far from precise, NASA or whatever entity you wish to throw your hat behind. Still, I agree that prudence is the proper virtue for our national and world leaders to practice when considering the environment. Industrial regulations that aim to improve air and water quality just seem to be too reasonable to ignore. They could at least start there. George Bush has gone in the opposite direction, for which he should be excoriated.

What else can be done, really? People aren't going to conserve energy. We are all too addicted. To suggest otherwise is plain ignorant of reality. There is no way back. Only time will tell if global warming forces changes in humanities practices as a heart attack forces an obese man to change his lifestyle.

One great and very feasable option for the present which seems to scare people is that of nuclear option. Why are people so afraid of it? Because Akmed might crash a plane in a reactor? That's bunk. Nuclear power IS the answer. But again we go back to politics, as our leaders have formed a consensus (that word again) that the people don't want it. I'm sure some of you will throw numbers at me from some obscure source which will somehow prove in their mind that nuclear energy is not all it's cracked up to be. Save it. I've bought into the religion of pro-nuclear consensus.

[BrianK]

You're right on Cheeze. Nuclear fission (and hopefully fussion in the near future - go ITER !) really is the answer. Make everything electric and run everything off nuclear.

China gets this and is has some interesting work going on. The idea for a meltdown proof fission reactor has been around for a while but they're putting the resources on it to develop the idea and make it reality:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china_pr.html

Pretty interesting read.

So when you take the meltdown risk out of the picture you're left with waste only and dealing with the waste seems like the easiest solution to man's contribution to global warming.

[BG]

I doubt the thought process in the US is much different than it is in Scotland.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=758412002

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/

[Slider]

I have to wonder how well you read the speech if your conclusion is that his points are tenuously connected. The connections between SETI, nuclear winter, second hand smoke, the green movement, and global warming is that of supposed scientists falling back on politics and semantics by claiming "consensus" to somehow prove that their claims are credible; and that those who subscribe to said consensus are not any different than one who subscribes to a religion.

Regarding the consensus point, Crichton is essentially saying: If everyone agrees, it must be wrong. This is frightening, and is the kind of thing I was referring to when I called his reasoning a little off. It goes like this: "We, as people, are often wrong. So let's ignore our reasoning processes and trust..." Well, he never does quite say what he's proposing in place of rational debate. Vodoo would be appropriate, I guess.


There is science on both sides of this debate. Which is correct? Well, I guess that is up to each discerning person. Not everybody, though, on the side versus the pro-global warming movement is anti-environment.

Where exactly is the anti-warming science you refer to? It isn't coming form any of the major atmospheric research foundations throughout the globe. I've yet to read the results of any experiment that called the grenhouse gas theory into question. Crichton certainly fails to cite it, yet implies that it would have validity simply because it would be so contrary to accepted reasoning. This is simply inane.


One great and very feasable option for the present which seems to scare people is that of nuclear option.

Remember all that energy that would be "too cheap to meter?" Well, it never happened because the environmental costs of producing nuclear energy - expensive cleanup, far shorter reactor life spans than were projected, and ongoing radioactive pollution issues - made it, kilowatt for kilowatt, as expensive as fossil fuel generated power. While it may be possible to use fission to eliminate this kind of problem, we ain't there yet.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Regarding the consensus point, Crichton is essentially saying: If everyone agrees, it must be wrong. This is frightening, and is the kind of thing I was referring to when I called his reasoning a little off. It goes like this: "We, as people, are often wrong. So let's ignore our reasoning processes and trust..." Well, he never does quite say what he's proposing in place of rational debate. Vodoo would be appropriate, I guess...

...Where exactly is the anti-warming science you refer to? It isn't coming form any of the major atmospheric research foundations throughout the globe. I've yet to read the results of any experiment that called the grenhouse gas theory into question. Crichton certainly fails to cite it, yet implies that it would have validity simply because it would be so contrary to accepted reasoning. This is simply inane.

