jryan

I was making a joke, man. But going back to your news habbits I would suggest broadening your horizons a bit. You get good information even from sources you hate, and you should know about some things even if they don't particularly interest you.

Because, as I said, the editors find them interesting or their story important. As such, an editor's story sense, informed by his own beliefs, lead to biased reporting. I am sure given the choice between a CEO imbezzeling $20million and a discovery of $20 million in welfare fraud many editors will run the story that best supports their world view. Anyone would. If you had to choose which of those stories to lead with which would you choose? For now I will let Jon Stewart do the work. Ok, I'll also throw in this clip of the slimeball smirking his way through an attack on a 17 year old girl. Yes, as I said, it's called "Fox News"... heard of it? Qualify. This from your article... On this planet in 1992. It has only changed slightly since then. As of October of last year it was 40% Conservative and 20% Liberal. Because you don't like the 41/17 split? So you knock me for a NYT article that reports on a Freedom Forum study and then throw in a Fair.org article? Here is the Washington Post, five days after the election, admits it gave Obama an easy ride. Gee, thanks! Do a similar search on "NYT admits bias" and you will see numerous stories in just this past election cycle where the NYT admits they made questionable decisions not running ACORN stories, failed to report on known issues with Van Jones, giving a special price to MoveOn.org in it's page ad.. and that their initial defense was also wrong (it wasn't a standby ad). John Carroll, former editor of the Los Angeles Times sure thinks his paper has a bias problem. And so on. Save for Carroll, these aren't self discoveries, but rather obvious signs of omission bias that they eventually have to answer to. Qualify. Qualify. So you get better news by not reading any news? Are you engaging in intellectual alchemy? Are those positive or negative comments? Are they from news stories or pundits? A simple google serach like that, while time consuming I am sure, is pretty worthless in proving bias or lack-there-of. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How strange. you last post is slamming me for not following up on arguments... then your very next post is "I'm not going to follow up on your arguments". I simply addressed your transcripts that you looked up to help your point and provided transcripts of my own. I asked you to go find examples of CNN being too forgiving to conservatives because your initial claim had no coroborating evidence. You would have asked no less of me. Come to think of it you actually ridiculed me for not providing evidence in your last post, too. Not based on the evidence you provided, no. Would you say they let Democrats get away with falsehoods? No, I provided the reasons why I question Hanson in the GISSTEMP thread. There are even more developments on Hanson since then, by the way. And no, I won't accept your CNN assertion becuase you followed up a gratuitous assertion with faulty evidence... why on Earth would I accept your assertions under this conditions?

