I’m just curious to know if there’s even a single person in the audience today who believes Donald Trump when he says that multiple world leaders at the G7 summit in France have said to him, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”
48 Comments
Maybe Borris Johnson…..
Not the craziest thing from Trump today. Check out this Axios scoop.
SCOOP: President Trump has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1165758047882567682?s=20
Yeah, Johnson and Trump may have traded comments about the “fake news,” but if you believe that any world leader said, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”, you are out of your fucking mind.
Every single world leader in the G7 needs to be asked on the record if they said this.
I am going to go out on a limb and say:
1) Trump is fibbing; and 2) [most] of the American media hates Trump’s America and are rooting for Trump’s America to fail.
The fact that Mark thinks it is more important to catch Trump fibbing, rather than to examine the underlying truth claim that the news is fake and actively trying to undermine his presidency is interesting to me. I mean, the news media has either been actively trying to undermine Trump’s presidency with false narratives or it hasn’t. Mark has either parroted the fake news media uncritically in an attempt to pedal the false narratives or he hasn’t. Examining the news and its relation to the truth would be an infinitely more interesting endeavor rather than proposing someone ask the world leaders if they didn’t say something they probably OUGHT to have said. I mean, why should it be significant at all, to any of us, if Merkel, Marcon, or Trudeau believe CNN, MSNBC and NYT to be good sources of info with good intentions toward discovering the truth for the American people?
Related: Where’s our latest Russiagate update from Mark? It has been awhile and the Russia stories just sort of ended abruptly without any sort of wrap-up…
Aloha FF, Your infatuation with the “American media” is almost on par with HW’s infatuation with the Qanon blog. The “American media” like all “free” media practices a form of yellow journalism. It has been that way forever. “American media” is in the business of making money–informing people has always been secondary. Since the elimination of the “Fairness Doctrine” there has been no compulsion for them to pretend.
Your point that the “American media hates Trump” is such a patently stupid comment. Did you fail to notice the billion dollars in free air time they gave him in 2016? Did you fail to follow the comments of the CEO’s of the three TV networks who all have expressed love for the profits Trump has generated? Have you failed to notice the endless exposure of the obviously false Russigate narative and the absence of coverage of most of the policies of Trump, all of which has benefited Trump and the Republicans. FF I think you whining and crying about the media hating Trump demonstrates that you are just another privileged white boy worried about losing your privileged status in society, or not nearly as educated as you want us to believe.
DD,
I don’t care for the insults against me but I will admit I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Much of the media has been fake as hell for a long time but I think it is very positive that more people are realizing it is fake and becoming more critical consumers of the news. I think it is a beautiful thing that I can go into gas stations in more rural northern Michigan and buy a baseball hat that reads “fake news”. Millions of people are becoming attuned to something that you have known for a very long time and it is wonderful that more people are becoming more like you in that regard.
My pointing to the Russiagate false-narrative is an example of me trying to highlight only one layer of the deceit. Russiagate was a big deal. I see an examination of Russiagate as an opportunity for possibly bringing more people into the realm of critical thinkers/ critical consumers of media. You are right though, there are more layers to the story. I commend you for articulating those deeper layers…However, if we are being honest, I just don’t think the Mark Maynard’s of the world are ready to hear that their own mode of being is directly linked to Trump being elected; much less do I think the Mark Maynard’s of the world are ready to hear that the “obviously”, as you said, pre-packaged false-narratives they have parroted and refused to be critical of, have been an amazing gift for Trump which might actually insure his re-election. It is something they just won’t hear yet…So, one layer at a time…
You are right. The side show narratives that many people are willingly participate in functions as a distraction from critical examination of policies. Moreover, the realization by millions of American’s that major media sources are lying to them is probably going to benefit Trump and the Republican’s greatly moving forward.
