Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (14584)	11/12/1998 2:21:00 AM
From: jbe	Respond to of 67261

Do you consider USA Today a newspaper? As for the Post, its search function is lousy. Does not pick up half the stories. I do not know enough about the dispute over global warming -- all that I know from reading the papers is that there has been a great deal of it. And also that there are a lot more than two sides to the dispute. Very hard to give everyone exactly equal time, And do not attribute too much to the number 17,000. After all, suppose 17,000 scientists had signed a petition protesting Einstein's theory of relativity? I do recall some sniping to the effect that some big industrialists, the oil companies in particular, were very much behind this theory, which may be one reason why some observers may have been a little leery of its scientific basis. But then, I can't say for sure. Never followed the debate that closely. jbe

To: greenspirit who wrote (14584)	11/12/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Yahoo! News section on Global Warming: headlines.yahoo.com The Kyoto Agreement on Greenhouse Gasses is garbage. It exempts China and other "tigers" that are heavy polluters. It'll just hasten the movement of manufacturing from developed countries to developing countries to evade the agreement.

To: greenspirit who wrote (14584)	11/12/1998 2:17:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Argentina, U.S. To Cut Emissions BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) - Rich and poor nations are signing an agreement to reduce global warming, in a broad effort to slash greenhouse gases. Argentina was the first developing country to seek to voluntarily cut greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States announced today that it would also sign the global-warming accord. However, the U.S. announcement was largely symbolic since the agreement must still be ratified by the Senate - something that is not likely anytime soon.< The problem I have with tree hugging liberal positions is that they are often reported by the press as forgone conclusions with, if anything, only a cursory mention that a debate over these issues exists. Regarding Global Warming, one certainly can by a search of various newspapers find articles referring to that issue's skeptics; but in the day-to-day grind of reality, as well as in the reporting of media, it seems to me the issue has been accepted as fact. Now we see countries, including our own, making agreements to reduce Global Warming when allegedly the issue is yet under debate. The article referenced above states: “Many scientists believe Earth is gradually warming because of these emissions. Critics say global warming scenarios have not been proven and that the cost of achieving the cuts in the pact threatens American industry.“ The statement is definitely biased, and is typical of the press. It gives weight to the pro-Global Warming argument by associating it with scientists, while failing to mention that a good deal of the critics are also scientists. Indeed the statement subtly implies that businessmen argue against Global Warming from concern for their wallets. A listing of headlines gathered within a snapshot of time is no way to prove media bias. It is the periodic “blingers” and subtle day-to-day attacks such as the one mentioned above made over an extended period of time that, to my way of thinking, reveal the bias of the media. How many times has the Washington Post claimed or implied (or allowed others to do so without serious challenge) that homosexuals are for the most part promiscuous, often prone to pedophilia and contracting the AIDS virus? How many times has it claimed or implied (or allowed others to do so without serious challenge) that religious fundamentalists are poor, bigoted and uneducated? A cursory reading of headlines does nothing. Neither does bringing up the notion that many media outlets are owned by so-called “conservatives”. On economic issues, the press perhaps marginally leans leftward, but on social and moral issues (and on some environmental issues) it is a veritable liberal propaganda machine. It is because reporters often subtly use liberal adversaries to make their point with little challenge, and because their articles are often made to end with hammering phrases uttered by the liberal advocate, that many people have judged the media infected with liberal bias. (gotta go)