Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
|
Keep churning it out, Neil. Every time you present your idea of what a scientific source is, it becomes more and more obvious that all of your "sources" have a political bent or agenda associated with them.
Out of curiosity, I checked the link for the "Union of Concerned Scientists". It is readily apparent from their website that this is an activist group seeking to recruit wanna-be activists and donors. With no surprise, it is based right near your locale, in Cambridge, in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts (one of the most Liberal communities in one of the most Liberal states in America).
Does the name of the organization imply that scientists who are not members are
unconcerned? Of course it does. Would scientists who are skeptical or do not agree be welcome in its ranks? Of course not. Isn't it blatantly obvious that this is a political organization, not a scientific one? Now try to pass this off as an unbiased group. Who here do you think will believe you other than those who your fellow activists?
And the rest of your sources are usually from NPR (National Propaganda Radio) or PBS, both of which are very Left-leaning, politically.
I suggest that everyone read this link:
Union of Concerned Scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Accurately stated, this organization is nothing but a collective of propagandists who call themselves scientists.
The problem Neil, is that you think that the average person is incapable of distinguishing between an organization that has
an admitted agenda of advancing a political policy (that is notably Leftist) and one of scientific inquiry. I think anyone can see it for what it is, one it is exposed.
Now "science" has become the handmaiden of the political Left.
Just don't call it "science". Let's call it what it is: PROPAGANDA masquerading as science and used as a rationalization to support a political agenda.