Slider


No, that's not at all what he is saying. Not even close. He isn't necessarily disputing science but certain scientific methods that are used to produce a politically friendly outcome. What he is saying is that all of this science that people are claiming "proves" global warming is not unlike Drake's law; i.e. there are no exact components that lead to exact measurement which gives no precise answer, and, therefore nothing that anyone can point to that says, "Here is the answer. I don't think he is attempting to disprove anything. It's not like he is taking the side of creationism versus evolution, or religion versus science. Chrichton is merely making the case that there is doubt in certain methods where politics often takes precedent in a scientific debate.

[Slider]

If he wasn't completely wrong, he might have an argument.

As I said before, global warming theory and greenhouse gas theory are based on empirical observation, not this hocus-pocus he thinks lies under it. I can't say it any more clearly than this:

1. CO2 is increasing due to human activity. This is measureable and has been verified by many sources.

2. In the climatological record, past warm periods always had high CO2 levels. Again, many diverse approaches to measuring past CO2 and temperature have been used, and they've been verified by multiple researchers.

3. The earth is warming at an unprecendented rate. This, too, is easy to prove and is well documented.

The above statements all meet Crichton's "double-bind" requirement, because diverse goups using diverse methods all came to the same conclusion, independently of the others. Duplication of any research effort is the very foundation of the scientific process that he first swipes at, then falls back on as the solution to his skepticism. He really can't have it both ways.

There are no computer models needed to make global warming observations. The source for the consensus that Crichton finds unacceptable lies in the simplicity of the argument, and the fact that it is 100% verifiable. This is not a complex topic like, say, nuclear winter. It is a straightforward, well understood relationship between atmospheric makeup and temperature. Nothing more.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Maybe we could just abort all republican babies.

[slapheadmofo]

Maybe we could just abort all republican babies.


But how would you be able to tell them apart?

[BG]

Maybe we could just abort all republican babies.


But how would you be able to tell them apart?


Here's a way...

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/017759.html

BG

[Slider]

Absolutely. Starting an urban myth to reinforce a hateful stereotype sounds like the best approach to me.

Slider

[BG]

As American as apple pie.

BG

[catbbq]

I have said it before, I will say it again. Without stereotypes, I wouldn't know who to hate.

What makes you think it is an urban myth? My 30 seconds of research couldn't find anything lending support to or denying the incident.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Absolutely. Starting an urban myth to reinforce a hateful stereotype sounds like the best approach to me.

Slider


You mean those like Republicans are racists, bigots, and misogynists?

[BG]

Absolutely. Starting an urban myth to reinforce a hateful stereotype sounds like the best approach to me.

Slider


You mean those like Republicans are racists, bigots, and misogynists?

I'm sure there must be double blind independent research which proves this.

BG

[slapheadmofo]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=458269 8&mesg_id=4582698

Even if someone disputes the event, you can't dispute the support from all these Bush-obsessed whackjobs. Sounds kinda similar to some of the over-the-top BS I've read around hear as a matter of fact:

"Would you have stopped for someone with a Swastika bumper sticker? It's not very different.

These people have declared a holy war on me, my family and my country.

Too bad about the kid, but we each get the family we get and must live with it."

[BG]

Over the top BS is what sells these days. Vote for Newt. ;D

BG

[TrailBate]

She probably did not want a commie anti-christian anti-american terrorist sympathizer helping her anyway....

[BG]

You guys are getting off track now...This was supposed to be about how to identify babies as Rep/Dem. Something about global warming too?

BG

[TrailBate]

So the president is getting his daily Iraq briefing.

"Sir, three Brazilian soldiers were killed yesterday."

"Oh my God!" the president exclaims. "This is terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at his display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits crying, head in hands.

Finally the president looks up and asks...

"How many is a brazillion?"

[Slider]

I actually registered for an account at the democraticunderground site just to read other posts by that rather petty woman. Takes 24 hours, though.