I think Trump has been necessary. Trump is not the hurdle but there are necessary hurdles we must overcome if America has any hope to transcend Trump. As of right now, in my opinion, we are nowhere near ready to transcend Trump. I think it is good for the Mark Maynard’s of the world to be challenged to think about what portion of the responsibility they have in all of this. Even though you were a bit insulting to me, I tend to think you agree with me, even if you have better manners than I have, as displayed by your policy of politely not insulting our host….
Aloha FF, the things that you obses over define you. It is not Fake News–News is News, are the facts being reported true or not? The analysis is subjective. For example, the stock market tumbling on Friday is a fact, the news reporting that was not fake. Now is the analysis of that fact correct or “fake” is a matter of interpretation. It is a fact that a Russian troll farm posted adds on US social media. The interpretation of that fact varies, nothing fake about it. Your decision to obses over “fake news” is a decision to deny facts, rather than taking facts and offering an alternative analysis of those facts—critical difference. I take the fact that the owners of our major media gave Trump endless amounts of free add time, and focusing on Russiagate to the exclusion of say –greater and greater income inequality being the result of Trumps tax policies–as indicative of them “loving Trump” and want his Presidency to continue. You take the fact that the media endlessly covers Trumps stupid tweets, as indicative of those same folks “hating” Trump. The news is the same, the “facts” are the same, it is our analysis of those facts which are at odds—nothing “Fake” about any of that. I never bought into Russiagate, my analysis of the facts told me that this was part and parcel of the “yellow” journalism of demonizing Russia so we can justify the growing defense budget, much like the current demonizing of China. Trump shit canning the INF treaty (why does the media that you want to believe “hates” Trump) totally silent on this most important war measure? Could it be the same plutocrats that got Trump elected in 2016 with the billions of dollars of free air time, support increasing defense spending? Could it be they support the demonization of Russia and China?
I readily admit that I am old and tired of dealing with stupid shit. Believing that the media which covers Trump 24/7 hates Trump is just stupid.
Aloha FF, “Trump absent from G-7 session on climate” is news. Is it “Fake News”? They have photographs of him not being at the session, seems like a factual statement. Nothing “Fake” about it as far as I can tell. What is more important to that “News” is the why Trump was absent. Do Trump’s friendly plutocratic fossil fuel barons support action to combat or ameliorate human caused climate change or do they support Trumps efforts to help them maximize the profits from their oil and coal assets. Do those plutocrats fear a Sanders Presidency and his climate action program which will cause the value of their fossil fuel assets to plummet? These are questions that require analysis not talking points.
Just as the whole “Russiagate” story allowed the plutocratic backers of Clinton to avoid any real discussion of why the Democrats lost in 2016, the Trump show allows the media to ignore the “why” of Trumps policies. That is what intelligent analysis is for, rather than repeating political talking points, ask yourself who is benefiting, and why.
No, it’s fake news and the media does have animosity against Trump. There is no analysis. Some entity sends out the message of the day and every single news agency uses the exact terminology. That doesn’t happen by accident or coincidence.
If the real concern was climate change, there would be a large number of groups who would be planting trees in every available space. They are a natural carbon sink, produce oxygen, and provide shade. Instead, the call is to eliminate energy sources and destroy the world economy. Why? Who profits?
Aloha EOS, I guess you have not been following the news about Ethiopia trying to plant one billion trees. I guess you have not been following the news about people being outraged over Brazil allowing the Amazon to burn unchecked. I guess you have not been following the news about acid rain (caused by coal fired electric plants) causing massive tree die offs. I guess you do not follow the news. I’ve suspected for a long time that you are a product of home schooling. Since you seem to know how to use a computer I recommend that you spend some time googling the above.
By the way, it seems like our host MM publicized Ypsilanti’s tree farm in the Water Street area. EOS, if you are going to play, you are going to have to up your game, this just isn’t going to cut it.
