The clowns at Newsweak insist their new doctrine is infallible, while jesuitically concocting arguments that their past journalism wasn't wrong in the sense of, well, you be the judge:
The implication [Sen. Inhofe] draws is that if you're not worried about being trampled by a stampede of woolly mammoths through downtown Chicago, you don't have to believe what the media is saying about global warming, either.
But is that the right lesson to draw? How did NEWSWEEK—or for that matter, Time magazine, which also ran a story on the subject in the mid-1970s—get things so wrong? In fact, the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate." Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s...
The writers of Newsweak surely have their tongues in cheek when they continue with adverbial assurance that this time they are right because of "vastly," "incomparably," and "infinitely," yadda, yadda, yadda.
predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism.
But isn't Newsweak still working for the triumph of Communism? And aren't the Dems sharing that same dream? And aren't Newsweak and the Dems both convinced in the infallibility of Big Science and the absence of a higher power?
"Widespread scientific consensus" sounds like a majority vote, because Inhofe cites hundreds of studies and thousands of scientists who have not signed onto the latest scientific hoax, even though the fellow who invented the internet, Al Gore, insists that Global Warming is a fact!
Just so.
No comments :
Post a Comment