MoveOn Wants to Destroy Fox News

I got this from MoveOn in my e mail:

Dear MoveOn member,

Could this be the end of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News?

Allegations in the U.K. against Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Fox’s parent company, just keep coming. Hacking into the phone of a 13-year-old murder victim, bribing government officials, and now claims of hacking into the voice mail of 9/11 victims and their families.

Now, the key is to find out how far Fox and the rest of Murdoch’s news outlets went here in the U.S. If they’ve been as corrupt and criminal here as it looks like they’ve been in the U.K., then we might just see Murdoch’s media empire crumble.

So we’re launching a new campaign to build unavoidable public pressure for full investigations. We’ll start tomorrow with a hard-hitting new ad asking whether Murdoch is “running a company or a crime syndicate.”…

Their desire is clearly the “News of the World” result…they are hoping to generate enough scandal that Fox News will be shut down.  Oh, glorious day for liberalism!  A voice that isn’t in lock-step behind the liberal party line will be silenced!  Across the Republic, only those who are good-thinkers will be heard and peace and blessedness will reign!

Of course, that won’t actually happen in the United States – but one really can’t blame the liberals for dreaming their fascist dreams.  On the other hand, the MoveOn e mail does ask for donations so there is a great chance that the MoveOn people will rake it in…ten thousand liberal dunderheads actually thinking that Fox News can be forced off the air because a NewsCorp subsidiary in Britain hacked some phones.  Ah, well, if they are donating to this cause it is that much less money donating to causes which might be more dangerous.

65 thoughts on “MoveOn Wants to Destroy Fox News

  1. casper July 23, 2011 / 1:42 pm

    This is news? Of course MoveOn would love to see FOX go down the tube. Then again, FOX is trying to destroy MoveOn, Media Matters, GE, and MSNBC.

    • Mark Noonan July 23, 2011 / 2:14 pm

      Casper,

      Last I checked I didn’t hear of Fox soliciting donations so they can gin up a public campaign to have MoveOn shut down…

      • casper July 23, 2011 / 2:28 pm

        They don’t have to. They can campaign on their own network 24/7.

    • Retired Spook July 23, 2011 / 4:17 pm

      Casper,

      My wife and I watch Fox New regularly, and I’m not aware of any effort on their part to destroy MoveOn, Media Matters, GE or MSNBC — or any other entity for that matter. I assume you wouldn’t make such a blanket statement unless you had some pretty incontrovertible proof.

    • libsrjerks July 24, 2011 / 3:36 am

      Hey idiot, when does exposing groups for the partisan frauds they are constitute “trying to destroy?” You actually support or watch MS-DNC? You’re a bigger moron than I thought; I pity your poor students. And to think I actually considered have a glass of sun-tea with your sorry ass…

  2. Jonathan July 23, 2011 / 3:19 pm

    I normally really like following Jeff Jarvis (listen to him on the TwIT network, follow him on google+, etc) but he has really been on this high horse about shutting down NewsCorp since the hacking scandal, etc…
    Most of his comments are about shutting down all of NewsCorp and his follows chime in to say time to shutdown Fox News.
    Don’t forget the idtitos that are now saying we need to boycott Zondervan as Murdoch has shapped how the Bible and other Christians stories they publish are influenced by editorial policies.
    I think this has been blown way out of portion

  3. mitchethekid July 23, 2011 / 4:14 pm

    .

    • neocon1 July 23, 2011 / 4:35 pm

      Bmitch

      best post of yours I have ever seen = NOTHING!!

  4. Chrissy Ann July 23, 2011 / 4:22 pm

    British media is a tad different than US media…the Brits have always had a “no holds bar” attitude when it comes to news. For decades the tabloids in Britain have used any under handed means necessary to get a story.

    I think hacking is bad..whether it is a web site, a cell phone (Obama are you reading this?), email, computers, etc. What I find amusing is all this faux outrage over New ot World, but no one said anything when Palin was hacked. Bill O’Reilly took his hacker to court.

    Media matters and Soros have no problem with censorship as long it isn’t their hateful, sexist, racist, bigoted rhetoric.

    • mitchethekid July 23, 2011 / 7:04 pm

      Palin took her hacker to court. There is a vast difference between a college kid hacking into Palin’s emails and murder victims, dead solders and people jumping out of the Twin Towers. This practice is inexcusable and to defend them just goes to show what kind of a person you are.

    • Amazona July 23, 2011 / 10:38 pm

      No one defended hacking into anyone’s personal emails or other information.

      It would be helpful if you could manage to address what is said instead of lying about it and then feigning outrage at what is really only one of your inventions.

      Or were you confused by the ambiguity of the statement: “I think hacking is bad..whether it is a web site, a cell phone (Obama are you reading this?), email, computers, etc.”