In answer to your two questions, Why–because carbon based energy sources are the cause of climate change and to not eliminate them will mean your loving end times will be upon us. Who profits? Humanity
some times even dolts understand things
Aloha EOS, I was wrong. Ethiopia wants to plant 4 billion trees. A couple of weeks ago they planted 350000000 in one day. Of course Ethiopia is not controlled by fossil fuel plutocrats the way the US is.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-12-hours-breaking-world-record-2019-07-30/
DD,
I don’t find your differentiation of “facts” vs. “analysis” to be controversial at all. However, I am surprised that you seem to want to assert that all news is dealing with the same facts honestly in their analysis and that there is anything even-handed about most medias approach toward analysis. I think there is a lot of evidence, as EOS asserts, that the differences in analysis goes way beyond mere differences in opinions. Honestly, I don’t know why you would try to assert such a naive notion (that it is a mere difference in analysis) and in the same breath express a healthy skepticism (imo) when you say things like “everyone knows that we practice yellow journalism”. You seem to want to hold onto contradictory perspectives and I am not sure why.
I like to think that we can both agree that there are powerful people behind corporate media that want to control things in a way that maximizes their own personal gain without regard to Truth and Justice.
I don’t mind you saying that my obsession over fake news defines me…As if that is something I should not proud of…. Sorry, I am not ashamed that I think Truth and Justice ought to be our primary concerns.
I think it is great that you are naturally a very skeptical person DD. Unfortunately the rest of America is pretty far behind you. I just don’t think we, as a society, can simply move forward to “the real issues” until after there is sort of an awakening amongst the MM type Democrats of the world. It is not going to be easy though because their personal identities are wrapped up in their favorable assumptions about themselves as individuals and as a part of a group which has marketed itself extremely well as the group that is most concerned with Truth and Justice.
Apparently, Trump has not been reading the foreign coverage of his Presidency which is also overwhelmingly negative. Go figure. It must be a conspiracy. It can’t be that he’s the most incompetent US President ever.
Quick review of recent coverage in the foreign press:
Trump ‘sorry’ for throwing global economy into uncertainty.
Trump pushes his ‘magnificent’ resort for next G7 meeting.
Trump skips climate action meeting at g7, declares himself a great environmentalist.
Trump says he’ll meet with Iranian president. (who needs a state department since his prior meetings with world leaders who hate us has resulted in… well, nothing. I guess we should be grateful it hasn’t been worse.)
And my favorite: Trump offers generalizations and falsehoods in lieu of details.
Good one from the press conference:
“When asked about inviting Vladimir Putin to the G7 summit, Trump repeated the falsehood that the Russian president was previously excluded from the gathering because he “outsmarted” Barack Obama.
PBS Newshour’s Yamiche Alcindor responded by correcting Trump that Putin was actually excluded after annexing Crimea, but the president stood by his original position. He also mentioned that he was sure Alcindor, who is black, did “like” Obama.”
@dd,
“..carbon based energy sources are the cause of climate change and to not eliminate them will mean your loving end times will be upon us.”
This is a perfect example of false news. Just because you can Google and find something on the Internet doesn’t make it true. And just because Google uses its algorithm to bury all scientific publications that are not in agreement with this statement doesn’t make it true either. You need to be scientifically literate to read and understand the scientific evidence that supports this statement. And then you would find out there is no evidence, just an alarmist view that if we don’t destroy our way of life in the next decade it will be too late. Also, no scientific evidence that humans can do anything to effect climate change.
Mere speculation by a generation indoctrinated with socialist propaganda and too scientifically illiterate to comprehend reality.
Looks like Trump is finding a way to prevent negative foreign press: Keep out foreign press reporters. This woman has a work visa. She’s Canadian.
https://twitter.com/carolyndunncbc/status/1165717226500120576
Aloha FF, I fail to see the connection between “news” and “Truth and Justice”. News is brought to you by profit maximizing corporations that have agenda’s. So the “liberal” MSNBC fires reporters who want to cover Sanders or anti-war commentators. Nothing new in that. The plutocrats who own the news media always shape the analysis of news to benefit there objective. The Maine blows up in Havana harbor–an objective fact reported on by the media of the day. Possible cause of said explosion were open to conjecture and analysis. One possible cause–Spain blew it up. Another possible cause, spontaneous explosion in coal bunker. Hearst wanted war with Spain so his papers pushed the conjecture that Spain was the cause. We now know that that was bullshit. Folks like Mark Twain and others in the Anti-imperialist league knew it was BS and combated the Hearst pro-war line. Our plutocrats wanted war, so they got it. Pretty much identical to our Iraq war. False analysis pushed by liars convinced folks to buy into the war. There was plenty of news available that showed for example that the mobile chemical weapons labs that our Government said existed were in fact mobile balloon support vehicles. The fact that the news reported on the lies that Powell told the UN was not fake news, some of us though knew he had lied because we bothered to read other news stories that reported on the alleged mobile chem labs. The same can be said about the “aluminum tubes”. It is not “fake news” that ginned up the wars, it was lazy gullible people willing to believe the lies that Bush, Cheney et al told us. It was not fake news that some people associated with the Trump campaign met with some Russians. It was lazy gullible people willing to believe the stories that people like Rachel Maddow chose to tell (I suspect confirmation bias also plays a role, I mean look at EOS and HW or the majority of Clinton Democrats to see where confirmation bias can lead).
We all know I am a total dolt, so please explain the connection between news and truth and justice.
EOS, ‘too scientifically illiterate to comprehend reality.’
So, do I have this right that no one believes Trump when he says that multiple world leaders asked him why the Jews — I mean the American media — hates America?
Aloha EOS, . The most recent scientific study that presented evidence that global warming is caused by changes in the earths orbit (for example) was analyzed by numerous scientist–after all if what the authors of the study said was true it would be truly earth shaking news–but the results were disappointing. It turns out the authors–all esteemed climatologist–made an error. The error was discovered by astrophysicist. I recommend you study the scientific debate over cold fusion and Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion break through back in the 80’s. It is a case study in how science and the scientific method works. If you had gone to a good public school education rather than being home schooled you would at least have some understanding of how science works.
DD,
Show me the publication, the data, and the objective reasoning that led scientists to conclude their hypothesis was true or false.
Your example is indicative of your ignorance: “Scientific study that presented evidence that global warming is caused by changes in the earths orbit.”
The study may find a correlation between global warming and changes in the earth’s orbit, but science cannot state that global warming is caused by changes in the earth’s orbit.
I can write a peer-reviewed scientific paper that establishes a correlation between global temperatures and the prevalence of single-parent households, but you cannot state that it is caused by single-parent households. Global temperatures may be correlated with North American cannabis use. Global temperatures may be correlated with the worldwide consumption of energy drinks.
We have only kept accurate temperature records for the past 200 years. Most are from surface temperatures of urban environments. Only in the last 100 years do we have recorded temperatures of the ocean depths around the world or atmospheric temperatures at higher altitudes. What we do know for certain is that climate fluctuates in a cyclical manner. We have absolutely no evidence that anything man does can impact global temperatures. We have more than 70% of the earth’s surface occupied by water, with carbonate compounds that can neutralize acid rain. We have continents covered be trees which convert CO2 levels to plant tissue and produce oxygen.
Unfortunately I was educated in a public school environment, but I read voraciously and made up for a lot of the shortcomings. I have worked my entire life in a scientific field.
