How the liberal media works

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Now I'm sure many of you will have a heyday bashing this simply for it's source, but the proof is in the article, in the form of clips and quotes.

Glenn Beck, a conservative talk show host, diagrams out for us how the liberal media operates in a humorous way. From a joke, to Keith Oberman, to Media Matters, to New York Times - the joke becomes "truth".

I am not a Glenn Beck fan, but he makes points here that I've noticed for some time now. Oh and Oberman is such a hate mongering tool it's stomach churning....

Check it out here.
 
I read through the article. Didn't watch any of the videos as I didn't see a point in it, i got the gist from the text.
He has a very good point about how his comment was completely spun out of context and used to try and rile up people. Good point but it's not an act that's specifically attributable to the "liberal media".
In fact I think he's guilty of doing the exact thing that he rails against.
He's arguing against the liberal medias persecution of him for something he said that was taken out of context and used to discredit him.
So what does he do....
He takes a couple snippets of the reports on his statement and constructs a story about how the liberal media works and completely ignores the fact that almost all media does this.
He's taking these series of reports out of the larger context of the state of the media today.

Had he said something about how the media in general digs up flamebait and used his personal example it would be different. Instead he hypocritically uses the same tactics towards the same goal (division and idiological loyalty).

Summation.... Nothing new.
 
Yes, and glenn beck has no bias, no reason to bash the other side. To convince people of these thing, you need an unbiased source.

Find us such a source and then try again.
 
I've gotten rather tired of how prolifically people have been using the terms "Liberals" and "Conservatives" as if they were acceptable ways to describe an entire population of people as a single, evil entity in their eyes.

It's pretty much all you ever hear on the news anymore:

LIBERALS ARE RUINING AMERICA'S VALUES!
CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING AMERICA'S IMAGE OVERSEAS!

Seriously, it's gotten fucking old. We are not one of two sides in a war, in which one side is the second coming of Christ and the opposing viewpoint is Satan's resurrection. We are all different people with different viewpoints, and there is no line between what many consider to be two sides, only a immeasurable gradient of blending that unites us all along the same spectrum of ideals.

Regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, we are all people and all Americans, and should recognize that just because we don't agree with a specific line on the spectrum, you cannot carpet bomb that area and just presume that all those around that ideal are your opposition as well.

With the way things are going in this country, people need to realize that the problem is not Liberals vs. Conservations, Republicans vs. Democrats, or Americans vs. Terrorists (Americans who are against the war).

It's people having conflicting ideals and then developing a cancerous zealotry as they become less and less willing to accept the ideals of others over time. Our country thrives on the melting pot of thoughts, ideals, efforts, heritages, and the respect and protection of said ideals, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
~Voltaire

~HotShotX
 
Ok, so the media reported second, third, and even fourth hand accounts of events that happened and took them out of context as well, in many cases without even seeing the original clip. You can't say it's only the "liberal" media that does this. Fox news does this as well and they're probably the best known as "conservative" media. Face facts the media has an agenda of their own and most of the time it's to preserve the overall status quo. You can give examples of liberal bias all day and I can find examples of conservative bias. No real point though it's not gonna change either of our opinions.
 
Yep, that damn "liberal media" that's owned by "huge corporations" such as "one of the biggest defense contractors in the US"

[quote name='HotShotX']
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
~Voltaire[/QUOTE]

Voltaire didn't say that, fyi
 
Did someone seriously listen to Olbermann and think that he was feigning a "panicked voice"?

He repeated the words using the same tone that Beck used, with a little mockery added.

If you're such an idiot that you use valuable airtime to ask if Obama is the devil, you deserve ridicule.

Beck is playing such a bait-and-switch game with his speech; as saying goes "half in jest, half in earnest"
 
[quote name='lbradeen']

Had he said something about how the media in general digs up flamebait and used his personal example it would be different. Instead he hypocritically uses the same tactics towards the same goal (division and idiological loyalty).

Summation.... Nothing new.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, however - as Glen Beck points out all the time, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. What he said was taken completely out of context in the New York Times, which once was a place to get facts and news. That's the real story here. Beck is an entertainer. The Times should have done their homework.