  5. mitchethekid July 23, 2011 / 6:59 pm

    Practice your contortionist skills Mark. You’re going to need them. Peter King (R) NY has recruited the FBI to investigate this expanding scandal. It seems News Corp may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
    News Corp is a world wide 24 hr a day propaganda organ pimping right wing memes, manufacturing controversy and misleading the public. Every poll, looked at from a 360′ perspective, from the outside in and the inside out, from top to bottom and all in between concludes that Fox viewers are consistently the most misinformed group of all of those who watch news programing. The Republican’s used to joke that Fox worked for them. Now it is the other way around. Look how many candidates and political adviser’s were; and some still are, paid contributors to Fox.
    Fox broadcasts opinions masquerading as fair and balanced journalism. A few weeks ago, Chris Wallace stated on air that Fox disseminated “the other side of the story”. That statement flies in the face of their cynical motto “Fair and Balanced”. If they truly lived up to their advertizing, there is no “other side of to the story” for they would in fact be both fair and balanced. Mr. Wallace went on to say that any factual information that counters Fox’s conservative stance has an inherent liberal bias and when this is pointed out to Fox, they feign victimhood and claim that this only proves their point.
    News Copr lost over one billion dollars in stock value within hrs of this news breaking. James Murdoch’s testimony has been refuted by 2 separate individuals and this situation keeps going from bad to worse. The momentum and outrage is increasing.
    Prince Alwaleed is a major stock holder in News Corp. (Imagine that, a Muslim owns a vast majority of their stock.) Understandably he is not a happy camper over the morality of this scandal, the loss of his capital and the Islamophobia that’s promoted on Fox News. Additionally, Fox News has given scant coverage of this story. So much for their motto.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58904.html

    This is interesting as well.

    http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jul/22/letting-murdoch-through-back-door/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nybooks+(The+New+York+Review+of+Books)

    Attempt to avoid being such a lock-step defensive reactionary Mark. Try to be objective and accept the failures of the hero’s of your ideology as much as you brag about their successes.
    The bottom line is that News Corp broke the law and capitalized on human misery, suffering and gossip in pursuit of making money and shaping public opinion.
    It’s about time they got their comeuppance.

  6. mitchethekid July 23, 2011 / 7:17 pm

    Practice your contortionist skills Mark. You’re going to need them. Peter King (R) NY has recruited the FBI to investigate this expanding scandal. It seems News Corp may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
    News Corp is a world wide 24 hr a day propaganda organ pimping right wing memes, manufacturing controversy and misleading the public. Every poll, looked at from a 360′ perspective, from the outside in and the inside out, from top to bottom and all in between concludes that Fox viewers are consistently the most misinformed group of all of those who watch news programing. The Republican’s used to joke that Fox worked for them. Now it is the other way around. Look how many candidates and political adviser’s were; and some still are, paid contributors to Fox.
    Fox broadcasts opinions masquerading as fair and balanced journalism. A few weeks ago, Chris Wallace stated on air that Fox disseminated “the other side of the story”. That statement flies in the face of their cynical motto “Fair and Balanced”. If they truly lived up to their advertizing, there is no “other side of to the story” for they would in fact be both fair and balanced. Mr. Wallace went on to say that any factual information that counters Fox’s conservative stance has an inherent liberal bias and when this is pointed out to Fox, they feign victimhood and claim that this only proves their point.
    News Copr lost over one billion dollars in stock value within hrs of this news breaking. James Murdoch’s testimony has been refuted by 2 separate individuals and this situation keeps going from bad to worse. The momentum and outrage is increasing.
    Prince Alwaleed is a major stock holder in News Corp. (Imagine that, a Muslim owns a vast majority of their stock.) Understandably he is not a happy camper over the morality of this scandal, the loss of his capital and the Islamophobia that’s promoted on Fox News. Additionally, Fox News has given scant coverage of this story. So much for their motto.
    There is an article in Politico about Rep. King and one in the NYT book review about the outage and disgust the English feel about the Murdoch’s and his company.
    The bottom line is that News Corp broke the law and capitalized on human misery,suffering and gossip in the pursuit of making money and shaping public opinion. The fact that you defend their practices just goes to show there is no bottom to the depths you will descend to support disgusting and outrageous behavior as long as it is “conservative”. If this were any other news organization, you’d be screaming until a vein exploded. Personally, I hope they get their comeuppance.

    • Amazona July 23, 2011 / 10:35 pm

      “Every poll, looked at from a 360′ perspective, from the outside in and the inside out, from top to bottom and all in between concludes that Fox viewers are consistently the most misinformed group of all of those who watch news programing.

      Cite these polls, please.

      “The Republican’s (sic) used to joke that Fox worked for them. Now it is the other way around.”

      Which Republicans stated that Fox “worked for them”?

      “Look how many candidates and political adviser’s (sic) were; and some still are, paid contributors to Fox.”

      And your point is—-what? That you prefer your political commentary to come from people who have no inside information about the people and the events being discussed?

      Nice effort to conflate opinion shows with actual news shows, too—-a common tactic of the common Lefty trying to make something out of nothing.

      On Fox, when a show is an opinion show, it is clearly stated to be an opinion show. News is news, and presented without editorial comment. What upsets you guys is that so much of what is reported is the same stuff conveniently edited out of the Complicit Agenda Media “news”. But it is accounting of what happens.

      Then there are the opinion shows, which admittedly do skew to the right. These shows have a large number of Liberal commentators and guests, and the Liberal side is allowed to make its point. But yes, many of these opinion people do have backgrounds in government.

      Do you feel that when Fox needs information, they should not seek out people who actually HAVE this information—or, if they do, they should not pay these people for the service they provide?

      • dbschmidt July 23, 2011 / 11:54 pm

        “…concludes that Fox viewers are consistently the most misinformed group of all of those who watch news programing.” coming from this misinformed because this talking point has been discounted several times over. As a matter of FACT — Fox viewers are the most informed.

