Discussion on recent Bill Moyers show on propaganda leading up to Iraq War

Includes comments from two Knight Ridder reporters who were interviewed in the show.

read more | digg story

Advertisements

Bill Moyers Journal

Glad to see Bill back on PBS. Tonights show was all about pre-war press coverage. Everyone was on a mission to prevent them as being seen as un-patriotic. The winds politically were blowing that way in Washington D.C. and every beltway media outfit fell in line. As Bill Moyers points out the columnists, all of whom appear on television as experts on world affairs and the mid East, continue to prosper. Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, Bill Krystol, Bush’s lead speech writer all continue to prosper. The Washington Post actually hired the dude that penned the line, “…the smoking gun that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud”. Where is our so-called ‘liberal’ media now? It really is true, as Bill Moyers says in tonights broadcast, “Being a pro-war pundit means never having to say you’re sorry”. Those guys can all rot for the sins they committed, helping the Bush administration get America to agree to the war in Iraq.

Hoo boy! The ignorati rule the earth

I don’t know how anyone who cannot fix a Macintosh computer could ever hope to fix a problem on a Windows PeeCee. The dipper into many domains is the master of none. I’ve mastered no domains, but I have learned a few tricks. That’s why people think I’m smart. I’m not smart, just lucky. And throw in the few tricks too.

Dialectical,… indeed?!

Let’s say you got a guy, some guy, a fellow who’s pretty well educated. He’s spent a lot of money on his education. And he’s a good student, worked really hard followed all the rules recommendations, didn’t take the lazy way out. Then say there’s this other guy, equally well-educated and has common interests with the first guy, right? So the second guy wants to associate with the first guy, but not in quite the same way as the first guy wants. For instance, instead of finding a common ground for both on which to agree, the second guy wants the first guy to always see the flaws in his logic. Or better yet, the second guy wants the first guy to always see the multitude, or dynamic interplay of interpretations of the common ground they share. There is no dogma, there is no reductionism. There can only EVER be the dialectic.

So now, the second guy, the dialectician, he gets annoyed when the first guy makes a grand sweeping, dogmatic, reductionist observation now, about anything. Doesn’t matter whether or not the first guy is in the common ground the guys share even. It could be anything, and the second guy is there loyal to his mission of spreading the gospel of dialectic discourse. And yet, the first guy still resists, he doesn’t play along, he will not concede to the first guy. He will not see the reason inherent in the second guy’s argument. As David Byrne was wont to say, “Well, how did we get here?” My guess is a highly educated individual can have things they like to do, and don’t like to do. Strange as it may seem to the second guy, one of those things the first guy may not like to do is constantly be schooled by the second guy. In dialectics there always this guest and host relationship, a pointing and counterpointing, a teacher and a student, a master and a slave. Well the first guy says, “I’m not going to play any of your reindeer games”. And that’s the end of the story. Without the first guy, the second guy is this raving lunatic, sitting by himself pointing at things and there’s no response. If a dialectic occurs in the forest, does anybody hear it? What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Great Global Warming Swindle

Martin Durkin has about as much credibility as any Holocaust Denial perpetrator, or more recently Kansas City School Board who wanted to discredit Evolution because it is considered a ‘theory’. Durkin can play these semantic games all night folks, and on into the next century but whither the children? Who will be the ultimate victims of the crimes we perpetrate now? Anyone who continues to argue that the variation in global temperature is natural, and proceeds to look at short, time scales is obviously not sampling enough data. A human time scale of say an adult would be around 72 years old depending on what country you live in. Meausring the rate of ‘natural’ temperature variation on that scale is capricous at best. That’s why so many climatologists have been digging ice cores at the South Pole. They need a bigger and more corroborated data set to determine how much fluctuation occurs ‘naturally’. And ice cores as such will move you well out of the ‘human’ time scale to the geologic time scale (thousands to millions of years). If a real scientist had produced this show in a format backed by real data, explained plainly it would be much more convincing. But throwing in all this crap about Sun spots and vague notions of scientists discounting things. That’s just typical YELLOW JOURNALISM practiced in a documentary form. Martin Durkin should be ashamed of himself as should Channel 4.

I would add that the ‘new’ evidence provided by the researchers at the Danish Space Center is itself the real hypothesis here, not Global Warming. I wouldn’t expect a group of researchers who are physicists doing research in the following:

Astrophysics
Research areas: 1) compact objects and the accretion flows associated with these and 2) the formation and development of galaxies and galaxy clusters and the cosmological implications herewith.
Solar System Physics
Research areas: 1) Planetary and interplanetary magnetic fields and 2) electrical discharges in the Earth’s upper atmophere.
Geodesy
Research areas: 1) maintenance and development of geodetic infrastructure, 2) development of new techniques for surveying and mapping, such as GPS and Galileo and 3) new space-based Earth Observation techniques.
Geodynamics
Research areas: 1) monitoring the northern cryosphere and 2) airborne mapping of the gravity field
Sun-climate
Research area: the link between Earth’s climate and solar activity through effects of cosmic rays on Earth’s cloud cover.
Remote sensing
The primary research areas within remote sensing are: Techniques
Aerospace Instrumentation
The focus is to develop concepts, designs, implementations and verifications of the advanced high performance instruments for use onboard spacecrafts.

These are NOT the people I would put ALL my trust in de-bunking what Martin Durkin has called the global warming scandal. A bunch of space researches who devote so little research to actual climate research? Give me a break. Who are these guys? They certainly are not the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), who by the way are a bunch of physicists that DO study the climate all the time. Space scientists are not geologists, meteorologists, climatologists, or biologists all of whom are collecting the data on a ‘geologic’ time scale that was so conveniently left out of big data shown in Martin Durkin’s program.

In future, everyone should go out of their way to deny Martin Durkin a forum for settling the score, and making scientists into the ‘bad guy’s as he has been quoted as saying. Otherwise the War on Science will continue as it has always done. Johns Manville conducted the War on Science for the Asbestos. Big Tobacco companies conducted the War on Science for the Cigarette industry. GM conducted the War on Ralph Nader when he dared right “Unsafe at any Speed”. It’s no different now except for Martin Durkin is the wolf in sheeps clothing trying to kill off Global Warming in the old ‘death by a thousand pin pricks method of Chinese folklore. As for me, this is the only time I will weigh in as it is the biggest waste of my time and your time dear reader to engage with these know-nothings over the validity of Global Warming. They are like doomed survivors of the Poseidon Adventure who go the wrong way and are never seen again. They deny at their own peril.

The sad thing is Adam Curry of Podshow.com has done an episode of his podcast (the Daily Source Code) where he talks about the show. Unfortunately he’s bought into the complicated argument and slick presentation contained in the Great Global Warming Swindle. Adam seemed to be willing to listen to an opposing view point, no matter how ludicrous just as long as it ‘looked’ convincing. Durkin’s program more or less says humans are not responsible for global warming. So I guess the logical conclusion is, DO NOTHING. Well Adam Curry once went on a big rant about a year ago as he an another podcaster, Madge Weinstein, battled back and forth over the issue of homophobia. Adam’s rant more or less came out as and I’m paraphrasing here, “There are do-ers and there are talkers”. I guess Martin Durkin gets credit for doing a documentary, but gets double-plus ungood talking points for alaying everyones fears over global warming and saying, “It’s not your fault”.