Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

Page 11 of 14 [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

31 Dec 2010, 11:39 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
@ Inuyasha

Why don't you read this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

It explains how e-mail quotes were taken out of context to try and discredit climate scientists. And before you criticize the source, please note that other primary sources are linked to the article at the bottom.


I can actually throw that site's credibility into question quite easily.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Annenberg Public Policy Center is a leftist organization.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts

I'm not even going to bother doing serious digging this time cause I have already shown Factcheck.org being funded by a group that had a domestic terrorist as a board member and they knew he was a domestic terrorist.

Wow! I really didn't see that coming. :roll:

The article is factually accurate and contains links to scientific publications backing up it's claims. You make me read your obviously right-biased opinion articles, you can read something from factcheck.org.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

31 Dec 2010, 11:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not even going to bother doing serious digging this time cause I have already shown Factcheck.org being funded by a group that had a domestic terrorist as a board member and they knew he was a domestic terrorist.

Terrorist!? From the informations of this obviously biased website you give as link, sound like a intellectual.

You're hopeless Inuyasha :roll:


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Last edited by Tollorin on 31 Dec 2010, 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

31 Dec 2010, 11:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Factcheck.org got money from a group run by a guy who once spoke to Bill Moyers? Holy leftist bias, Batman!

So factcheck.org gets their funding from an organization run by a liberal. So what? They can still be reasonable fact-checkers, as evidenced by the fact that they call out liberals as well as conservatives. Until you stop getting all of your "facts" from right-wing blogs, you have absolutely no room to criticize a source that has "ties" to the Left.


They were started by a group that had Bill Ayers as a chairman if I remember correctly, and it is even in their own homepage that they are directly funded by that group. Oh Obama was also a member of the same board.

Seriously, can you come up with better sources than known partisan hacks... You may as well have sources DailyKos or MoveOn.org. :roll:

And I'm sure most of your sources are funded by Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers, who are far worse partisan hacks. In the mean time why don't we get back on topic and discuss what's actually in the article I posted. I know how desperately you try to change the subject when you can't actually counter an argument rationally, but I'm not going to fall for it again.

Once again, here's the article.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Read it and refute it. Otherwise I'm through with you.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Jan 2011, 12:03 am

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
@ Inuyasha

Why don't you read this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

It explains how e-mail quotes were taken out of context to try and discredit climate scientists. And before you criticize the source, please note that other primary sources are linked to the article at the bottom.


I can actually throw that site's credibility into question quite easily.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Annenberg Public Policy Center is a leftist organization.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts

I'm not even going to bother doing serious digging this time cause I have already shown Factcheck.org being funded by a group that had a domestic terrorist as a board member and they knew he was a domestic terrorist.

Wow! I really didn't see that coming. :roll:

The article is factually accurate and contains links to scientific publications backing up it's claims. You make me read your obviously right-biased opinion articles, you can read something from factcheck.org.


I'm not bothering because I already proved Factcheck.org had credibility issues on this board, if people aren't going to bother to read what I had written before, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

@ Tollorin

How about you do some research into William Ayers, before you make derogatory comments directed towards me. Cause William Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist that got off on a technicality, so what I said is factually correct.

@ marshall

After glancing at it I can tell you that FactCheck.org's article if full of B.S. cause I worked at a location near DC during an internship at Goddard Space Flight Center. Some of the scientists there were also being investigated concerning their research due to climategate, it wasn't confined to those few scientists. So I actually know something of the subject matter firsthand, and can say to your face that the article you sourced isn't being entirely truthful.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Jan 2011, 12:51 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not bothering because I already proved Factcheck.org had credibility issues on this board, if people aren't going to bother to read what I had written before, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Listen here. IT TAKES TWO TO PLAY BALL. You expect me to bend over backwards to "prove" your myriad of right-wing blog-sphere opinion sources wrong, yet you outright refuse to read a single article I post. Explain to me how this is fair? HOW ARE YOU BEING FAIR?

I even did your work for you. I gave you a link to the complete archive of climate-gate emails so you can find the all the incriminating evidence you need and present it to me. Yet you aren't even going to do that. All you ever do is stall and change the subject.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Jan 2011, 1:49 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not bothering because I already proved Factcheck.org had credibility issues on this board, if people aren't going to bother to read what I had written before, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Listen here. IT TAKES TWO TO PLAY BALL. You expect me to bend over backwards to "prove" your myriad of right-wing blog-sphere opinion sources wrong, yet you outright refuse to read a single article I post. Explain to me how this is fair? HOW ARE YOU BEING FAIR?


You are using a site that is known for far left bias and is tied to an unrepentant domestic terrorist as a source, and you expect me to take it seriously?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... weathermen

Oh this is the same article that caused the mainstream media to be skitish for a while due to public anger.

marshall wrote:
I even did your work for you. I gave you a link to the complete archive of climate-gate emails so you can find the all the incriminating evidence you need and present it to me. Yet you aren't even going to do that. All you ever do is stall and change the subject.