        BTW, what is wrong with getting both sides of the story–if I want the left side I can choose any number of stations of which I watch a few with the exception of “thrill up my leg.”

        Even though I am against it in principal I am almost ready to force the “Fairness Doctrine” as long as it is applied equally. Once again, I will support the losing argument of “Air America” as long as Rush, Beck, and other rule the media 12 hours per broadcast day of every channel including the basic channels so everything will be equal and fair.

        Crap, I am starting to sound too much like a moocher from Atlas Shrugged and wish to not only retract that offer but hope the “progressives” could see the errors of their ways.

    • Mark Noonan July 24, 2011 / 12:27 am

      Mitch,

      I barely watch television news – of any sort. The camera is the great falsifier of our time…and even with the best of intentions you can’t get the real story out in two or three minutes.

      The bottom line here, however, is that the left hates the fact that Fox News doesn’t lock-step follow the liberal script…that there is a national news network which is not slavishly devoted to the Democrat party is what gets your goat. Don’t talk to me about journalistic ethics…the “Journo-list”, alone, shows what a sewer the MSM is. You’re not mad that they’re bad, you’re mad that they’re not on your side.

      More important than Fox news or any of the MSM is the New Media – blogs, Pajamas Media, Daily Caller…even leftwing outfits like Huffington Post and Daily Kos; that is what is driving things these days. These groups do make mistakes – but when they do, it is usually an honest mistake, unlike the MSM which just makes stuff up and then brazenly denies it when caught.

      • mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 9:01 am

        That really isn’t it Mark. “The left” doesn’t hate Fox because they don’t follow a liberal script, rather Fox makes things up and foments fear, mistrust and paranoia amongst their viewership which as a demographic trends towards the elderly. They also pimp various conservative activist groups and have consistently misled the public with altered or out of date video and identifying Republicans as Democrats when a Republican has been caught in some maleficence. Some examples of manufactured controversies that they parlay to the public are birthers, death panels, terror mosques and a denial of global warming and evolution.
        But what really is at issue here is not whether or not Fox is in jeopardy of loosing their FCC license; which they probably won’t but rather that the owner and founder of the company broke the law.
        Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox is the man most singularly responsible for the election of Richard Nixon. Another figure who broke the law and was forced to resign in shame and humiliation. Mr. Ailes, through his skill as a television producer and his masterful deceit was able to alter the public’s opinion of Nixon by exploiting the weariness of Vietnam and appealing to the lowest common denominator of what was then called “The Moral Majority”. Hence the rise of reactionary, militant fundamentalism we so enjoy today.
        To argue the subtitles of all of this is moot. I’d rather argue about how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
        And to Mr. Schmidt, I agree. In spades. I’d love to see a debate between, oh say Limbaugh and Lawrence O’Donnell or O’Reilly and K.O. or Hannity and Rachel Madow.
        Unfortunately the personalities at Fox are cowards. That’s why they whine the most about the doctrine. You’d think they’d embrace it. After all, the word Fair is what it’s supposed to be about.

      • Mark Noonan July 24, 2011 / 9:19 am

        Mitch,

        What is amusing is that you don’t seem to even realize what a bit of paranoid drivel that is you wrote…don’t forget, Ailes is probably also connected to the Bilderbergers!

      • MontyBurns July 24, 2011 / 2:35 pm

        “What is amusing is that you don’t seem to even realize what a bit of paranoid drivel that is you wrote…don’t forget, Ailes is probably also connected to the Bilderbergers!”

        Unlike your conception of George Soros as some sort of supervillain, right Mark? No paranoia there!

        Get some self-awareness, for crying out loud.

      • Cluster July 24, 2011 / 3:17 pm

        Unlike your conception of George Soros as some sort of supervillain, right Mark? No paranoia there!……Get some self-awareness, for crying out loud. – Monty

        This coming from someone who has recently warned us of the evils of Fox News.

        This is better than the comedy channel

      • MontyBurns July 24, 2011 / 3:45 pm

        True, you guys are funny in your desperate attempts to evade your blatant hypocrisy, cluster. But that comedy is a consequence of your lack of self-awareness.

    • libsrjerks July 24, 2011 / 3:48 am

      Fox viewers are consistently the most misinformed group of all of those who watch news programing.
      This from an obvious MS-LSD watcher…

    • Mark Noonan July 24, 2011 / 9:23 am

      Mitch,

      One thing we can count on is that when a liberal wants to make a point with the poll, it will be of “adults” rather than of “likely voters” and it will be of less than 1,000 people. Your linked poll is bogus – totally useless as a tool for understanding public attitudes.

      • Retired Spook July 24, 2011 / 9:58 am

        Mark (and Mitch),

        I’d go a step farther. The poll was worded in such a way as to give the perception that people who believe a certain way on controversial issues are “uninformed”. And with this poll, “that certain way” is “not the liberal way”. So if one held liberal views, they would be “informed”. If they held conservative views, they would be “uninformed”.

        If you look at the paragraph that Mitch noted, you see exactly what I’m talking about. The part about the Stimulus leading to job loses is a great example. If you believe that the stimulus saved or created X number of jobs, you’re informed. If you look a little deeper and realize that 2 years after the Stimulus was passed, there are fewer people employed, then the first position actually becomes the “uninformed” position.

        Global warming/climate change is another example. And if not believing in human-caused climate change is uninformed, then there are an awful lot of people who are uninformed.