When the NYT does stuff like this it can be very damaging, because millions read it as researched fact. More and more, they don't. And they do damage. And they don't care. Do you really believe they will print a retraction on this? Of course not, because it's Glen Beck. If it were Obama or Clinton or even Michael Moore, you're damn straight they would.

[quote name='sweeetja713']Ok, so the media reported second, third, and even fourth hand accounts of events that happened and took them out of context as well, in many cases without even seeing the original clip. You can't say it's only the "liberal" media that does this. Fox news does this as well and they're probably the best known as "conservative" media. Face facts the media has an agenda of their own and most of the time it's to preserve the overall status quo. You can give examples of liberal bias all day and I can find examples of conservative bias. No real point though it's not gonna change either of our opinions.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. All media outlets do this, and I'm amused by any example of it. I just used the title for this thread to catch attention, knowing the general audience on this forum is liberal. Sue me.

[quote name='IkilledLassic']Basically, that article further proves to me how much of a hypocrite and an ass Glenn Beck is.[/QUOTE]
You have a right to conclude what you want from the analysis of the clips. However, if you are a logically consistent fair-minded person, I can only assume you came to the same conclusion about Olbermann.

[quote name='camoor']Did someone seriously listen to Olbermann and think that he was feigning a "panicked voice"?

He repeated the words using the same tone that Beck used, with a little mockery added.

If you're such an idiot that you use valuable airtime to ask if Obama is the devil, you deserve ridicule.

Beck is playing such a bait-and-switch game with his speech; as saying goes "half in jest, half in earnest"[/QUOTE]

If Olbermannn was at all interested in reporting this accurately he would have just showed the video. That clip of Olbermann clearly shows his intention was to take the entire thing out of context and run with it for his conservative hate-agenda news cast.
 
Agreed, however - as Glen Beck points out all the time, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. What he said was taken completely out of context in the New York Times, which once was a place to get facts and news. That's the real story here. Beck is an entertainer. The Times should have done their homework.

When the NYT does stuff like this it can be very damaging, because millions read it as researched fact. More and more, they don't. And they do damage. And they don't care. Do you really believe they will print a retraction on this? Of course not, because it's Glen Beck. If it were Obama or Clinton or even Michael Moore, you're damn straight they would.
Click to expand...

So i just watched the clip, read the media matters article and the times one, don't have any want to watch Olberman right now. My mind's completely changed on this. The Media Matters article used the Antichrist quote as part of the header to draw people to the article. Sort of like what you did in this post, good idea too. The totality of the coverage is 4 sentences, and the actual dialog in the transcript at the bottom of the page. I don't really count that as they're trying to point out what they perceive to be Beck's bias for his guest by skipping possible questions. If you're going to say that somebody didn't say something in an article you have to say what they said instead, especially if it's a funny quote. I don't want to argue about whether or not they should have done a piece in the first place.

The NYT article is about evangelicals being afraid that Obama is Muslim which I think is a worthy story because it's one of the tactics being used to discredit him. The Beck piece is one sentence in the article which just uses it to show that a lot of people are asking the question. Now granted they should've mentioned the way with which he asked the question but it really wasn't made into a big deal and they are definitely not far enough in the wrong to have to issue a retraction. I also think that anyone who has seen his show before can tell from the question that it's meant in jest.
 
[quote name='Scobie']The liberal media doesn't really exist. http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

What does exist in the media is corporate ownership, the promotion of false fears and consumerism as a cure, and a general lack of discussion of substantive issues.[/quote]

I've got to disagree, and I feel like this guy right now. That's a pretty sweeping generality. The internet has, to an extent, made available non commercial sources of news. There are also examples of traditional media forms that owe nothing to corporations, ZMag (print), and Pacifica Radio. I respect that you point out that the parties involved use this sort of "news" to polarize and direct peoples attention in ways that benefit the corporation. I just don't think people should go around speaking in absolutes, it would be more helpful to give links to sites that you think can add to the discussion (and I don't count a book that I have to purchase : ).

http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Agreed, however - as Glen Beck points out all the time, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. What he said was taken completely out of context in the New York Times, which once was a place to get facts and news. That's the real story here. Beck is an entertainer. The Times should have done their homework.[/quote]

While it's debatable whether acting like an ignorant and abusive megalomaniac is entertaining, if you admit that Beck almost never adds any substance to a debate why did you bother making a thread about one of his "look at poor me getting picked on by the liberal media" blog entries.

