Saturday, January 20, 2007

Lying 2007.01-A, the coverage of one's butt.

Our friend Heidi Cullen got a bit more mail (1650+ when I looked) on her last blog entry than she bargained for I guess, because today she has this "clarification"

Its a classic of the liars method of covering one's butt.  Lie more.

First, you establish you are smarter than your audience.

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

Then you restate your original lie as being the absolute truth.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

Then you categorically deny that you said what you said.
I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.
Nothing to see here, you are imagining things, please.

Which method worked just fine back in the day, but doesn't cut the mustard in the Internet Era.  'Cause I can go back and read what she said again:
If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.
Which means:   "Freedom of scientific expression is essential... as long as you are expressing what I want."

Now, in case you were wondering what kind of genius hires a buffoon like Heidi Cullen and PAYS her to lie like that, this research has been done for us by Melanie Morgan.

The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks.

Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming.

Lucas decided that what was good for CNN was good for The Weather Channel, and the objectivity and respectability of the network has now been thrown out the window. It doesn't matter that CNN's turn to the left has caused their ratings to plummet; The Weather Channel's embraced its model.

Media Village reported that the move by The Weather Channel "is intended to establish a broader perspective on the weather category and, says Lucas, to move the brand from functional to emotional."

Yes friends, Wonya Lucas ex of CNN hired Heidi to sex up the weather and make some noise.  Next question, given that CNN's ratings are in the dumper, who's the fool that hired Wonya Lucas? 

I predict its some guy that votes Democrat and thinks Algore is a great statesman.  A useful idiot, in other words.

The Phantom

Thursday, January 18, 2007

How to tell when people are lying. Version 2007.01

People lying in the media seems to be just a fact of life these days. 

Y'all are familiar with the lying on gun control over the years.  The  more evidence there is that they are lying the more strident and extreme their speech becomes.  This culminates with the automatic demonization of anyone who dares disagree with them, right before they slink off stage.  The most frenetic efforts to SILENCE! the opposition are right before the wheels come off.  Nobody has heard from Sarah Brady lately, right?

Well, seems that the Global Warmers are heading that way.  I've been extremely skeptical since I discovered gun control was a red herring, and I noticed global warming was being pushed by all the same people.  My skepticism was entirely by association, because unlike gun control I haven't read the "science".  But lately we've been seeing guys like Bjorn Lomborg pilloried by politically affiliated groups for daring to produce evidence contrary to the human caused warming theory.  Plus, I've noticed that only the "Reactionary Right" leaning members of the Blogosphere have bothered reporting that the Martian ice caps are melting.  Odd.

Today we have this gem.  Quoth Marc Morano (202-224-5762 )
"The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website."

Translation, shut those @$($&#(%!!'s up!!! They're goring our sacred cow!

Mr. Morano goes on to mention several other people speaking in the same vein, including one genius who wants Nuremburg trials for global warming skeptics.
In addition, Cullen’s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine’s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See:
Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC’s summary for policymakers. See:
Any time I see the screws of the education industry getting turned on somebody, I think it is worth looking at what they are saying.  The harder the screws get turned, the more worthy their pronouncements tend to be.  When you can lose your tenure for calling bullshit on somebody else's data, that's a very big deal.

In a free country, for a public figure to suggest that a certain group have their right to free speech removed is cause for alarm.  In a free country, cabals which manipulate scientific institutions and the grant process to further their own ends are cause for alarm.  At the moment there are quite a few issues where this is happening, all of them directed toward curtailing my personal freedom of choice, of movement, and of speech.

Thankfully these particular True Believer weenies seem to be right at the edge of disaster.  Probably there's a body of contrary evidence percolating its way through the bowels of the climatology biz, just getting ready to poop on their parade.  They want to get some nice coercive laws jammed through this new Democrat House before it all hits the fan.

Given my interest in turning back the tide of government control and coercion, and God forbid injecting a little more freedom into my life, I'd very much like to see them fail.