You gave me a link to a few thousand e-mails and said there is the proof that Fox News took stuff out of context. I'm not wasting my time to go through a few thousand e-mails cause your proof "may" be in there.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

01 Jan 2011, 2:19 pm

Three separate and independent reviews of the "climategate" incident have taken place and the scientists were exonerated.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews

Additionally, Penn State did a review. "The review cleared Mann of charges that he falsified climate change data, manipulated that data, improperly refused to share his research data and--generally behaved badly by trying to discredit other researchers' work."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009501-503544.html



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Jan 2011, 3:26 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not bothering because I already proved Factcheck.org had credibility issues on this board, if people aren't going to bother to read what I had written before, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Listen here. IT TAKES TWO TO PLAY BALL. You expect me to bend over backwards to "prove" your myriad of right-wing blog-sphere opinion sources wrong, yet you outright refuse to read a single article I post. Explain to me how this is fair? HOW ARE YOU BEING FAIR?


You are using a site that is known for far left bias and is tied to an unrepentant domestic terrorist as a source, and you expect me to take it seriously?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... weathermen

Oh this is the same article that caused the mainstream media to be skitish for a while due to public anger.
in there.

Bill Ayers has absolutely nothing to do with the facts contained within the article I linked. Now quit changing the subject with far-fetched nonsense. Pretty much every article you post has an extreme right-wing bias, yet I am willing to read and refute them. You can read one article I post. You are merely being stubborn.
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
I even did your work for you. I gave you a link to the complete archive of climate-gate emails so you can find the all the incriminating evidence you need and present it to me. Yet you aren't even going to do that. All you ever do is stall and change the subject.


You gave me a link to a few thousand e-mails and said there is the proof that Fox News took stuff out of context. I'm not wasting my time to go through a few thousand e-mails cause your proof "may" be in there.

I don't have to prove they are taken out of context. They quotes are, by definition, out of context because the full content of the emails containing the quotes isn't referenced. You are the one who needs to show the incriminating evidence since you are the one making the claims. If I claimed that you broke into my house last night you will bloody damn well demand that I provide evidence to back my claim up. This is no different.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Jan 2011, 10:06 pm

number5 wrote:
Three separate and independent reviews of the "climategate" incident have taken place and the scientists were exonerated.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews

Additionally, Penn State did a review. "The review cleared Mann of charges that he falsified climate change data, manipulated that data, improperly refused to share his research data and--generally behaved badly by trying to discredit other researchers' work."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009501-503544.html


Yeah I'm sure that they could go through a few thousand e-mails in 24 hrs.

However, lawmakers stressed that their report -- which was written after only a single day of oral testimony -- did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending. Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/ ... cientists/

Anyways as you know, the investigators as you have called them have been accused of conducting a white wash.

Furthermore, I would hardly call Penn State's investigation an outside investigation conducted by a neutral party. Which is the investigation you mention in the CBS article.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 Jan 2011, 12:06 am

Facts have a well-known liberal bias; therefore, inuyasha will not accept facts.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Jan 2011, 12:11 am

LKL wrote:
Facts have a well-known liberal bias; therefore, inuyasha will not accept facts.


No, the liberal bias tends to be the result of left wing individuals passing as journalists giving their opinion instead of the facts.

Seriously, Conservatives are not the boogyman you believe them to be.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

03 Jan 2011, 12:17 am

LKL wrote:
Facts have a well-known liberal bias; therefore, inuyasha will not accept facts.


I hope that was a sorry attempt at humor.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Jan 2011, 12:18 am

ikorack wrote:
LKL wrote:
Facts have a well-known liberal bias; therefore, inuyasha will not accept facts.


I hope that was a sorry attempt at humor.


Sad part is, I don't think it was an attempt at humor.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Jan 2011, 12:29 am

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Facts have a well-known liberal bias; therefore, inuyasha will not accept facts.


No, the liberal bias tends to be the result of left wing individuals passing as journalists giving their opinion instead of the facts.

Seriously, Conservatives are not the boogyman you believe them to be.


The problem is according to you everyone who isn't a far-right conservative is another untrustworthy liberal. Why do you cocoon yourself and outright refuse to read anything from ideologically "unapproved" sources? Are you afraid something you read could change your opinion? I prefer to read both sides of an issue before deciding who is correct. If Fox news has a story I will check it out. I'm not afraid to use multiple sources even if they come from ideologically apposing sides.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Jan 2011, 12:35 am

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Facts have a well-known liberal bias; therefore, inuyasha will not accept facts.


No, the liberal bias tends to be the result of left wing individuals passing as journalists giving their opinion instead of the facts.

Seriously, Conservatives are not the boogyman you believe them to be.


The problem is according to you everyone who isn't a far-right conservative is another untrustworthy liberal. Why do you cocoon yourself and outright refuse to read anything from ideologically "unapproved" sources? Are you afraid something you read could change your opinion? I prefer to read both sides of an issue before deciding who is correct. If Fox news has a story I will check it out. I'm not afraid to use multiple sources even if they come from ideologically apposing sides.


Explain to me why I should believe a news agency whose journalists were talking about trying to paint a Republican Senate Candidate as a pedophile?

Explain to me why I should believe a news agency that used phony documents to try to smear President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

Explain to me why I should believe any outlet that kept on reporters that were tied to Journ'O'list.

I actually used to like to listen to MSNBC, NBC, CNN, etc. They lost my trust, due to their own behavior. Fox News managed to earn my trust, but if they end up going down the road the other outlets did, they will lose my trust.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Jan 2011, 12:51 am

Oops. Looks like I just shot the credibility of Fox News through the heart.

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

It looks like the network fired a reporter for refusing to air a story that was proven false.

There's also this...

http://www.noob.us/miscellaneous/fox-news-exposed-by-employees/

You better add Fox News to your list.

Now can we get back on topic. :roll: