Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Gary Chittim, Ignorance, and Bias 3

Last year I wrote a piece criticizing reporter Gary Chittim of KING-5 in Seattle, exposing his bias in uncritically, and ignorantly, accepting the claims of "environmentalists."

At the time what set me off was his blind acceptance, and repetition, of the false claim that PBDEs are "toxic," and his unverifiable assertion that certain workers had no ulterior motives in going public with claims about a military base dumping chemicals.

Today he was on Up Front with Robert Mak, and he even more clearly demonstrated his unprofessional bias. When discussing the presidential candidates and global warming, he told another whopper. And I am not even talking about his assertion that "[cap and trade] has been used successfully in European nations" to reduce carbon, although that was bad enough. As was his claim that cap and trade is a "free market within the market," which is nonsensical (it uses market forces, but they are anything but "free"). But he said something even more obviously ludicrous

[McCain's acknowledgment of climate change] alienates some on the very right wing fringe of the Republican Party. As you get more moderate in both parties, into the middle, everyone kinda says, "OK, I kinda see that we do have a problem here."

Except, of course, that skepticism of climate change, and alienation by McCain's statements on it, is mainstream in the Republican Party. It's typical liberal environmentalist dishonesty: attempt to convince people your opponents are wrong by marginalizing them, pretending that they are on the fringe. This is what many advocates of the IPCC do: pretend that this is the consensus of the best minds in the world, ignoring the best minds that were not invited to participate, or those that were participating and left the IPCC because of its politicization.

I don't know whether anthropogenic global warming is real. I suspect it is likely not, but I don't know. But I do know that no one else knows either, and that the left lacks just about sense of honesty when debating the issue.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gary Chittim, Ignorance, and Bias

Comments Filter:
  • "Climate Change"--everyone can buy this. If you don't, you assert "Constant Climate", which is trivially disproven by, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl [wikipedia.org]
    "Global Warming" is where the challenge comes in. You better bring an Oscar Winning Nobel Laureate to sell that concept.
    If you want to go to "Anthropogenic Global Warming", you really have a tough sell. Recommend you find a truly misanthropic audience for that one.
    That said, I personally try to see past the nonsense to value the ecological i
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot
      Yes, I am in favor of many measures to make our environment "cleaner" or "more natural" (not that those words actually mean what they seem to mean, but we all sorta basically understand the concepts). But a. do not lie to me about the facts, and b. do not assume that just because you hold one opinion of what should be done that I have any obligation to agree with you.

      • c. When stating something, clearly mark the points where the argument becomes subjective.
        d. Fairly state opposing viewpoints.
        e. Give credit where due, even if you don't agree with the speaker, or even like the person.

        I'm at the point of rejecting slanted, emotional, propaganda-esque appeals outright.

"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban

Working...