        One more example is that Fox views are more likely to believe that the Stimulus didn’t contain any tax cuts. We’ve discussed this issue numerous times on this blog. The fact that 90% of the American people didn’t know about the Stimulus tax cut was even highlighted in that conservative rag, The New York Times.

        Perhaps if Mitch would watch Fox News occasionally, he might become more “informed”.

      • MontyBurns July 24, 2011 / 2:37 pm

        Yes, Mitch, anything that proves Mark Noonan wrong is “bogus.”

  7. mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 10:36 am

    Ahhh. Once again, Mark demonstrates his prowess as the grand wizard of absolute truth. Reject anything you don’t want to acknowledge totally out of hand. Viola! It doesn’t exist! My will is that strong!
    Take some time and familiarize yourself with Mr. Ailes and the history of his career.
    Have some courage and admit that the Murdoch’s are the head of an organization that institutionalized criminality. And after the FBI investigation, it might very well be proven that Fox News is implicated as well. Recognizing facts is not paranoia. It’s called realism.
    And I am not “a” liberal, I am liberal but I am also more of a traditional, rational conservative than you.

  8. Amazona July 24, 2011 / 10:37 am

    I will say this for the kid—s/he certainly has the patter perfected. I don’t think s/he has missed a radical Leftist talking point since appearing on this blog.

    Aside from the nonstop litany of lies, what always comes across more than anything else is the seething rage that apparently forms the foundation for this ardent, passionate, uber-emotional loathing of all that is (inaccurately) defined as “the Right:.

    And THIS is what defines the Lefties who post here. OK, Casper is not defined by rage so much as by bewilderment, but the rest of the Lefty trolls who infest this blog are so furious, so incensed, so outraged, that all that ever comes through is their rage and their hatred.

    Oh, the kids can spout Lefty talking points interminably. And do. But what is always missing is the explanation and defense of the system they are defending and enabling through their attacks on this mythical “Right”.

    Where are the examples of high and discriminatory taxation on the economic prosperity of a country? Where are the examples of the successes of government-sponsored and government-funded social engineering experiments such as The War On Poverty and the Community Reinvestment Act, just to name two? Where is the success story of collectivism through the ages? Or just through the 20th Century?

    Where is the outline of the revision of Leftist ideology that will—–THIS TIME—–mean this ideology will not lead to oppression, economic misery, and even the murder of those in opposition? After all, if this is what has happened when the Left has been in charge before, and these guys are squealing that it should—MUST—be put in charge again, shouldn’t there be some modification to the plan that will address the historical problems of the system? What is it?

    mitch outlined a very radical Leftist personal belief system but has, so far, avoided explaining the ideology of the Left, much less defending it and telling us how well it has worked in the past. If this is what mitch wants for the nation, shouldn’t s/he explain it to us and sell it by giving examples of why it IS better, not why s/he thinks it WOULD be better?

    When the thrust of any supposedly political argument is dependent on words like “filth” and “pimping” it tells us what the argument is really about—-and it is not about politics, it is about pathology. When a post depends on calling people pimps and cowards and on overt, blatant lies about the opposition, it is abundantly clear that the posts are not about politics but about the pathology of the poster.

    The kid is obviously much better off arguing about how many “angles” (sic) can do anything.

    • Retired Spook July 24, 2011 / 11:08 am

      If this is what mitch wants for the nation, shouldn’t s/he explain it to us and sell it by giving examples of why it IS better, not why s/he thinks it WOULD be better?

      Mitch is neither smart enough nor “informed” enough to do that. Much easier to just imitate the monkeys at the zoo throwing poo.

  9. Amazona July 24, 2011 / 10:42 am

    I’ve been reading “Mobs” by Ann Coulter, at the same time that the mitches and thomas and their fellow travelers have degenerated into exposing their true selves, unedited and unsanitized.

    The juxtaposition of the theme of the book and its description of the mob mentality and the degenerating quality of the RRL posts is really fascinating. It is as if the mitches, et al, are also reading the book and deciding to show us what Ann is talking about when she describes the mob mentality and the Left’s approach to political discourse.

    I highly recommend the book.

    • mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 11:49 am

      Ann Coulter. The paragon of unemotional reasoned debate. She wants to “perfect” Jews and put rat poison in Justice Stephen’s creme de brule. She said that McVeigh should have bombed the NYT bldg and that we should invade middle eastern countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity.
      What were you saying about pathology?
      My focus is on hypocrisy, not policy. But it is obvious that the center left governs far better than the authoritarian right which basically despises government and consequently can’t! Randian Christo-fascists have completely taken over the Republican Party and although Democrats and liberals may have less than quality ideas, Republicans have bad ideas.

      • Cluster July 24, 2011 / 3:13 pm

        My focus is on hypocrisy, not policy.- Mitch

        Then you could have a field day with Obama

        Randian Christo-fascists have completely taken over the Republican Party – Mitch

        Drama queen alert.

      • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 4:00 pm

        kid, give accurate and contextual quotes from Ms Coulter, please.

        I am not familiar with the claims you make, but I have heard Ms. Coulter speak several times and I have read several of her books, as well as seeing her on TV, and I have never heard such comments.

        I HAVE heard her make outrageous comments within the context of humorous riffs. An example: When George W. Bush visited Albania, she said he was received with so much love and respect (which he was) that he offered all Albanians United States citizenship. All they had to do was come to the U.S. and learn to speak Spanish.