Aloha FF, ” I am surprised that you seem to want to assert that all news is dealing with the same facts honestly in their analysis” never asserted any such thing. If some thing you read by me seemed to imply that–you would have missed my meaning. ” and that there is anything even-handed about most medias approach toward analysis.” Never asserted or ever meant to imply any such thing. I would have thought the examples I gave would have made that clear. “I think there is a lot of evidence, as EOS asserts, that the differences in analysis goes way beyond mere differences in opinions. Honestly, I don’t know why you would try to assert such a naive notion” never made any such assertion, and your believe that I have requires that you support your position with my quotes. Here for example is a video by an analyst discussing various facts that were reported on in the news. Clearly the analyst is “reporting” news. That same news is available in numerous forums. His analysis is not, it is his, it is not news–“other than blowhard talks about the news” but rather an opinion piece, which is not “news”. In my High School (ancient history now of course) we had classes on journalism. It taught the basics of “news” writing, it also taught us to tell the difference between “news” and “opinion” pieces. The fact that both occur in mediums that contain “news” does not make them both “news”. I know in the 20th. century when “Newspapers” were a primary form of consuming “news”, they had a specific page for “opinions” made it easier. I suspect you may be a product of the “No child left behind” educational movement. If so I am sorry they did not teach you these elemental differences. Also back in the newspaper days they regularly listed whom the publisher was. By knowing whom the publisher is, one can make a reasonable determination of the “editorial” bent of those who edit the “news”. It is just as easy now. for example Bezo owns and publishes the Washington Post, the Washington Post is not going to have an editorial policy that ties plutocrat ownership with political control. That would be counter to the publishers interest. General Electric owned MSNBC in the run-up to the Iraq war, General Electric is a huge weapons manufacturer, Donahue being fired is not hard to understand.
This particular video is some what on point and I’m sure you will be able to tell the difference between facts that were reported as “news” and opinion, at least this dolt was able too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU5VqrhjR7A
Aloha EOS, “I can write a peer-reviewed scientific paper ” very very funny. I really needed a laugh today. I hope I can brighten your day some time too.
Aloha, Journalism 101
News equals facts equals Who, What, When, Where. If it is not those four things it is not news rather it is opinion.
that is the dogmatic part of me speaking
DD,
I have published many peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. Your assumptions are certainly not scientific.
You are a quirky person DD. You simultaneously say you fail to see the connection between news as a way to spread lies to serve an agenda and in the same breath you go on and on about all the times that lies were spread to serve an agenda. I find your argument, if you can call it that, very strange, because it is like you are saying there is no such thing as false-information there is just information and then you go on to talk about all the times information is false…
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Parts of your argument are very quirky though. I am not sure how to answer your question about the connection between Truth and Justice and news-information because the connection is so basic and necessary I am surprised anybody would bother to ask the question. You seem to be vacillating back and forth between a stance where you are arguing 1) propaganda is everywhere; and 2) propaganda does not exist.
Sorry, I don’t get it. Maybe I will re-read what you wrote later and it will make more sense. I don’t have time right now.
Aloha EOS, I just said I found it very very funny and that I hoped I could brighten your day the same way in the future. I said nothing about you writing peer reviewed papers or not. My (unfounded assumption now is) You must be a scientist since you seem to lack certain literary skills.
FF, please go back to Journalism 101. If it is “fact” then it is Who, What, When, Where.
example. Powell says Iraq has WMD. Who=Powell, What=says Iraq has WMD. We don’t know the when or where do we. Question does Iraq have WMD–it is like the when and where, the article does not know it only knows Powell says. In almost all the articles in the run up to the Iraq war on the mobile labs, or the yellow cake, or the aluminum tubes down in the later paragraphs where various “experts” were being asked to express an opinion on Powell’s statements and diagrams that he presented to the UN, there would be at least one who would qualify their statement in support of Powell, with some thing like, it could be a mobile lab or a part of a balloon unit–the evidence is consistent with either. In other words like the war criminal Rumsfield pointed out-there are facts we know, and there are facts we don’t know. Russiagate another obvious example. We know certain facts, Mueller was unable to discover other facts which support the “Trump conspired with the Russians” narrative that many drew from the few facts we knew.
Bias is obvious in everything we do–no one is objective. Since most people seem to have decided that tribal cohesion and solidarity is more important than social discourse, facts have become less and less important–witness the ongoing discussion with EOS over climate change.
And in other News today, Joe Biden announced that he wasn’t going crazy.
Science also doesn’t include ridiculing persons who ask to see the evidence before jumping on the bandwagon.
You keep digging the hole deeper with your “news is fact”.
Aloha, Attached is an article. You will know right away that it is not a “news” article because Journalism 101 requires Who, What, When and Where in the first paragraph. You don’t get to the “news” in this article until it quotes at length an article published by Slate. Since it quotes at length the editor of the New York Times on news and the role of news organizations, it seems worth while sharing. I wonder why I don’t see this “news” in other mediums?
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-curse-of-moral-purity/
How many whack a doodle conspiracists does it take to hijack a blog comment section?
EOS does something with pool chemicals as far as I can recall. A chemist maybe at most, but not a research scientist obviously. Not a climate scientist. If she were a true scientist, she wouldn’t question the legitimacy of scientific consensus in fields outside of her area of expertise.
Foreign Journalist being stopped at border today is not an outlier:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-dyer-journalist-us-border-patrol-lax-airport-fake-news-trump-a9076016.html
“…the article does not know it only knows Powell says.”
The article knows things?
I accepted your definition of “journalistic facts” from the get-go, DD. What is your point? Are you saying “fake news” is necessarily a misnomer given your definition of what constitutes news? Ok. That is a pretty weird semantic battle to want to fight. Is the term “fake news” a pet peeve of yours? You sound kind of obsessive over the semantics here, while simultaneously using examples of instances when the news was used to spread propaganda. Very weird, imo. I don’t understand your point at all.
Once again Jean posts about a topic that she knows nothing about. Pool boys don’t publish. Science is not decided by consensus. Please show us the manuscript that includes the scientific proof that global warming exists, is caused by human activities, and is nearing a tipping point of no return. And unfortunately for you, the explanation will need to involve reasoning and logic.
Aloha FF, Attribution is the essence of news because mostly the facts are “so and so says such and such today in Detroit”. News present those facts after the facts, everything else is simply commentary. Usually that commentary reflects the views and opinions that the editor wants you to believe. The essence of news is not fake, some times it is wrong, particularly when they are reporting what liars tell them. It is a shame that some people can not tell the difference between some thing being presented as a fact, and some one commenting or expressing an opinion on what was presented as fact. I stopped reading the New York Times after they cheer led the Iraq war. Not because they necessarily presented false facts but rather they would include long non-sourced or anonymously sourced information as if it might be fact. That is yellow journalism, or the manner in which our elites “Manufacture Consent” on some thing that rarely has sufficient factual support to maintain. Russiagate is another prime example of reporting information that might be facts (several convictions indicate that some facts were true beyond reasonable doubt–but not to support the “narrative” the editors presented), but are usually supported by anonymous sources–why do people believe anonymous sources without corroborating factual information–confirmation bias perhaps.
After being lied to repeatedly by sources (the CIA and FBI immediately come to mind) I place very low credibility on anything they say without corroborating factual information from sources I believe are credible, and no credibility on “anonymous sources” on information emanating from those entities. I think it is stupid to believe statements by people who have low credibility, but hey some folks would rather follow the pack than think.
“How many whack a doodle conspiracists does it take to hijack a blog comment section? so ask some one who I believe still believes Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election from HC.
I think we agree on some things. I appreciate your healthy skepticism, DD.
JH: Between 3-5.
EOS I never suggested you were a pool boy. I suggested a working chemist. I’m guessing none of your peer reviewed papers involved climate science.
You ask for a single study that demonstrates such a complex and broad reaching impAct as anthropomorphic cause of global climate change. That’s not how science works and I’m sure you know that. It’s a canard question that you try to pass of f as reason. How about you point to a single study that shows that climate change is not caused by human activity.