The polarization thing is pretty unprecedented in my lifetime. I'm thinking recent Republican campaign strategy is driving this, though. Rove, the key archictect of that strategy, is before the grand jury today, and that is somehow appropriate.

Slider

[catbbq]

The polarization thing is pretty unprecedented in my lifetime. I'm thinking recent Republican campaign strategy is driving this, though.


Classic! A polarizing comment if ever I heard one.

[Mr_Cheeze]

The polarization thing is pretty unprecedented in my lifetime. I'm thinking recent Republican campaign strategy is driving this, though.
Slider


riiiiiight. What is that saying about the pot calling the tea kettle black? This crap started after election 2000 by the whiney losers and has not relented.

[BrianK]

Haha, good one cat.

I agree with Slider though. Maybe the politicians aren't more partisan than before, but this country really seems more divided now than I've ever experienced. I suppose it gets this way during long wars though, especially ones that weren't popular to begin with.

[Slider]

The polarization thing is pretty unprecedented in my lifetime. I'm thinking recent Republican campaign strategy is driving this, though.


Classic! A polarizing comment if ever I heard one.


I blamed the problem on a strategy, not on Republicans generally. I particularly put it on Rove's back. Since he may well wind up in jail, I would think even the Republicans would distance themselves from a traitor like that. So my comment wasn't polarizing against any general class of people, or party, just against an evil individual. Well, against those who employed the strategies too. That is, NOT the voters, just the party leaders.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Haha, good one cat.

I agree with Slider though. Maybe the politicians aren't more partisan than before, but this country really seems more divided now than I've ever experienced. I suppose it gets this way during long wars though, especially ones that weren't popular to begin with.


Good article a few months ago in the Atlantic about this perceived polarization. They surmised that it's not really any greater than in the past - the country is not more divided and most people are pretty moderate in their political views with slight leanings one way or the other. The perception of polarization stems from people on the far ends (most noticeably the left from what I've seen) making more noise more often and having more forums in which to do so.

I'd post a link but you need to be a subscriber to get in.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I not so dsure about that. I have heard many a pundit compare the divisiveness and bitterness in today's politics to even that of 20 years ago when our elected officials were able to put aside political differences at the end of each day. Things seemed to have changed somewhere during the Clinton administration when Republicans were unrelenting in their dogging of Clinton and the Democrats have been bitter and vengeful ever since.

Then you have the expansion of the electronic media with the internet and all of these ridiculous and often unreadable blogs to throw wood on every fire, often creating the embers with untruths or leaping to grand conclusions or just writing a bunch of ranting blather, all just adding to the current perceived political climate. I don't know how people can read most of that crap.

[catbbq]

<snip>
embers with untruths or leaping to grand conclusions or just writing a bunch of ranting blather, all just adding to the current perceived political climate. I don't know how people can read most of that crap.


I agree, but it applies to the crap we post here as well.

[TrailBate]

I think there are just a lot more outlets for people to argue with each other now. In the past, all you did was read the news and make your own decision.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yea, so now you have Blogger Joe that nobody has ever heard of before outside of his hometown, and who thinks his opinion is so important that he devotes all kinds of time and money to create pages of commentary and links. And the really sad part? People do read it and give it credence. Because that's Blogger Joe. He's smart and knows what he's talking about. ::)

[TrailBate]

I don't think you are giving bloggers much credit. Yes, some are morons just giving out their opinion. But there are many that actually cite links and sources. Bloggers have broken some stories before MSM has.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Like whom? Drudge is not a blog, FYI. Bloggers' sources are the main stream media. They just find whatever sources that are relevant to their particular points of view and construct their opinion pieces from that. Sure, they often do make it easy for you to see the sources through embedded hyperlinks. But it's not as if Carl Rove or Patrick Kennedy are giving Blogger Hank exclusive material. I've yet to see a blog that told me anything I didn't already know, factwise. About the only thing they might be valuable for is to help one organize their own talking points by seeing different sides of an issue.

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.bloggerssuck.com/