Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I mentioned this the other day. He finds stuff. You listen and you hear about it. Then you look it up and when you talk to people about it you don't mention that you heard it on Rush Limbaugh; though I will in this case because I'm providing an example. This time I was riding around, turned on his show, and heard him chuckling about something saying that polar bears are starving because there's too MUCH ice. I never heard his full take on it. But a few days later, just now, I went ahead and Googled to see what he was talking about.

And here it is:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/bar ... ring-ice-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A bonus is that the evolutionary biologist referenced in the story calls earlier studies leading to the conclusion that polar bears were starving due to global warming into question. For example:

“Polar bear biologists were finding some bears quite thin and found a population decline,” she said, which they attributed to melting summer ice caused by global warming.

“But the biologists were not there to see the thick [spring] ice. All they saw was thin bears,” she pointed out. “They blamed the poor condition of the bears on summer ice, instead of acknowledging that it was likely the condition of the ice in the spring that was the cause of the problem.”

“Female [polar bears] with cubs having trouble feeding are one aspect of the repercussions of thick ice,” Crockford added. “The other repercussion is that other bears, instead of hanging around and starving, probably left the area. They could have gone to the Chukchi Sea, which is located between the U.S. and Russia near the Bering Strait.”

Chances are I'd have never heard about that interpretation of the situation if it weren't for Rush Limbaugh finding it and mentioning it on his show. And that kind of thing happens all the time when one listens to him.

I was expecting your shortest post ever.

JoltinJoe wrote:I was expecting your shortest post ever.

/thread

JoltinJoe wrote:I was expecting your shortest post ever.

That's an example of why the normal process is not to say that you found out about something by listening to him. There has been an extremely successful effort to demonize and discredit him. And the reason for that effort is because if people DO listen to him he is a threat to liberalism/progressivism.

He does find stuff. And he does routinely expose the absurdity of liberalism/progressivism. That's why it's important to make sure that people think there is something "wrong" about listening to him.

So CNSnews via Rush Limbaugh?

Dr. Susan Crockford.

Paid $750 per month by the "Heartland Institute" to "undermine" the credibility of IPCC reports.

Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports

$750 Susan Crockford 2.2 Terrestrial Animals University of Victoria

https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.gre ... Budget.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:Dr. Susan Crockford.

Paid $750 per month by the "Heartland Institute" to "undermine" the credibility of IPCC reports.

Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports

$750 Susan Crockford 2.2 Terrestrial Animals University of Victoria

https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.gre ... Budget.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah...I was taking a chance on CNSnews, but...

kalm wrote:So CNSnews via Rush Limbaugh?

That was just the first Google hit. If someone does the same kind of thing with CNS I can go to something like this:

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/04/18/ ... lar-bears/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I still originally heard about it as a result of listening to Rush Limbaugh's show.

aid $750 per month by the "Heartland Institute" to "undermine" the credibility of IPCC reports.

Now wait...you're going to cite Greenpeace saying that someone ought not to be listened to due to bias? Seriously?

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:So CNSnews via Rush Limbaugh?

That was just the first Google hit. If someone does the same kind of thing with CNS I can go to something like this:

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/04/18/ ... lar-bears/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's Susan Crockford's personal blog.

JohnStOnge wrote:

aid $750 per month by the "Heartland Institute" to "undermine" the credibility of IPCC reports.

Now wait...you're going to cite Greenpeace saying that someone ought not to be listened to due to bias? Seriously?

They just have a copy of the Heartland Institute's leaked budget.

It's their legit 2012 budget... doesn't matter where it's hosted.

Here it is on the Atlantic's website if that makes you feel better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ke/253165/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here it is on the Atlantic's website if that makes you feel better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ke/253165/

That one appears to be saying that a "leaked document" purportedly from the Heartland Institute is a fake. I'm not getting why you linked that.

Nevertheless this is the typical approach of the left. First they say that "Scientists all agree with the global warming thing." Then when some scientist says something that puts a fly in the ointment, they immediately set about trying to discredit that scientist. Ad hominem attacks.

JohnStOnge wrote: That one appears to be saying that a "leaked document" purportedly from the Heartland Institute is a fake. I'm not getting why you linked that.

You're confusing two documents.

The Heartland Institute confirmed the authenticity of most of the documents

Heartland has confirmed the provenance of most of the documents

But, not the "Climate Strategy" part. The budget is the part that they confirmed themselves.

JohnStOnge wrote:Nevertheless this is the typical approach of the left. First they say that "Scientists all agree with the global warming thing." Then when some scientist says something that puts a fly in the ointment, they immediately set about trying to discredit that scientist. Ad hominem attacks.

You do realize you started this post complaining of ad hominem attacks with an ad hominem attack on the left, right?

An example of the benefit of driving drunk is that if you have an accident it might not hurt as much.

That's Susan Crockford's personal blog.

And?

You do realize you started this post complaining of ad hominem attacks with an ad hominem attack on the left, right?

In a sense that's correct. But it's also just an observation. I could avoid saying that "this is what the left does" and just point out that your whole approach as well as Kalm's was ad hominem. You attack the source without really addressing the substance of the matter at hand. And, no, that's not an ad hominem attack. It's what you and Kalm did.

Kalm did it with CNS. You did it with the Scientist involved and the Heartland Institute. And that's not ad hominem argument. It's just objectively true.

Example of the benefit of having Alzheimer's is that you meet new people every day.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You do realize you started this post complaining of ad hominem attacks with an ad hominem attack on the left, right?

In a sense that's correct. But it's also just an observation. I could avoid saying that "this is what the left does" and just point out that your whole approach as well as Kalm's was ad hominem. You attack the source without really addressing the substance of the matter at hand. And, no, that's not an ad hominem attack. It's what you and Kalm did.

Kalm did it with CNS. You did it with the Scientist involved and the Heartland Institute. And that's not ad hominem argument. It's just objectively true.

...and not a one of the jellyklamdawgs attempted to disprove the hypothesis.

travelinman67 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
In a sense that's correct. But it's also just an observation. I could avoid saying that "this is what the left does" and just point out that your whole approach as well as Kalm's was ad hominem. You attack the source without really addressing the substance of the matter at hand. And, no, that's not an ad hominem attack. It's what you and Kalm did.

Kalm did it with CNS. You did it with the Scientist involved and the Heartland Institute. And that's not ad hominem argument. It's just objectively true.

...and not a one of the jellyklamdawgs attempted to disprove the hypothesis.

I've got too much on my plate to visit the arctic right now, besides, I'm not a scientist. But it's a safe bet that info coming out of Rush, the Heartland Institute, and CNS is inaccurate.

I'll leave it to John to to source better.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
...and not a one of the jellyklamdawgs attempted to disprove the hypothesis.

I've got too much on my plate to visit the arctic right now, besides, I'm not a scientist. But it's a safe bet that info coming out of Rush, the Heartland Institute, and CNS is inaccurate.

I'll leave it to John to to source better.

Your comfortable sourcing scientific theory from Gore, Pelosi, Boxer, Bloomberg and Huffpo...??!!!





No agenda there..

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:

I've got too much on my plate to visit the arctic right now, besides, I'm not a scientist. But it's a safe bet that info coming out of Rush, the Heartland Institute, and CNS is inaccurate.

I'll leave it to John to to source better.

Your comfortable sourcing scientific theory from Gore, Pelosi, Boxer, Bloomberg and Huffpo...??!!!





No agenda there..

Good god you're a dork.

I don't care for anyone you've listed and have stated as much many times. I might link to huffpost to start a conversation because they post articles from tons of sources and are usually one of the first hits in a google search. But I question everything I read, including the original source and stats. You might wanna try it sometime.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Your comfortable sourcing scientific theory from Gore, Pelosi, Boxer, Bloomberg and Huffpo...??!!!





No agenda there..

Good god you're a dork.

I don't care for anyone you've listed and have stated as much many times. I might link to huffpost to start a conversation because they post articles from tons of sources and are usually one of the first hits in a google search. But I question everything I read, including the original source and stats. You might wanna try it sometime.

Wait...you're not questioning the information or the source on the Palin thread...and certainly not attacking Huff-And-Puff-Po as a secondary source. However, your aren't bothering to research the information on this thread, but you are willing to attack the primary and secondary sources.

Not buying the lack of an agenda.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good god you're a dork.

I don't care for anyone you've listed and have stated as much many times. I might link to huffpost to start a conversation because they post articles from tons of sources and are usually one of the first hits in a google search. But I question everything I read, including the original source and stats. You might wanna try it sometime.

Wait...you're not questioning the information or the source on the Palin thread...and certainly not attacking Huff-And-Puff-Po as a secondary source. However, your aren't bothering to research the information on this thread, but you are willing to attack the primary and secondary sources.

Not buying the lack of an agenda.

Meh ... There's something's that don't require a second glance. I wouldn't challenge you for questioning Daily Kos.

Not to mention, the Huffpo article quotes Palin in her own words. I'm sure you see the difference between opinion and science.

So, then, applying the Kredibility Kredo of Klam, if the primary source is quoted, the source is Kredible?