        Do you believe that President Bush really made such a promise? Or do you realize that his was a sarcastic way of poking fun at the Bush amnesty program?

        Are you claiming that Ann Coulter is anti-Semitic or wants to kill a Supreme Court justice? Or anyone? Really? Or are you merely regurgitating hate speech about her to avoid discussing the theme and examples in her new book?

      • MontyBurns July 24, 2011 / 8:00 pm

        “give accurate and contextual quotes from Ms Coulter, please.”

        He did. That you would feign ignorance of these well-known quotes of hers is…well, it just shows that you have no problems lying. But anybody who looks to Ann Coulter for any sort of political thought is bound to have a touchy relationship with honesty.

  10. mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 11:21 am

    Spook, global warming is a fact. In the last week alone over 900 heat records were broken. These records are not isolated incidents and the measuring devices are not involved in a conspiracy. There are entire industries who have a vested interest in attempting to debunk empirical scientific reality. It is no coincidence that the industries whose products most effect the rise of emissions into the atmosphere are those who most fervently want to obfuscate the data.
    If you don’t believe in science, just admit it. Honesty is an admirable trait. I might think you are misguided but I will still have respect for you as a person.
    A simple explanation of the mechanics of this phenomena is the concept of boiling water. As the temperature increases, water vapor rises. Water vapor contains energy and this energy has to be dissipated.(See the laws of thermodynamics.) This energy is then expressed in the form of torrential rainfall, snow, tornadoes and hurricanes. The energy also impacts the distribution of the precipitation. (i.e. the entire State of Texas being declared a disaster area because of drought or the massive flooding occurring in the Missouri River channel.) The energy contained in the water vapor in combination with the rising atmospheric temperatures also effects weather patterns, particularly the jet stream, which then result in the massive heat wave 3/4ths of the nation has experienced this week. (Don’t confuse weather with climate. They are 2 distinct entities.)
    There are also other examples of the rise in global temperatures. The shrinking polar caps are the most obvious.
    But ultimately this discussion is pointless. You have mutated a scientific observation of reality into a political / ideological immovable object.
    I just hope you don’t live on a coastline!

    • Retired Spook July 24, 2011 / 12:47 pm

      Spook, global warming is a fact.

      Never said it wasn’t, Mitch. But I count myself among a growing number of people who don’t believe that (a) actions of mankind have much of anything to do with it, and (b) mankind can’t do much about it. Let me rephrase that last part: mankind could spend trillions of dollars attempting to do something about it with statistically insignificant results.

      These records are not isolated incidents and the measuring devices are not involved in a conspiracy.

      Never said they were. We may very well be approaching the dust bowl days of the 30’s — you know that time 80 years ago before SUV’s and thousands of coal-fired power plants around the world. I have no idea how old you are, but I’m betting not very old. Stop and think about how long we’ve been measuring temperature on this planet (about 150 years, most of which was not widespread nor accurate). Compared to recorded history, which is generally accepted as being about 6,000 years. So we’ve been measuring temperature for 2.5% of recorded history. Compared to the accepted age of the planet, 4.54 billion years, we’ve been measuring temperature for .0000033% of the age of the earth. If you want to believe that a scientific community, a number of very important and influential members of which got caught manipulating data, corrupting the peer review process and subverting the FOI process, has any credibility in it’s assertions, then knock yourself out. Just don’t take my money to further your delusions.

      If you don’t believe in science, just admit it. Honesty is an admirable trait. I might think you are misguided but I will still have respect for you as a person.

      Never said I don’t believe in science either. I’m sensing a trend here. Is that the only way you can argue your position; put words in people’s mouths that they never said? That does seem to be your MO. And I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not a smarmy little creep like you has respect for me.

      There are also other examples of the rise in global temperatures. The shrinking polar caps are the most obvious.

      Well, except that the Antarctic ice cap isn’t shrinking; it’s growing. And the Arctic ice cap is recovering from the great melt of 2007.

      I just hope you don’t live on a coastline!

      I don’t, but, interestingly enough, Al Gore does.

      • mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 1:46 pm

        The manipulation of data that you sited has been rebuked and was pushed by anti-climate change alarmists.
        I totally disagree that man does not impact the environment. Your denial doesn’t change it but from a single human’s perspective it may appear as if we do not. The activities of mankind collectively (Oh no! That word collective.) do have a profound impact. It is beyond reason to doubt that pumping millions of tons of gases and particulates into the atmosphere has no effect. The planet is essentially an enclosed terrarium. Think about that way. I’m not trying to convince you, you have already decided what is.
        I don’t care about Al Gore. I think he’s a putz but you are mistaken about the Antarctic. Gravity data collected from satellites shows that the region has been loosing about 100 cubic kilometers of ice every yr since 2002.
        Mark edited this websites comment about Norway as well, so in this instance we are even. But Fox is standing by their original meme.
        I’m glad Cluster thinks I’m funny.Actually, I am a performance artist.

      • Cluster July 24, 2011 / 2:07 pm

        If you don’t believe in science, just admit it. Honesty is an admirable trait. I might think you are misguided but I will still have respect for you as a person.- mitch

        I wonder if Mitch actually believes that his respect is worthy of aspiring to.

        Question Mitch – is consensus a scientific approach? Because that is all you have right now. And did you also know that the west coast is experiencing below avg temps, and they were skiing in Colorado on July 4th.