[quote name='thrustbucket']If Olbermannn was at all interested in reporting this accurately he would have just showed the video. That clip of Olbermann clearly shows his intention was to take the entire thing out of context and run with it for his conservative hate-agenda news cast.[/quote]

Olbermann's show is commentary, people tune in to hear his opinion. The last thing I want to do is turn on his show and see clips from O'Reilly and Beck, a ten second wrap-up of that trash is all that's needed thank you very much. If you want news read a newspaper. However it sounds like you just want a montage of sound-bites.
 
[quote name='lbradeen']I've got to disagree, and I feel like this guy right now. That's a pretty sweeping generality. The internet has, to an extent, made available non commercial sources of news. There are also examples of traditional media forms that owe nothing to corporations, ZMag (print), and Pacifica Radio. I respect that you point out that the parties involved use this sort of "news" to polarize and direct peoples attention in ways that benefit the corporation. I just don't think people should go around speaking in absolutes, it would be more helpful to give links to sites that you think can add to the discussion (and I don't count a book that I have to purchase : ).

http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml[/quote]

True for your statements but for the most part the alternative media available online and the alternative traditional media only reach activists or those that already share those viewpoints. We don't need preaching to the choir, we need a way to legitamently reach people that are turning a blind eye to the truth.
 
[quote name='sweeetja713']True for your statements but for the most part the alternative media available online and the alternative traditional media only reach activists or those that already share those viewpoints. We don't need preaching to the choir, we need a way to legitamently reach people that are turning a blind eye to the truth.[/quote]

Blinded by the right.

Independent Media Center is alright but those other two sites are partisan trash.
 
It's not just blinded by the right a lot of people are blinded by the left too. We as a nation need to stop blindly buying into the media and government agenda.
 
[quote name='lbradeen']So i just watched the clip, read the media matters article and the times one, don't have any want to watch Olberman right now. My mind's completely changed on this. The Media Matters article used the Antichrist quote as part of the header to draw people to the article. Sort of like what you did in this post, good idea too. The totality of the coverage is 4 sentences, and the actual dialog in the transcript at the bottom of the page. I don't really count that as they're trying to point out what they perceive to be Beck's bias for his guest by skipping possible questions. If you're going to say that somebody didn't say something in an article you have to say what they said instead, especially if it's a funny quote. I don't want to argue about whether or not they should have done a piece in the first place.

The NYT article is about evangelicals being afraid that Obama is Muslim which I think is a worthy story because it's one of the tactics being used to discredit him. The Beck piece is one sentence in the article which just uses it to show that a lot of people are asking the question. Now granted they should've mentioned the way with which he asked the question but it really wasn't made into a big deal and they are definitely not far enough in the wrong to have to issue a retraction. I also think that anyone who has seen his show before can tell from the question that it's meant in jest.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty substantive analysis, thanks for adding something meaningful without resorting to partisan drive by's (see below).

[quote name='camoor']While it's debatable whether acting like an ignorant and abusive megalomaniac is entertaining, if you admit that Beck almost never adds any substance to a debate why did you bother making a thread about one of his "look at poor me getting picked on by the liberal media" blog entries.



Olbermann's show is commentary, people tune in to hear his opinion. The last thing I want to do is turn on his show and see clips from O'Reilly and Beck, a ten second wrap-up of that trash is all that's needed thank you very much. If you want news read a newspaper. However it sounds like you just want a montage of sound-bites.[/QUOTE]

Well aren't you mr black and white. Guess there is no wondering where you stand with these two guys. You despise one and want to bear the children of the other.

Having watched both shows extensively, it's truly amazing you don't realize that "acting like an ignorant and abusive megalomaniac" and "show is commentary, people tune in to hear his opinion" applies to both of them equally. But, of course, you see them through polarized glasses because you just happen to agree with one and not the other.

It's no wonder this country is a mess, when people can get two different flavors of junk-food delivered the same way and be so polarized over which one is good for you.
 
[quote name='camoor']Blinded by the right.

Independent Media Center is alright but those other two sites are partisan trash.[/quote]

I wouldn't call them partisan trash as I don't think they are aligned with a particular party. What they do have are biases on political and social events. I'm not a fan of how blatant that bias can be sometimes but I think they bring up enough differing ideas and viewpoints to raise them above the crap that comes out of most of the main stream media.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well aren't you mr black and white. Guess there is no wondering where you stand with these two guys. You despise one and want to bear the children of the other.

Having watched both shows extensively, it's truly amazing you don't realize that "acting like an ignorant and abusive megalomaniac" and "show is commentary, people tune in to hear his opinion" applies to both of them equally. But, of course, you see them through polarized glasses because you just happen to agree with one and not the other.

It's no wonder this country is a mess, when people can get two different flavors of junk-food delivered the same way and be so polarized over which one is good for you.[/quote]

This really stings coming from a guy who doesn't believe in the scientific theory of global warming.

Olbermann is not abusive towards his guests, sure he throws a little humor into his news commentary but he stops short of turning into the "Daily Show"

I think you have Olbermann confused with Bill Maher, who is an out-and-out lefty entertainer (thing is, Maher aims for laughs as opposed to the unintentional humor that comes from watching O'Reilly and Beck)
 
[quote name='sweeetja713']It's not just blinded by the right a lot of people are blinded by the left too. We as a nation need to stop blindly buying into the media and government agenda.[/quote]

That's true.
 
[quote name='camoor']This really stings coming from a guy who doesn't believe in the scientific theory of global warming.
[/QUOTE]

To be clear, I do believe in Climate change. But I feel the evidence for mans influence on it is sketchy at best. As one scientist said, if you compared the earth's climate to a car - the sun would be the engine, the oceans would be the transmission and man would be a lug nut on the back left tire.

I didn't believe in the scientific theory/panic of a coming ice age in the late 70's early 80's either. I have a video narrated by Robin Williams from the 80's talking about how all the climate scientists in the world have agreed the ice age is coming and we are doomed.

One of these days I will put it on google video, it's hilarious. And very familiar in it's rhetoric. Man just needs a global doom scenario to fear at all times it seems.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']To be clear, I do believe in Climate change. But I feel the evidence for mans influence on it is sketchy at best. As one scientist said, if you compared the earth's climate to a car - the sun would be the engine, the oceans would be the transmission and man would be a lug nut on the back left tire.

I didn't believe in the scientific theory/panic of a coming ice age in the late 70's early 80's either. I have a video narrated by Robin Williams from the 80's talking about how all the climate scientists in the world have agreed the ice age is coming and we are doomed.

One of these days I will put it on google video, it's hilarious. And very familiar in it's rhetoric. Man just needs a global doom scenario to fear at all times it seems.[/quote]

Yawn.

1. Go to a fast food restaurant and order a soda.

2. Take said soda cup, stick a straw in it and turn the soda tap on.

3. Suck soda out through the straw and keep your hand around the cup to keep it steady.

4. If your hand gets wet, you're sucking slower than the soda entering the cup. If it doesn't, you're sucking faster than the soda is entering the cup.

People try to make global warming more complicated than it is.

The Earth as a whole is an enclosed system.

The only energy inputs are the sun and energy removed from Earth's stores (the soda tap). The only energy outputs are energy leaked out of the atmosphere into outer space (the straw).

Global warming "experts" contend that adding energy from within the Earth to our environment is increasing the temperature.

Global cooling "experts" contend that adding energy from within the Earth to our environment is decreasing the temperature.

Well, what's happening to the ice?

From what I understand, large patches of ice are melting. That indicates too much energy into the system.

If large patches of ice were forming, that would indicate too much energy out of the system.

If ice levels were consistent globally, there would be nothing to worry about.

So, what does the data on ice indicate?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

From what I understand, large patches of ice are melting. That indicates too much energy into the system.

If large patches of ice were forming, that would indicate too much energy out of the system.

If ice levels were consistent globally, there would be nothing to worry about.

So, what does the data on ice indicate?[/QUOTE]

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 quick and easy finds on global cooling/ice increase.

Yes, I know, that the global warming cult has many responses for how Global Cooling is still apart of global warming and is still mans fault. I've read it.

This combined with the fact that in the 70's it was all about global cooling and the big scare all adds up, to me, to mean that scientists really don't know shit about what's going on, on either side of the debate. So many theories, in such a short amount of time.
 
