Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Real News comes to the Internets

From Pandabonium, we found a new news site:

Now that CNN, MSNBC, Fox and others have devolved into infotainment catering to the interests of corporate socialists (we get to broadcast, but you don't) and government spokesheads, it is nice that someone is using the Internet to get more points of view out there and more decent (read true) information. Hopefully they succeed in their mission to let us know what we didn't know about our world before (even if it is too scary, nasty, or sexy for eyes who wish to remain ignorant of consequences) so we can make better decisions.


Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if they can pull it off. It is frustrating to me that there is no full fledged news service that is not influenced in some way by a government or corporations. BBC and Aljezeera have more real news than most others, though obviously they have bias. At least in their cases one knows up front what that bias is.

Thanks for the heads up on this new service. It looks promising.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Comment from Pa've about "liberal bias" and plug for World News Daily in 5...4...3...

Swinebread said...

There is no liberal media, if there was we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Anonymous said...


OK, World Net Daily and Liberal BIAS!

Well, I don't know really, but as soon as the spot mentioned global warming you could generally sense what direction they are heading.

90% of all journalists are liberal democrats, even those on Fox News, so why should this be any different?

I think my favorite news program is now the 1/2 Hour News Hour on Fox NEws Sunday at seven. Its a laugh!

Overdroid said...

Fox doing a parody of News is redundant. Kind of like Bush pretending he's stupid to make a joke.

Is Global Warming automatically a political issue? I would think it's a scientific issue.

And even if 90% of all journalists are Democrats (an extremely dubious figure at best), that doesn't mean that the news has a liberal bias. The stories are decided by the people who pay them.

Anonymous said...

You can look at the statistics for who gave money to what political party to know that there is indeed a liberal bias. And yes, the number is about 90%. Global warming is a political issue because it has little scientific merit that man causes global warming. Its a big hoax. Global warming is caused by natural cycles in our solar system. Explain how the temperature on Mars and other planets is also increasing because of polution on Earth.

Don Snabulus said...

Luckily, the Real News folks are still free to create their site and we are free to support it or not as we choose. Let's be thankful for that.

Given that the rest of media in the US is privately owned (other than PBS), complaining about a liberal bias on TV news is basically complaining about capitalism, which doesn't make much sense for a supposedly conservative person.

Also, for those who hate Fox News and Rupert Murdoch and the garbage spewed by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, now would be a good time to stop watching stuff like The Simpsons, House MD, Family Guy, That 70s Show, Fast Food Nation, and Napoleon Dynamite. Yet we all keep watching Rupert's network and his movies.

Like the vast majority of climate scientists, my old glaciology prof believes the evidence is that fossil fuel emissions are causing a potentially damaging amount of warming on earth. Can they proveit? No, there are too many variables, but if you are standing on a train track and you see a light in the distance coming toward you, you can't prove it is a train, but get off the damn track anyway.

Finally, the top 1% of the powerful in this country and elsewhere have found a simple truth about keeping the spotlight off of their corruption and control of the people who aspire to something better: divide and conquer.

If you look at the top candidates for 2008, their foreign policies are nearly identical and their being under the thumb of certain corporate interests is nearly total. Yet everybody would still rather joke about the TRULY independent candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who have the interests of you and me at heart as well as the American Republic over the interests of the principles of ExxonMobil and Viacom.

Myflagisbiggerthanyourflag said...

Let's hope it's an improvement over those pinko candy ass liberals at FOX.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Global warming is caused by natural cycles in our solar system. Explain how the temperature on Mars and other planets is also increasing because of polution on Earth.

I tried doing a Google search to find info on this phenomenon, since you also mentioned it on your presidential campaign site. The leading sources my search came up with were:

- World Net Daily - at the top of the list taking the story and running with it for all it was worth. (surprised?)
- A whole lot of conservative blogs - also making this one story (Yes, it is apparently one story...or at least mainly based on one study) out to be the "ultimate proof" they need to put the global warming argument to rest.
- A right-wing militia site - also declaring this as "proof" that we need to increase rather than decrease CO2 emissions.
- The Times of London - whose article also cautioned that studies have shown the warming on Mars and Jupiter are apparently caused by very different mechanisms than those of Earth. After all, both planets are very different from Earth in just about every area (size, atmosphere, seasons, length of day, length of year, etc.) so neither the sun nor some kind of gravitational anomaly would affect them the same way as the Earth.

I had a lot of trouble finding any real scientific sources about it. Even college sources (other than the Duke U. study that started it all) were few and far between. Here's one interesting blog article about the topic, though. The writer seems to agree with what the Times of London article said.

Anonymous said...

Evidence of increased solar activity including sun spots and solar flares indicate that the sun does play a role in global warming. My point is that compared to the activity of the sun and our solar system, man's contribution counts for very little.

I have heard that another report states that the reason we have glacial melting is due to the large amount of sot in the air. The soot lands on the ice packs and increases its absorbtion of light.

However, there have been a large number of forest fires in the last couple years, much more than normal. Pollution from cars and power plants generates much CO2 but not very much soot.

Again, the cause appears to be a natural phenomenon.

My over all point is that climate science has been hijacked in the name of getting votes. There is no politician, liberal or conservative, who actually intends to do anything to crimp our eceonmy by proposing absurd legislation based on carbon credits.

We're a little off topic as far as this post goes, but I might as well finish. Al Gore is promoting carbon credits because he just happens to be a member of the board for the company that is selling them. He is simply taking money out of his front pocket, and putting it in the back.

Don Snabulus said...

I blame Moody Minstrel's flatulence.

Overdroid said...

I was on the fence about Global Warming until the National Academy of Sciences released their Joint Declaration on Global Warming. Scientific method isn't the same as a bunch of dipshits in voting booths as far as making decisions is concerned. Scientists look at data, hard facts, and empirical information. As a community they don't make snap decisions, or decisions based on political niceties. Are you a scientist Pa've? If you are then maybe you have something to say, but if you aren't you have to realize that almost the entire scientific community disagrees with you, despite any sources you might state - those sources are in the minority in the scientific community at large.

The kicker to all this is that the scientific community might gather more information that says we AREN'T causing global warming. Some people (ignorant people) might consider this as a reason to discount scientific input into the debate, but in fact the opposite is true. The scientific point of view is more accurate for exactly this reason, BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO REVISION. It's people who have dogmatic beliefs that don't change even when the facts show differently that are more often wrong. Science is the only human system of knowledge that has a procedure in place for the evolution of its beliefs.

And I really could give a flying fuck who benefits from Global Warming, or who supports it, or which political party edorses it. The scientfic community says we should be concerned, and that's enough for me to be concerned. I'm sure if the NAS released a report that an asteroid was going to hit the eart in 50 years, and most scientists agreed this was the case, and most life on earth would be wiped out, you would probably be shitting a brick.

Swinebread said...

Yeah and evolution isn't real either 'cause god told me.

Well, my version of God.

The Moody Minstrel said...

I blame Moody Minstrel's flatulence.

Oh, now you're getting personal!

Must be all the beer and chocolate I've been enjoying now that summer vacation has begun...all one week that I get (unlike the 6 weeks that my students get).

The Moody Minstrel said...

My point is that compared to the activity of the sun and our solar system, man's contribution counts for very little.

Source (since my Google search didn't turn up squat)?

Swinebread said...

I read story once that the world is flat, so all the scientists in the world are stupid because they say it’s round.

Don Snabulus said...

I agree that the sun is the biggest contributor to global warming.

Stupid sun.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Right. Forget about reducing hydrocarbon emissions. Let's ban the sun.