        Sorry Mitch, but you’re talking about weather, not climate. And the climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

        Next

      • Retired Spook July 24, 2011 / 3:10 pm

        The manipulation of data that you sited has been rebuked

        May have been “rebuked”, but it certainly hasn’t been debunked.

        I totally disagree that man does not impact the environment.

        I’m sure you do, but that doesn’t make it true. And, until you can come up with empirical (your word) evidence, more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it’s not true.

        The activities of mankind collectively (Oh no! That word collective.) do have a profound impact.

        About as profound as a fart in a hurricane.

        I’m not trying to convince you,

        Good, cause if you were, you were doing a piss-poor job.

        You have already decided what is.

        There ya go putting words in my mouth again, Mitch. I have a completely open mind on the topic. I just have yet to see any “empirical” proof, and I’ve read literally thousands of pages of reports and studies on both sides of the issue.

        Gravity data collected from satellites shows that the region has been loosing about 100 cubic kilometers of ice every yr since 2002.

        Nope, sorry, a portion of the Antarctic may be losing ice, but the overall trend is up.

        But Fox is standing by their original meme.

        Nope, wrong again. You realize, Mitch, that you only get so many strikes before you’re out?

        Actually, I am a performance artist.

        Cybie, is that you?

      • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 3:30 pm

        Consensus is NOT part of the scientific process, and peer review is not a voting process where, if a majority of the reviewers agree, a theory is declared to be fact.

        We can look at thousands of examples of consensus over the centuries, on things that were accepted as scientific fact, from the flat earth theory to the sun revolving around the earth to illness being caused by an imbalance of “humors” in the body.

        There was no consensus about the existence of microscopic bacteria or viruses, or the concept of light years, or the ozone layer, or the ability of man to make and use massive metal flying machines.

        “Consensus” has no place in science, as thousands of people can vote on a belief and it can be totally false. Science is about proof.

        I also note the Lefty dependence on simply restating what someone else has said. In this case: “I totally disagree that man does not impact the environment. Your denial doesn’t change it ……..”

        I don’t know of a single person who has denied that man has had an impact on the environment. Duh. Smog, emissions, the increasing humidity in previously arid areas due to irrigation of lawns and gardens, the denuding of the rain forests—-the number of ways the presence and activities of mankind have affected the environment is huge.

        But to claim this is proof it is changing the CLIMATE is mere conjecture. We know that some things can affect weather—-volcanic eruptions of ash into the atmosphere have been associated with temporary weather changes, as have dust storms and forest fires—-and there is evidence that massive meteor strikes may have actually changed the climate worldwide for a period of time. Those of us in the Colorado Rockies saw evidence of man changing WEATHER when the Winter Olympics were held in Utah, and they tried cloud seeding to increase the snowfall in the Utah mountains. Utah got too much snow and Colorado got very little, as the efforts to manipulate WEATHER resulted in too much precipitation being released from the atmosphere in one place instead of being carried along to the east.

        There is nothing wrong with wanting to be responsible, with acting in rational ways to lessen our impact on the earth as much as we can. Recycling, reducing auto emissions, reducing the use of artificial fertilizers, and so on are all good ideas. No one objects to those.

        It is the strident demand that we immediately engage in radical changes on the off chance they may make a difference, and the economic impacts of such changes, and the political component of such agendas, that so many find objectionable. It is the callous use of such idealistic-sounding goals to dramatically expand the size, scope and power of the federal government that has so many concerned.

        The reality of life in this country is that we all want pretty much the same things. We all want the poor to be able to eat and have housing and health care, we all want a healthy environment, we all want many of the same things. But there is a politically motivated approach to these issues which insists on recasting all difference of opinion into an “either/or” conflict—“If you don’t want to feed the poor OUR WAY you just want them to starve” or “If you don’t agree to OUR radical experiments in trying to alter the impact of mankind on the planet you just don’t care if it is poisoned and dies”.

      • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 3:40 pm

        Whenever I see a claim of “scientific consensus” I am reminded of a show a few years ago which showed some of the really great ads over the years for different products.

        In the 50s, when there was an increased interest in Chinese food (or at least food we thought was Chinese)there was a great ad. It said 9 OUT OF 10 DOCTORS RECOMMEND CHUNG KING and below this was a photo of 10 young men (of course!) in white lab coats—-and 9 of them were Chinese. It was a great ad, but it also comes to mind when I hear someone claim that some arbitrary number of “scientists” should be allowed to decide what is true, when it can’t be proved.

      • neocon1 July 25, 2011 / 5:27 pm

        Bmitch

        “I am a performance artist.”

        Rut RO…..tight leotards and loafers

        who’d a guessed………..Pffffftttttttt

    • neocon1 July 25, 2011 / 5:24 pm

      Bmitch

      “Spook, global warming is a fact”. BS
      ” In the last week alone over 900 heat records were broken”. more BS

  11. mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 12:45 pm

    Though there was no connection, Fox News used the Oslo terrorist attacks to fan the flames of anti-Muslim hatred.
    In early reporting all anybody knew was that there HAD been a bombing in Norway and a shooting at the youth camp. Yet that was all Laura Ingraham needed to state unequivocally that, “Two deadly terror attacks in Norway, in what appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists,” and then to immediately jump to a pre-recorded Bill O’Reilly interview with the lawyer representing the Islamic Community Center in New York, which prominently featured O’Reilly bullying the man and insinuating that the Muslim people were to blame for 9-11.

    • Retired Spook July 24, 2011 / 1:03 pm

      On Friday, MSNBC was saying this:

      msnbc.com U.S. & World News – Norway shooting suspect attacked …

      2 days ago … was the work of al-Qaida or another international terrorist …

      If you go to the same article now (updated about an hour ago), there’s no mention of any conjecture that Muslim or any other international terrorists were involved. They’ve changed the article completely, Unfortunately they forgot to change the Google search tag.

      • Cluster July 24, 2011 / 1:15 pm

        Mitch just doesn’t think things through. He’s hilarious.

    • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 2:58 pm

      Though it was later learned there was no connection, the New York Times used the Oslo terrorist attacks to fan the flames of radical Islamist terrorist fear.

      In early reporting, all anybody knew was that there HAD been a bombing in Norway and a shooting at a youth camp. Yet that was all Laura Ingraham needed to state quite equivocally ““Two deadly terror attacks in Norway, in what appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists,”

      There. Fixed.

      And what made it APPEAR to be an attack by Muslim terrorists? Well, there is that bombing thing—-aside from the IRA, not exactly active in Norway, and the OKC bombing, most if not all the bombings in the last decade or so have been by Islamic terrorists. It’s a radical Muslim M.O. Then there is that claim of responsibility by a radical Islamic group.

      Reporting the news means reporting what is happening or what has happened. What happened were a bombing and a shooting, related to each other, in a nation with a large Muslim population, in the style of Islamic terrorists, claimed by a radical Islamic group. To hide any of the accompanying facts while reporting the early stages of the events would have been distorting the actual news due to personal or political bias.

      In other words, what the Left demands and idolizes in Leftist “journalism” and sneeringly accuses others of doing when the reportage might give them a gotcha in their game-playing view of politics.

      • bardolf July 25, 2011 / 7:10 am

        “Then there is that claim of responsibility by a radical Islamic group.”

        Where is your proof that a radical Islamic group claimed responsibility?

  12. mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 2:46 pm

    Cluster, consensus is part of the scientific method. Ever heard of peer review? If consensus (agreement) is all I have, I’ll take it.
    The climate effects weather. Yes, the climate has changed through out earths long history but never has a creature so altered their environment as humans. I am risk adverse and I will refer to Dick Cheney on this. If there is a 1% chance of something horrible happening, why risk it? What is there to loose? Fossil fuels are finite and in the past 50+ yrs their use has created an exponential rise in problems that encompass politics, religion, finance and the environment. Aside from wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear, the only method mankind has of creating useable energy is to set stuff on fire. In that sense we haven’t progressed for 10K yrs.
    Things tend to evolve slowly and people become entrenched in positions which impedes progress. I’d like to see the oil companies pay more attention to their future survival and develop sources of revenue that aren’t dependent on a dwindling resource. A resource that we fight over. I’d like to see the insurance companies, when faced with astronomical “weather” related payments to their insured, pay more attention to the reality of the cause of repeated cataclysmic weather events. Being cautious is a conservative trait. I may be far more conservative in that sense than you think.Socially, I am far from it but in the classical sense i am much more libertarian / conservative than the opposite. Not that I am trying to convince you because I really don’t care. I am very secure in my position on issues and I like to post here for the challenge.

    • Cluster July 24, 2011 / 3:00 pm

      Alarmist alert. Mitch, you say that even if there is 1% chance, why risk it, and I agree. Hence the many efforts for greener energy, of which we will achieve and employ one day, but this drama about the AGW is senseless. And you seem to be backing away from your earlier hysterics.

      • mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 3:57 pm

        Not really. And my comments are not hysterical.

      • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 4:06 pm

        “…my comments are not hysterical..”

        Shrill, strident, hyper-emotional, hostile, intellectually erratic….

        OK. Let’s use “hysterical” in another context, that of generating great humorous response. Because the unending litany of radical Leftist cant can be quite funny.

    • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 3:50 pm

      “never has a creature so altered their environment as humans.”

      Just for starters, let me introduce you to the Pine Beetle. This creature has denuded and killed millions of acres of pine trees. If a Pine Beetle kills off Pine Trees, I think it can be agreed it has altered its environment.

      Then there is the feast/disease or famine/die-off cycle of wildlife. Pick a critter—-deer, prairie dogs, whatever. Let’s go with prairie dogs. There is plenty of food, the population skyrockets because there is so much to eat, the population eats up the food (changing the environment of the area by denuding it) and then the population becomes vulnerable to disease and starvation. When the population decreases, then the environment has the ability to heal itself and come back. But the “creature” in question most certainly alters its environment.

      But when this pattern is repeated with larger herbivores, the desirable vegetation can be so reduced that noxious weeds have no competition and take over, changing the environment permanently.

      Overgrazing can lead to increased erosion, which means soil washed into waterways, choking off spawning grounds and reducing the fish population.

      None of these, by the way, alter climate.

      • mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 4:27 pm

        You really are a disturbed woman. As I said, if someone gave you a million dollars you argue about how they handed it to you. Everything to you is viewed through the prism of your politics. You are obsessed but interestingly you won’t leave your comfort zone and your preaching to the choir here. Are you capable of having an engaging conversation in real life or do you put off people in person as much as you demonstrate on this website? Do you have Asperger’s? You sure seem to fit the profile.
        Correct me if i am wrong, but the herbivore example you used seems to include humans who domesticated these animals for our own purposes, destroyed their natural predator’s (our competition) and then had to assume responsibility for managing the environment. I also disagree with the impact that the change in vegetation has on the climate. Take deforestation for example. Less tress, less CO2 absorbed, less oxygen output.
        And Cluster, I am glad that we agree about green energy. Nature is 100% efficient. Maybe we should take some tips from the Plains Indians.