[quote name='zegota']Olbermann is hilarious, I love him[/QUOTE]

Hilarious but rarely accurate and almost never right. ;)

He is just a liberal Bill Orielly with not nearly the viewership.
 
I stopped visiting drudgereport.com. It was a combination of that Prince Harry thing and the fact that the site essentially turned into a completely biased Obamathon
 
[quote name='gobz']I stopped visiting drudgereport.com. It was a combination of that Prince Harry thing and the fact that the site essentially turned into a completely biased Obamathon[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with you. That and animal stories, gets old.
 
it because liberals are supported by Satan
r315812455ak0.jpg
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Well, what's happening to the ice?

From what I understand, large patches of ice are melting. That indicates too much energy into the system.

If large patches of ice were forming, that would indicate too much energy out of the system.

If ice levels were consistent globally, there would be nothing to worry about.

So, what does the data on ice indicate?[/QUOTE]

This is way, way, way too simplistic. At any one time ice is either decreasing or increasing just about everywhere around the world. Ice melting or forming doesn't mean global warming is fact or fiction.

As for Olbermann, he's almost as big an idiot as Shepard Smith...almost.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

This combined with the fact that in the 70's it was all about global cooling and the big scare all adds up, to me, to mean that scientists really don't know shit about what's going on, on either side of the debate. So many theories, in such a short amount of time.[/QUOTE]

that's pretty much the most ignorant thing I've read today, congratulations. Wow, science changes as tools get better? No way man! Fight the power! Unless you are posting from a Timex sinclair 1000, you would have to acknowledge that having better technology makes better science (and more accurate). Not to mention the "Global Cooling" issue was mainly a press creation and most scientists were worried about warming. But by all means, overstate if it makes you hate.

by your logic doctors don't know what they are doing either because in the 70's they would've cut you open for something that only require a needle stick today.
 
[quote name='usickenme']that's pretty much the most ignorant thing I've read today, congratulations. Wow, science changes as tools get better? No way man! Fight the power! Unless you are posting from a Timex sinclair 1000, you would have to acknowledge that having better technology makes better science (and more accurate). Not to mention the "Global Cooling" issue was mainly a press creation and most scientists were worried about warming. But by all means, overstate if it makes you hate.

by your logic doctors don't know what they are doing either because in the 70's they would've cut you open for something that only require a needle stick today.[/QUOTE]

Ok maybe I was a little extreme in what I said. Let me rephrase: Scientists disagree with each other. A lot. Especially about climate change. Much of the media makes it seem as though decisions are unanimous, but they aren't.

The beauty of science today is that it is driven almost entirely by grants. Scientists are paid to find out what their funding sources want them to. On top of this, much like the inquisition of the middle ages, if you are a scientist with an unpopular view, you run a very real risk of being in poverty and never getting any money, or being ostracized.

Science is, of course, necessary, but people tend to be a little to quick to embrace the latest scientific study in headlines these days. And that's really all I'm saying.

When you see scientific studies, or consensus.... First follow the money, then form your own opinion.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The beauty of science today is that it is driven almost entirely by grants. Scientists are paid to find out what their funding sources want them to. On top of this, much like the inquisition of the middle ages, if you are a scientist with an unpopular view, you run a very real risk of being in poverty and never getting any money, or being ostracized.

Science is, of course, necessary, but people tend to be a little to quick to embrace the latest scientific study in headlines these days. And that's really all I'm saying.

When you see scientific studies, or consensus.... First follow the money, then form your own opinion.[/quote]

Theoretically scientists never go out to prove anything. That's why they start with a null hypothesis. The focus of many studies is directed by where the money's coming from which only makes sense since you have to fund it somehow. Yes, this can lead to a biased interpretation of data in an effort to keep funding coming. After all no one wants to pay for findings that basically state "we don't know" or "yes you're royally fucking things up by doing x, y, and z." However, this practice does tend to be in the minority and there is a reason we test-retest and perform multiple studies, it's to try to weed out that bias. A single study does not make for a good argument but multiple studies by different researchers, ideally at different institutions, with well documented methodology do. And I'll also grant that often methodologies are suspect and chosen because the researcher thinks he'll get results that way, but don't we all want to get results when we put in a lot of effort and time in a study?
 