We’ll wait.
Ps while your at it why don’t you ask the co-authors on your peer reviewed papers or maybe some of those peers what they think of your climate change analysis? Have your conversation With them, not here hiding behind an alias.
You can put on a pot of coffee and end up with your name somewhere on a manuscript, particularly in the private sector. Nothing to see here, move on.
I apologize for responding with hostility. I understand science and the scientific method. None of my publications pertained to climate science. I am not a chemist either. And I don’t have to prove my identity to this blog.
However, it is not settled science nor proven. I do concede that a majority of climate scientists employed at major universities have voiced support for the premise that global warming is caused by human activity. It’s a hypothesis supported by some data. However, whistleblowers have exposed some of the prominent studies to have been deliberately falsified. Additionally, the faculty at major universities are almost universally leftist.
https://climatechange.procon.org/
Please note the citations. There are peer-reviewed publications supporting both sides.
Aloha, here is another article to go with yesterday’s discussion about fake news. Please note it does not pretend to be a news article, though it contains much information that is news worthy. The reason this article is worth reading is because the author actually has a great deal of credibility concerning the subject he is writing about. Credibility of sources is really key to understanding “news”. If you believe anonymous sources without corroborating evidence from credible sources, well then you are going to end up climbing into rabbit holes the way this web site has done following the Russiagate story.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-medias-russian-radiation-story-implodes-upon-scrutiny/?fbclid=IwAR3FzriumpI8t4y9ooqHTmJMytpE4i7rQLtXjIxn7gyoIqlHRRjnS1h4u2I
call me a dolt, but I prefer to listen to commentators and writers who have a proven track record of credibility, rather than those who simply confirm my biases and prejudices. Though be proven “right” is nice, being wrongly “right” is simply being delusional.
aloha EOS, I really appreciate the effort. First thing I noticed about the Pro-Con report was that it was relying upon 10 year old information. It would be interesting to survey those 1,000 scientist who disagreed with the humans being the primary cause of climate change a decade ago, today. After yet another decade of study, which has almost universally confirmed the findings of science up to a decade ago, I wonder if any have reconsidered their positions. That is one of the problems/benefits of science, new data is constantly being assembled to be used to challenge old assumptions. Wonder why the new data seems remarkably consistent with the data that existed a decade ago leading the overwhelming majority of scientist to continue to support human activity as the prime driver of global warming. Seems odd to me, how about you EOS, or are you a mindless follower (hardly an appropriate attitude for a scientist) of the Leader and believe it is all a conspiracy by China?
Aloha EOS, Don’t worry, be happy, right? Gray Whales starving to death in the oceans, possibly caused by warming oceans killing off their food sources. Oh wait, it is probably caused by over fishing by China.
https://returntonow.net/2019/07/07/so-many-gray-whales-are-washing-up-on-the-west-coast-noaa-doesnt-know-what-to-do-with-them/?fbclid=IwAR2tyPzTKxwYhVopocyjBCgJFJmXIwtlB9kSE9UFb-DvVeCcTTf3yLuZr5M
DD,
I believe it is a conspiracy by the global elite who want a one-world government. The crisis was invented to destroy the economies of 1st world nations to make the takeover easier to accomplish. If we are all scrambling for food, housing, and medical care we will be less likely to resist.
Trump is the president, but not my leader.
Isn’t EOS always advocating for people to scramble for food, housing and medical care? I got mine, you go get yours or just die trying.
Aloha, I know most people could care less about how internal party politics work, but I’m a dolt and I don’t care.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-the-Democratic-Establis-by-Henry-Samson-Attacks-On-Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders-Presidential-Campaign_Berniei-Sanders-Progressives-Largest-Facebook-Grou_California-Democratic-Party-190827-103.html?fbclid=IwAR2OjcluONJmkNMbM6YF8z_BxrdIr-vT1Z8ZIokuv9XT4FWBUasI7jEGlWI