      • Cluster July 24, 2011 / 4:46 pm

        I don’t think the Plains Indians have come up with anything close to a sustainable energy that can be mass produced for a billion people. That’s the trick, and why green energy has to evolve slowly, driven by viability and consumer demand, and not forced upon us by the government

      • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 7:46 pm

        kid—-When I come to a political blog to discuss political topics and political ideas and political goals, there is a “prism of politics”.

        When I go to a horse blog to discuss horses, horse training and horse breeding and horse psychology and horse nutrition and horse care and horse first aid, the discussion is based on a “prism of horses”

        When I go to an agricultural blog to discuss range management, drought strategies, harvesting tips, etc. you can bet those discussions do have an “agricultural prism”.

        When I go online to research the classic car I am thinking of buying, my research and ideas all pass through an “automotive prism”.

        The thing is, I understand my politics. I see the role of my political beliefs in the past successes of the nation and in the hopes of future success as well, just as I see the relentless failures of the system you support, knowingly or not, through your constant attacks on an imaginary “Right” and all you connect with it.

        Nice little bigoted comment about a genetic condition, though. You never seem to run out of targets for your wide-ranging and evidently indiscriminate bigotry.

        I did not intend to get into quibbling about human impact on various environments. As I clearly know far more than you about range and forestry management, I merely offered up a few of the many examples of “creatures” who “alter their environment”—-in direct response to your silly claim humans are the only “creatures” who “alter their environment”. You said it, I proved you are wrong. Fini.

        Correcting you when you are wrong would be a full-time job and one which would define futility, as you are impervious to any ideas or information which do not fit into your Liberal agenda.

      • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 7:56 pm

        mitch, just curious—-are you purposely conflating the two very different words of “environment” and “climate” or do you really not know the difference?

        I gave specific and accurate examples of “creatures” other than man “altering their ENVIRONMENTS”—-and clearly stated that these environmental alterations did not not alter climate.

        Yet you quibble with what I said by saying “I also disagree with the impact that the change in vegetation has on the climate. ”

        Except I not only did not say that changes in vegetation have an impact on climate, I specifically stated that they do not.

        None of these, by the way, alter climate.
        Too ambiguous for you?

        It is more and more obvious why we can’t have a rational discussion—-what with ever-shifting definitions and/or the refusal to define terms at all and the insistence on responding to things that were never said, it is pretty hard to talk about anything. Factor in the predictable bigotry and insults, and it is always just an incoherent babble of negativity without much an idea in there to look for.

    • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 8:08 pm

      “I’d like to see the oil companies pay more attention to their future survival and develop sources of revenue that aren’t dependent on a dwindling resource.”

      You mean like the ongoing research into:

      Biodiesel made from crops which do not compete with food crops?
      Biodiesel made from algae?
      Organic solar panels?
      Wind and solar energy?
      Thermal energy?
      Crude oil from non-petroleum sources such as slaughterhouse byproducts and garbage?

      Surely you are not unaware of the wide range of diversity of major oil companies’ interest in, and research on, “alternative” sources of energy. This is in addition to the amazing advances in extraction of petroleum products from the earth, of course, which are dramatically extending the predicted period of oil and gas production.

      The research into organic sources of oil, and biodiesel, has the advantage of being able to utilize existing technology—-diesel and gasoline engines—without being dependent on traditional petroleum sources.

  13. mitchethekid July 24, 2011 / 5:12 pm

    My point Cluster, was that they lived in harmony with their environment, as much as this was possible. When they hunted Buffalo, they wasted nothing. They understood what the animal meant to them and that is why they worshiped them and considered them to be spirits. As far as an energy plan for billion people again I concur. However, the world in which they lived kept the human population in check and their culture was not technology driven. They truly did live off the land in a much more direct manner than we will ever know. One of the main reasons why Europeans were so successful, going back to the Paleolithic was because their tool making ability was superior thus enabling them to become the dominate form of man. I won’t digress as to why but suffice to say the Indian culture could not compete with the arrival of the Europeans, sad as this is.

    • Amazona July 24, 2011 / 7:49 pm

      Just to balance the idyllic and romantic view of the Plains Indians, we should also remember that they practiced genocide, torture and slavery.

      These do not contradict the statements above, but merely put them into a more realistic frame of reference.

    • casper July 24, 2011 / 9:40 pm

      mitchethekid,
      Just so you know, the Plains Indian culture that you are referring to lasted from about 1710 until 1880. it was made possible by the horse and metal trade goods (arrow heads, guns, etc) purchased from British and French traders. They may have been the freest society in human history.

      “Amazona July 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

      Just to balance the idyllic and romantic view of the Plains Indians, we should also remember that they practiced genocide, torture and slavery.”

      All things that were practiced by many of the white settlers they had contact with.

  14. mitch July 25, 2011 / 10:47 pm

    Screw Amazona. She is a mean spirited, know it all, old, lonely woman.
    Of course i know about the Horse Culture. That wasn’t my point.

Comments are closed.