Oh, man. I like that the OP is absolutely drenching his posts in right-wing talk-radio memes ("liberal media," "drive-bys," etc.), and at the same time is the person who deludes himself into thinking that he can be the one to hand out declarations of what each person's post represents ("rational thinking" or "thoughtful" versus "drive-by" again).

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Glenn Beck is on Headline News.
Headline News is a news station.
News stations may employ "entertainers," but those "entertainers," for being on a "news network," are liable for everything they say.

Glenn Beck is the kind of person to make outlandish statements that, once called out on, he claims that he was joking about them. What a *wimp*! If he wants to joke, put him on after Colbert. If he wants to be serious, keep him on Headline News.

This is the same sort of nonsense that Bill Cunningham pulled when he refered to "Barack Hussein Obama" at a McCain rally in Cincinnati several weeks back. He frames his defense in the same "Who? Lil' ol' me?" vein that Beck does here, and acts innocent because he's just stating "the man's middle name." In Cunningham's case, he was saying it to foster that irrational fear of muslims many Americans have (and let's not fool ourselves: that fear is very much concentrated on the right, but surely not absent from the left) of Obama - this dipshit, idiotic idea that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to impose Sharia law on day one, or is a "sleeper cell" or some shit.

Really? Really.

So let's not fool ourselves here. Beck may have thought he was being as savvy as Jonathan Swift, but he wasn't. If he wants to be an "entertainer," as thrustbucket poorly post hoc'd he was, then put him on an entertaining channel.

Christ - take Nancy Grace with you, too.

Lastly, John Hagee is the *last* person you want on your show when making a "parody" or "entertaining" segment. It's akin to having Al Sharpton on your show while making an "entertaining" segment about whether or not McCain is a racist. Hagee has some substantially legitimate criticisms of him and his faith and his words for being anti-catholic, antisemitic, draconion in ideology, and racist to boot. Dig?

EDIT: Thrustbucket, I suspect you are not a scientist at all given how you describe the field with such a broad claim. Tell us (and be as broad as you want if you don't want to disclose): what do you do for a living? How close is it to "science?" I've never been told, asked, or insinuated that my topic or finding should be anything other than what my research question stipulates the domain should be.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
The beauty of science today is that it is driven almost entirely by grants. Scientists are paid to find out what their funding sources want them to. On top of this, much like the inquisition of the middle ages, if you are a scientist with an unpopular view, you run a very real risk of being in poverty and never getting any money, or being ostracized.

Science is, of course, necessary, but people tend to be a little to quick to embrace the latest scientific study in headlines these days. And that's really all I'm saying.

When you see scientific studies, or consensus.... First follow the money, then form your own opinion.[/QUOTE]

Again I would say your post is largely B.S. (and I don't mean bachelor of science). Do you know any research scientists? You act like they call up Dow and say "whadda want be to prove?" It doesn't work that way. They have an idea or hypothesis and then go get the funding. THat is not to say they don't often seek out a friendly ear or more often a government grant. My wife's sister and husband are nutritional researchers at Texas A&M. You picked the wrong guy to try and fool.

As for being ostracized ? No, any good scientist welcomes counter claims as long as they are sufficiently researched and the data is available to verify. No real scientist wants to stick their head in the sand and pretend they have all the answer. It is counter-intuitive to science itself.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This is way, way, way too simplistic. At any one time ice is either decreasing or increasing just about everywhere around the world. Ice melting or forming doesn't mean global warming is fact or fiction.

As for Olbermann, he's almost as big an idiot as Shepard Smith...almost.[/quote]

Yes, but those increase and decreases can be aggregated.

Is the Earth as a whole gaining or losing ice mass?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, but those increase and decreases can be aggregated.

Is the Earth as a whole gaining or losing ice mass?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter. The Earth is ALWAYS either gaining or losing ice mass. We've had glaciers advance and retreat, form and melt, for billions of years. Saying "OMG! Greenland lost 2 cm of ice last year!" doesn't make global warming a fact any more than saying "OMG! Antarctica's temperatures have decreased over the last 25 years!" means we can dismiss it as a possibility.
 
"Liberalism and Conservatism are just false fronts designed to back people into corners, thereby making them vulnerable to idealogical attack. Make your own decisions based on the issue, not on who lines up on what side."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top