It is ironic that papers and persons reviewing science and scientists do not hold themselves to the same standards of transparency that they demand from same. The Economist uses several "hot button" terms, words which were NOT used in the report, to damn and to inflame emotion regarding the 'climate data' fiasco.
I will not use the suffix -gate regarding the climate data leaked emails. That's asinine and not at all the same. "That's not what the word means." Watergate involved the violation of laws, and then a coverup of the violation of laws through yet another illegal act. The destruction of evidence was but the final step for Nixon.
Nothing like that happened here. In fact, more than 90% of the data was already released as public information.
The newspapers have spun this into a very emotion-driven, logically fallacious, and stupidly reported political issue. Why? Because NEWSPAPERS ARE CORPORATIONS, and corporations drive/pay/control politics.
The more scared and angry you are, the more you vote the way they want you to, and the less you complain about having your civil rights dissolved.
Good job America, good job at being suckers.
RE: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15826384
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)