So does CNN call Democrats to task on their claims that are not supported by the CBO? How is this different than Democrats claim that the Health Care bill would be paid for with "$500 billion saved in Medicare fraud over 10 years" and other pie in the sky predictions? Also, that CBO blog is reporting an $11 billion reduction in gross US health care cost in 2009 while the $54 billion over 10 years is in the federal budget deficit savings due to cost reduction in Medicare and Medicaid alone. Those are two different numbers entirely. What is the CBO estimate on the total cost savings in the US health care industry over 10 years? Absent that number we can multiply $11 billion x 10 to get $110 billion which is within range of John Kyl's claim. It may not be perfect but it's at least a direct comparison. I could also easily assume that if tort reform reduces federal health care expense $54 billion over 10 years then the cost reduction over the entire health care industry would be far more than $54 billion. But it's not like CNN doesn't treat those on the left with kid gloves.... How about last September's interview with Hugo Chavez? Read the spew that is coming from Hugo Chavez and the limp responses from King. or In this transcript you have Dean making claims about the reaosn for Health care reform while Blitzer asks no meaningful questions on Dean's assertions. And I will admit that my two examples and your two examples mean nothing.. but as I stated, your call of bull on Kyl's claim and your evidence to the contrary don't sync up. Which is funny because health care reform is sold on the very same sort of fatalism. The economy will be destroyed without reform. But as far as Hatch's claim, it is hard to argue against his point given that Obama, Barney Frank and other leading Democrats have expressed interest in working towards a single payer system, and there is a large portion of the Democrats base that strongly advocates the same. By your own HHS figure you can cut 5.6 million off the top of that misleading 45.8 million as they are illegal aliens.. that reduces the figure to 40.2 million. A further 6.9 of those uninsured declined health care coverage... so 33.3 million, really.... Further from the HHS 46% of that 45.8 million worked full time and make an average of $63,000 annually. Assuming all of those families are working full time in jobs that offer no health benefits, the can go to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com and do a quick pricing for insurance for their family. I did a quick search for me (family of 4) in my area and found numerous plans available for under $200 a month, less than $7 a day (with a daily wage of $172.48. (by the way, using that handy tool I found that a 20 year old college student can get a policy from Aetna for $49.00 a month! Or $149/month for 0 deductible/ $0/office visit) At this point lack of insurance becomes a choice. I don't think that they should count in the uninsured since it is by choice. That would leave my estimate at 17.98 million uninsured using your HHS statistics. That is a hell of a lot closer to the 10 million than the 45.8 million figure you are claiming. I could even claim overlap in those groups and do a straight 50% reduction, (22.9 million) rather than an aggregate 61%, and the 5,000,000 claim by Kyl is STILL closer than your 45.8 claim. Or, if you look at the break down of a claim made by Fred Thompson at factcheck.org you will see that claiming the 45.8 million is not at all accurate when your interest is in the chronically, rather than willfully, uninsured. Note also that a full 9.1 million of the 45.8 million have family incomes over $75,000. according the FactCheck. This is using your entirely non-critical evaluation of the 45.8 million. As you can see from the actual numbers the 45.8 million can easily be found to be at least double the actual number of chronically uninsured. I haven't forgiven Fox news, I only argued that it was inevitable and that the net effect was news agencies more aware of their own biases. As was already stated, this is opinion, but I do provide sources I find to be reputable, and I even admit when I have misread a source. The trouble is, no debate can happen when only one side gets to determine what is and isn't a reputable source. All that is is controlling the message. I do question sources when I think there is a valid reason to do so, but I do provide documentation for why I question the source. I do defend my claims, Bascule. I also comment on your claims. Thta is what debate is. But if I make a statement and get 3 or 4 responses don't be surprised if I don't comment on all of them, or if one of yours is lost in the shuffle. I have tried to back track and respond to posts when it is pointed out to me that a statement has gone unanswered... even when that person makes the argumentative and wholly incorrect assertion that I am avoiding their question on the grounds of it's unquestionable and unassailable logic. Ad hominem.

This is complete rubbish if climate is driven predominantly by cyclical forcings. It is not tortured and faulty logic given that the reason we even care about AGW is that it is abnormal, if AGW resulted in variations within accepted natural limits, even if anthropogenic, then their is no reason to be concerned. It is also important because the basis of the entire run-away warming theory is that the climate system can no longer self regulate due to anthropogenic influences. If it CAN regulate then whether or not AGW is true is irrelevant and the study returns to being an academic exercise that no longer requires a heavily funded IPCC, Cap-and-Trade, etc. etc. Also, if "the best science" says that the last 150 years of warming is from anthropogenic CO2 GHE then what would the Earth's climate trend have been absent anthropogenic CO2? Stasis? Cooling? By your argument you have ruled out warming.

You are claiming that the 15 year claim isn't true because it's wrong on longer time scales. That is like saying that an apple isn't an apple because oranges are oranges. And is the warming significant over even longer time scales? Jones has an interesting statement there (emphasis mine): So if we have too few paleoclimatic records to establish SH and Tropical climate during the NH MWP then what exactly do we know about paleoclimate at all?

My point was that you are saying that you watch biased non-news in a thread discuss whether a new organization is in fact news. It would be like me saying I don't read news papers, I get my print journalism from the Onion.

And again, the irony persists. Your own reporting has a liberal bias. Also it would help if you provide sufficient evidence of the CNN deference toward conservatives to establish your claim of the carte blanche they are supposedly giving conservatives. It is a common misconception for the far right and far left, though. The far right sees anying left of them, even moderate and coservative views, as liberal... and the same is true for the far left.

You do see the irony in this accusation, don't you?

Not everyone believes that the moderation of cable news is a bad thing. As the Journalism.org article shows, the journalism field is actually heading to an actual equilibrium as opposed to the 60/15 split of the 90s. I wouldn't doubt that you see that as a bad thing, but not everyone... or even not most see it as you do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And ironically they are the least journalistic of all of them and don't count as news.

Oh, I'm not saying Fox's bias is coincidence, I think it was specifically founded for the purpose of giving conservative journalists a voice... but I am not demonizing them for it either because in 1996 when Fox was founded it was past due. I don't think it was possible by that time for CNN, the LAT or NYT to self regulate it's increasingly left message. Some have even argued that the conditions at these news agencies were a direct result of the journalism graduates of the heavily liberal 60s and 70s college campuses who were replacing the more conservative editors of these papers in the 80s and 90s. I don't know that it is possible for them to have seen their own bias at the time. Once you and everyone you know are doing it it seems less like bias and more like common sense. I do see, however, to liberal delight everywhere, that the necessity for Fox news is waning. I think that the old guard is actually getting the message hammered home to them on a daily basis in ratings and distribution numbers. But I think those who truly hate Fox news as the bulwark of conservative reporting that it is are really dreaming of a return to the untenable conditions of late 90s news reporting. They will forever fail to realize that the existence of Fox has been a net positive for news reporting in general even if they do not get some stories right, and have an hour a day dedicated to Beck and Hannity. The internet abounds with laundry lists of biases from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the NYT, the LAT, WashPo, and on and on... but it has always been so. If people want the closest thing to truth that is out there they need to listen to the opposition as well as those they agree with. It isn't all lies and they agree on the specifics more than they don't. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And I am saying that for all your self-adulation you are not doing your job as well as you think if you can't see the bias in CNN, MSNBC, The LA Times, the New York Times and so on. You mean fraud like the CBS Bush Memo, or like CNN running the picture of the scary "White" Tea Party activist with a rifle... that was actually a black man who's head they had cropped out of the picture? That kind of fraud? I'm fairly certain that all media outlets believe they are unbiased. I am also equally certain that all media outlets are wrong in that regard. I think what Fox does is closer to hypocritical than knowing lies. But I don't see CNN or MSNBC or numerous other sources stepping up to the plate to claim their own bias so I see no reason to expect Fox to do it. They find news that interests them.. your mileage may vary. You would assume wrongly then. I find great amusement in good irony. As I said, the liberal bias hasn't always been so, and it seems to have peaked some time in the 90s after a 30+ year rise. Level of education isn't a great indicator of political leanings, either. But courses studied sure is!

Well, we can easily assume a White House objection to the Feingold objection, can't we? I wouldn't imagine there would be a "Now that you mention it... I shouldn't have all these Czars!". Beck, Matthews, Olbermann, Cooper, O'Reily, Maddow, Hannity, etc. are all paid for opinion. I don't really understand the "Oh my gosh BIAS!" thrown at Fox. In reality we are all hard wired to see anything we disagree with as wrong, and attribute wrongness to bias. In reality, as far as news is concerned, the uproar over bias (be it Fox or CNN or MSNBC or CBS etc. etc.) is misguided as News has always been about bias. I wish I had the attribution to the quote, but there was a news editor back in the 70s who once said "There are 4 billion people and only 3 hours of daily news, we can't report on all of them". Bias is present in opinion from Beck's Czar rants to Coopers "teabagger" -- that a few hear ironically repeat while blasting Fox for bias -- to Matthews "thrill up his leg" and Olbermanns... well all of Olbermann -- who is probably the most frothing and hatefull of the bunch. But it also crops up in story selection -- editors pick the stories they find interesting -- and bias is even introduced in the simple process of selecting who will represent each side of a debate during network programming. "Tonight on Hannity we debate health care.... on the right we have Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, a distinguished doctor and statesmen, and on the left we have Al Sharpton"... Or, on the other side.. "Tonight on Anderson Cooper we will be debating President Obama's stimulous package... on the left we will speak with Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman and on the right we will have Anne Coulter" And so on. This has always been the case, the only thing that I have seen change in my lifetime is the choice of issues that are pushed from one side or the other. Journalists, like editors, also choose angles on stories that they find interesting. When there is an ideological difference between the journalist and editor the editor wins. Because of this, you will also find journalists gravitating to jobs where they are comfortable and where they feel their voice will be heard. There was a vacuum in the 80s and 90s of outlets for conservative journalists (if a person's first thought is "WELL GOOD!" then they are part of the problem). When Fox News came along there was an expected rush of conservatives to Fox news. While this cranked up the conservative message at Fox it also liberalized the rest of the media even further than it had already been. In 1997, a study done by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 61% of print journalists considered themselves Democrats to 15% Republican. This is part of a longer trend. It should also be noted that the trend towards more liberal media seems to have peeked in the late 90s (around the time Fox News was founded) and has been on the decline ever since. The split has gone from 61/15 to 40/25 according to a recent article at journalism.org. Of course there are ample grounds for a comparison of methodology between the two studies, but I would guess that trend is both fairly accurately displayed there and also appeals to our common sense observation over that time.

Well, except that it isn't just dumb gullible hicks that fear foreigners that have a problem with the Czar program. LA Times Article Sen. Robert Byrd Memo The Atlantic The Philadelphia Inquirer And so on. Trying to attribute a general dislike for Czars as people being xenophobic is not really helpful when most of the criticism out there is on a case by case basis, or is a general criticism that has existed on both sides of the isle for longer than Obama's year in office. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMy favorite moment of 2009 goes to the Huffington Post, though: “Mary Jo wasn’t a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan....We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history....[One wonders what] Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded. Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” — Melissa Lafsky, Huffington Post, August 27. .. ummm...

Hmmm, sorry Russians (sort of)... turns out that the second part of the story was indeed a hoax by someone by the name of David Booth who has been writing under the guise of "Sorcha Faal", a Russian academic, for a few years. y original source that got me looking in the first place was actually referencing the voluminous predator strikes on terrorist suspects in Afghanistan. The first search brought up the CIA/Russia report. So ignore the second part of this story. The Russians are innocent.. this time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, there is a longer argument there regarding the Afghan pipelines and Russia's energy domination in the region, but it has always been in Russia's best interest to damage US relations in the region and maintain good standing with the local rulers. I guess the Sorcha Faal story resonated with me as it would not be out of Russian character to engage in such propaganda.

I've already stated the lesson to be learned in my first post: That goofy "Reset Button" diplomacy does not work... but to add to that, the numerous concession that the US has made to Russia in the last year have had little effect on the fact that Russia and Putin still hate the US and don't mind spreading rumors about the bloodthirsty Americans.

The first story, as I said, is hard to find online, but after a few permutations of the search criteria I located the following two: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/30-5 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34644227/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ The second story is reprinted in numerous locations, but is not running on any major news sources I can find... which wasn't really my point. As I said, I don't believe the Russian report. I do, however, believe that a Russian report exists that is fueling this sub-story. For example it has been picked up here, and numerous other "alternative" sites are running it. Google Search

Before I start linking articles I want to point out that I in no way endorse the Russian conclusions on the whole incident... but I do think that the Russian response should be a clear lesson to Sec. of State Clinton, and to Obama, that cutesy "reset buttons" simply don't work. Part one of this story is a recent story that is gaining notice internationally (yet not domestically) that a group of CIA funded Afghan militia murdered Afghan school children. Whether this is actually true or not I can't say, but the UN and President Karzai seem convinced that it happened. That alone means it should be news worthy. Now enter the second part of this story... driven by a Russian Intelligence leak. According to the Russians, Obama ordered the immediate execution of the CIA militia thought responsible for the slaughter. Now, I don't believe the Russian story for a hot minute.. but it is a good example of what "Reset Button" Diplomacy will get you in this world. This is what Obama likes to call "A teachable moment". I hope he learns...

Well, that's the problem as I see it. Reid, Pelosi and Obama was 60 Democrats in the Senate and a Majority Democrat House and assumed that that meant plenty of support for their progressive agenda. There was obviously not a true majority support for Health Care Reform as invisioned by Reid and Pelosi or it would have been on Obama's desk ready to be signed by his August 2009 deadline.

Yeah, I find the "mandate" argument amusing given the ensuing response to congress' assumed "mandate". It could easily be argued that the landslide was on a platform of moderation and "anything but Bush"... but the ensuing leadership was a practical continuation of Bush policy and anything but moderate. In other words: the landslide may well have been a mandate for the Obama administration ... just not the mandate they thought it was. In much the same way that 2004 was a "mandate" for the Bush administration... just not the mandate they thought it was.

I am opposed to the death penalty and always have been. I see no value in it beyond the quick visceral appeasement of our darker needs for vengeance. I don't mourn the death of a criminal who chooses to take his own life or dies in a shootout with authorities... but once they are apprehended and behind bars their death is no longer about societies preservation but instead it is just another cold and calculated killing. Now I would say, however, that there are certain criminals that, once incarcerated, deserve 24/7 solitary confinement. Those with followers, for instance, who may still be lead to unspeakable things by their jailed leader. Some say that is a fate worse than death.. which doesn't really bother me. At least it is reversible to a degree if the person is later found innocent.

Does anyone else noticed a touch of irony in raising the debt ceiling along with reinstating paygo? If they were serious about the latter then they wouldn't need the former. Paygo by itself is a good idea, but it really doesn't change the basic schism between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. The former views paygo as a limitation on spending while the latter views paygo as a mandate for taxation. As such, I don't see where paygo will be all that helpful. Obama and the Congress (Republican and Democrat) are fiscally liberal... so I see paygo as higher taxes in our future. They just passed a $3.8 trillion dollar budget, after all... if you applied paygo to that budget that would mean an additional $1.5 trillion in taxes this year. So what happens next year? If the economy doesn't recover sufficiently to cover $3.8 trillion then we are looking at massive budget cuts (and layoffs in the public sector) or over $1 trillion in new taxes. That last option is especially troubling since they would be skimming an additional 10% of the GDP off the top while the private sector stuggles to make a profit. So it is layoffs in the public sector (budget cuts) or the private sector (much higher taxes)... what are the chances that Congress chooses themselves for the axe?

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but when Hansen makes a declaration on temperatures in a region and it is later found that data in that region has an obvious disjointed 0.3 step increase almost across the board it gives the lasting impression that Hansen does no checking of the data at all. I will grant you that NOAA and GHCN should do a better job of cleaning their data before Hansen gets his hands on it, but it is really all of their responsibility to check this data.. and Y2K error and Siberia are particularly easy to spot with even a casual check of the data. Three organizations tasked with collecting and evaluation temperature data missed a large error with a large portion of their data, and continued missing seeing it for 6 years. The data error in the US is less about the impact on the global temperature estimate (because it was weighted away) but is more about the pecentage of stations used that were effected. So I guess what I am trying to say is what good is credibility if the person remains careless? And can you even be credible if you show no signs of being more careful as a result?

Oh Bascule, you're such a card... Ok, I see my error there. I also see that GISTemp is graphing considerably warmer than HadCRUT for 7 of the last 10 years (by as between 0.05 and 0.075 in most cases.. no small amount given the scale of total change and confidence intervals). Here is the plot I did: HadCRUT-vs-GISTemp Relying on either one of them for a decade time slice is problematic, as is any 30 year trend line as it is all but meaningless for long term prediction (although the WTI mean line does help show aggregate agreement between datasets) and I still think that GISTemp is too high as is HadCRUT for that matter, just not as much. But I will grant you that they have a similar shape. And of course by playing with WoodForTrees.org I am, for the sake of argument, accepting GISS station selections. But I have already stated that I don't trust their station purging is resulting in data that is more accurate. We can discuss problems in HadCRUT (and it's subset CRUTEM) in another thread.

What? Yes. Take a close look at the graph you just provided. That "WoodForTrees Temperature Index" (what ever that is) adjusted the graphs with offsets to bring them all in line. GISTemp and HadCRUT both were given negative offsets to make them line up with the satellite data. To get Hansen's GISTemp in line with WTI (whatever that is), UAH and RSS the graph creator had to impose a whopping -0.24C adjustment to GISTemp, and -0.15C to HadCRUT. Ergo that graph is making my point, not yours. Hell, if GISTemp had a -0.24 adjustment applied to it that would really change the GISTemp record table, wouldn't it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I thought I had answered that before, but if that answer wasn't to your liking then sure, I will concede that that article was providing WMO weather related catastrophe data and world climate records in the same article for no particular reason while the IPCC, NOAA and WMO where preaching correlation between climate and hurricanes, and climate and floods, and climate and drought. BUt even though they were (and still are) claiming a connection between global warming and drought and hurricanes and floods, and they were reporting climate and hurricane and floods they weren't correlating in that article as much as they were commingling. The irony is that they, and most likely you, DO believe what I mistakenly read into the mesaage of that press release... but I'll let that one go.

Ok, follow me hear: When I stated that there were hybrids and carbon credits to buy I was talking about the very same mechanisms that you said were in place. But for all those mechanisms there was no aggregate decline in CO2 production in Europe between 2005 and 2007. And obviously the credits and cars cost money, and have no discernible effect on the CO2 numbers.

What underlying analysis? Admitting your mistakes doesn't lend to credibility. If a doctor admits that he has botched heart surgeries in the past that doesn't mean his honesty makes him a dependable heart surgeon. Faced with such a doctor it is prudent to thank the doctor for their honesty and find another surgeon. Wow, has your argument come to that? Which historical statements are you talking about? In general, historical statements of past temperature IS a prediction as we can always assume that future discovery will lead to a more precise value. For instance: Hansens January 2007 declaration of warmest years had an underlying prediction and confidence level. It turned out that further scrutiny found his modeled temperatures were wrong. I'm sure in January 2007 he predicted his claim would hold up longer than 8 months....