Here we have a debate on who to believe. On one hand, we have Media Matters, a not for profit "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Right off the bat an alarm bell goes off in my head – they are affiliating themselves with liberals. Now I have nothing against liberals, only organizations who would openly rubberstamp themselves in such a way. As such, I'm not expecting to get a fair and balanced viewpoint from these people, however they aren't blinded by financial interest, so they get at least a bit of respect for that.
They have an entire section of their website devoted to taking action on global warming. There are numerous articles there giving point for point debate on who said what, and it's freely offered, with only minimal gimmick. Which of course makes it very boring, but boring is a good thing. It means I'm getting facts.
On the other hand, we have a guy named Chris Horner trying to sell a book through Human Events, a self proclaimed conservative, for profit, newsletter. Once again thumbs down for the political self-rubberstamping, and another thumbs down for demanding I buy information that should be public knowledge. Something about this just sounds all kinds of shady to me.
In his book, Chris Horner claims to debunk everything that Media Matters is debunking. It's a rebuttal I'll never see, since I don't buy hypocrisy. Why are they hypocrites? Take a look at that article on why boring is good, and then take a real close look at the following excerpt from that marketing page for Chris Horner's book:
It's the ideal reason for a scare campaign by those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life.
Now, Christopher Horner (a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today's radical environmentalists, dubbing them "green on the outside, red to the core."
He is claiming the environmentalists are using strong-arm scare tactics, and yet in the very next breath uses strong-arm scare tactics himself. Anti-American? Anti-human? They're just playing into your psychology here, saying 'if you're American or human, then these guys hate you.' I'm sorry, but I think being patriotic and questioning our government is more important than blind partisan rubberstamping, and who's to say humans can't work together with the environment? The rest of the animal kingdom does.
So I'm more inclined to believe what Media Matters has to say on the topic of global warming, but I'm still hesitant because of their partisan nature. I'll keep looking for the real facts on this.
You said you wanted a comment, I didn’t guarentee it’d be nice.
Though I appreciate the intricate thought involved in critically checking sources on a politically hot issue, what exactly have you told me through this post, besides the thinking-out-loud of “everything’s biased, both in what they say they say, and what they say”.
I quote a famous cliche by saying “don’t judge a book by its cover”, in an America where you can’t be heard unless you sell what you say, I think one needs to look a little deeper than the inside cover of a book to determine exactly what’s being said.
Political allegiance is one thing. Resources are another. Agendas are prevalent everywhere, but if you don’t bother to investigate the argument made within each, you won’t find the truth either.
So, global warming is political now. And, you know, three years ago. How does each side benefit from their story, and how do they shift the facts and the argument in favour of their direction? What information is suspect? Where can we go to find accurate information?
That might help the cause for truth.
Just sayin’.
Yep, you’re right, and that’s exactly what I’m trying to uncover.
However the presentation is something that I pay a great deal of attention to, especially when it comes to matters that should be public knowledge. If someone is -really- trying to help the public and not themselves, they would offer this information freely.
But they’re charging for it, which makes me skeptical. I may well get the book out of morbid curiosity, but I won’t recommend it due to their presentational tactics.
I appreciate the intricate thought involved in critically checking sources on a politically hot issue, what exactly have you told me through this post, besides the thinking-out-loud of everything\’s biased, both in what they say they say, and what they say.
thanks very much this is exactly what I’m trying to uncover
fake Louis vuitton
Louis vuitton knockoffs
designer bags
louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton purse
coach bags
wholesale replica handbags
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]Replica Louis vuitton handbags[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]fake Louis vuitton[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]Louis vuitton knockoffs[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]designer bags[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]louis vuitton bags[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]louis vuitton purse[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]coach bags[/url]
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]wholesale replica handbags[/url]
http://www.fantastic-replica.net
[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]wholesale replica handbags[/url]
http://url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/wholesale replica handbags[/url]
wholesale replica handbags