Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
It would show candor that is completely lacking if Rupert called his material "Fox Op-Ed" or "This Is What Rupert Thinks" instead of Fox "News"... AND if the viewers recognized it as such. It's way too hard to locate objective reporting.
|
You could say that about anything on television. They're called "programs" or "shows" for a reason.
However, that alone is not a reason to completely discount a fact or interpretation. You cannot completely disregard what is presented on a show simply because you happen to dislike the political leaning of the producers or owners of that show. If I watch television at all (which is pretty rare to begin with), I prefer to watch Fox News, but I will watch CNN if I think that Fox News is being too one-sided about something. Same goes for my news surfing that I like to do. I severely doubt that the Fox haters here practice the same balancing act with CNN or MSNBC.
As for this increasingly tedious AGW argument, Neil and I can produce any manner of YouTube video showing either side concerning AGW. He can drag any other scientific find into this discussion, and I'll show that it took the ability to more accurately perform measurements that proved said scientific find. For instance, in the case of plate tectonics, it took the ability to be able to measure movement of centimeters per year before that theory could be proven. But this is getting tedious.
All I can say here is that you can't use pleas to authority to push a scientific theory. You can't use the "qualification card," either, as the vast majority of scientific discoveries were made by what Neil would consider to be "unqualified" people. You can't use emotional appeals to push a scientific discovery. You can't simply wave away skeptics as "deniers" or "stupid" or "ignorant," either. All of these tactics are more in line with keeping the faith of a religion, or pushing one side of a political discussion, and are not valid scientific arguments.
You have to be able to argue a scientific theory on its merits, and show the inapplicability of alternate explanations and conflicting data which would otherwise disprove said theory. Otherwise, we'd have long ago rejected the Solar model, manned heavier than air craft, spaceflight, electricity, and even Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity.