Dr. Holdren might have added that the denial movement thrives on selective, out-of-context Quotes of the Day.In the Democracy Now! interview, Holdren goes on to say, "...if you have 3,000 scientists working for years and producing a report that says our considered opinion is the climate is changing by this much, it’s changing this fast, it’s having these effects, and you have two or three so-called denialists or a few small think tanks, some of which were certainly funded by Exxon, saying the opposite, they get equal time. The deniers get equal time in the newspapers, on the television.""Another problem is that a denier can tell a lie in a single sentence that takes a scientist three paragraphs to rebut, but the scientist never gets the three paragraphs in the sound bite culture that our media represent. And so, the denialists, even though they are small in number, they have no credible arguments, very few of them have any scientific credentials, get attention out of all proportion to their credentials, the merit of their arguments, and that delays the generation of public understanding and political will to do the things we need to do to address this challenge."
Whoops, I didn't close my html properly, so I will try it again. My apologies.Thank you for the opening. Dr. Holdren would like the media to completely ignore the 30,000 scientists who disagree with the theory of man-made global warming. Dr. Holdren apparently does not believe that the media should even acknowledge those scientists existence, let alone allow them equal time. By the way, equal time by Dr. Holdren's standards would amount to over 10x's the media time for the petition signers than is given the hoaxers. I also couldn't find the list naming the 3000 scientists that Dr. Holdren refers to in the article, so I am forced to assume that they do exist and aren't part of Dr. Holdren's fantastic imagination. I'm afraid that Dr. Holdren is not fooling me and he is not fooling the American public. Just like with Dr. Hansen, Dr. Holdren's calls to shut down all debate only makes the hoaxers side look even more suspicious. BTW, you might have noticed that I included a link to the complete article so that people would be able to see the context. I considered picking it apart piece by piece, but there was so much wrong with it, I only chose the one sentence
Post a Comment