While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a
privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
- You must reach a Gulch score of 10. You can earn points in the Gulch by posting content, commenting, or by other members voting up your posts.
- You may upgrade to a Galt's Gulch Producer membership to immediately gain these privileges.
Your current Gulch score:
It used to be that the media's primary purpose was to hold the government accountable and criticize them when they proposed legislation that curtailed civil liberties. Now they are one of the most egregious violators of civil liberties as they stalk peoples' houses, release private information, engage in political targeting, and fail to give away their "sources" for criminal investigations.
No, not The Three Stooges: They did honest work. .
https://youtu.be/R48KMbOOR-A
Agreed , It is called conflict of interest.
If a climate is a defined 30 year average of weather events,temps ,precipitation , jet streams and so on... How often can a climate change? and when can it be determined that a change has occured?
Plus, that fight may have included all the weather stations being relocated to paved areas in the cities; now, if you want to measure the effects of cities in that local environmental temperature then good but those measurements do not reflect the norm.
Both arguments, in my opinion, do not pass muster...face it, they screwed your pooch!
The Immoral Statists have to go. Expose the deciet
Unfortunately, it's not true.
NYT Reporting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/sc...
Washingon Post Reporting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...
The same AP story printed in those outlets:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...
You can learn a lot more from reading this real coverage of it, which doesn't have sentences like "Now get ready to be shocked."
The interesting thing about Julie Kelly's commentary is she takes it as an unstated assumption that everyone starts with a desired answer and cheers evidence that supports it gets unnerved by evidence opposed to it. It's like she cannot even conceive of just seeking the truth and purposely blinding data to avoid even subconscious bias. As Asimov said, The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'. People who start from a position of wishful thinking will never experience that.
"No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say"
I no longer trust any "real coverage" by the mainstream media, even if their writing style is more to my liking.
It's like being paid to keep proving that the earth is the center of the universe.
Theoretically speaking, had there been a President $hillary, Loretta Lynch would be placing any free-thinking Galileos under house arrest. . .
AS THE PLANET WARMS, DOUBTERS LAUNCH A NEW ATTACK ON A FAMOUS CLIMATE CHANGE STUDY
washington times (gag)