From: David Marc Nieporent
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:49:24 -0400
Organization: Jumping To Conclusions: http://tollbooth.blogspot.com
References: <email@example.com> <9t2cnSbwNs9w7oWiRTvUqQ@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nycmny1-ar7-4-3-086-244.nycmny1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net (220.127.116.11)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)
In article ,
"Mark Stahl" wrote:
>"David Marc Nieporent" wrote in message
>> "Mark Stahl" wrote:
>> >"David Marc Nieporent" wrote in message
>> >> Gary S. Simon wrote:
>> >> > "David Marc Nieporent" wrote:
>> >> >> The only thing that has ever been "falsified" was some documents
>> >> >> relating to Niger, and those were falsified by a Nigerien official.
>> >> > Let's stick to words like "lying", "misleading" and "misrepresenting"
>> >> > to describe the administration's efforts to sell its war to the
>> >> > American public so as to avoid offending David's semantic sensibilities.
>> >> If the British government said, "You know, we never said that," I'd say
>> >> that the Bush administration was lying. If the British government said,
>> >> "We said that, but only because Bush told us to say it," then I'd say
>> >> that the Bush administration was being misleading. If the British
>> >> government said, "We said it, but we didn't believe it," I might accuse
>> >> the Bush administration of being misleading.
>> >> But the British government is saying, "Yes, we said it, we believed it,
>> >> and we still believe it." How on earth was Bush lying?
>> >because he left out the part where our own intelligence community *didn't*
>> >believe it. a lie of ommission on the most serious scale, david.
>> Different people believe different things. The British government said it
>> had evidence.
>irrelevant. we knew that the evidence was forged. bush didn't say so. lie of
>ommission, plain and simple.
Bush didn't say that the Hitler diaries were forged, either. Since his
statements weren't based on the forgeries, why would he discuss their
validity? Should he have listed every informant that lied over the course
of the last decade and pointed out that their statements were false?
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein has recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Oh, by the way, this has
nothing to do with that, but some documents out there which show that Iraq
was trying to get uranium from Niger were forged."
>> >> > David's too bright not to recognize that the deceptive sales
>> >> > practices employed in this administration's selling of the Iraq war are
>> >> > quite similar to the its intellectual dishonesty on the domestic front
>> >> > (e.g. "average" family tax savings and censoring global warming out
>> >> > of an EPA report), but he's determined to be offensive in defense of
>> >> > the indefensible.
>> >> Indeed, I would argue that critics of the war are the ones engaging in
>> >> deception. The war was explicitly about _un_certainty as to Iraq,
>> >no, it was not. it was about iraq supposedly being a threat, which it
>> >clearly was not.
>> ...which is exactly what you would have said about Afghanistan, on
>afghanistan wasn't a threat to the US then or now. bin laden's terror
>network was already a well known threat, however.
Where was it based again? I forget. Which government supported it, and
which one did it support? If the US wanted to go after it, which country
would the US have had to fight? Remind me, because I can't remember.
>> >> and yet
>> >> they're pretending that the information being uncertain is an argument
>> >> against the Bush administration.
>> >a hunch isn't good enough reason to slaughter thousands of people, david.
>> >a bit of data which you know to be false is even worse justification.
>> You mean to free millions of people, right?
>i mean slaughter some and conquer the rest. i don't know of any who have
>been "freed" yet.
Well, go do some more reading on Iraq. Ask the Marsh Arabs whether they
feel free now.
>> But I'll defer to Tony Blair
>> on this point:
>> Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
>> will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we
>> will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible
>> for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am
>> confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong,
>> if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and
>> conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will
>> have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have
>> given leadership.
>> That is something history will not forgive.
>. nice words with little bearing on reality.
. Nothing like someone who won't listen.
>> >> Let's not even get into the intellectual dishonesty of pretending that
>> >> global warming is established scientific fact.
>> >very funny indeed. anthropogenic global warming is current established
>> >scientific consensus. pick up a scientific journal instead of Newsmax.com to
>> >see why. as a scientist i get a real kick out of politicians and lawyers
>> >telling us what the data mean.
>> Then perhaps you can explain why satellite data on temperature doesn't
>> match surface measurements.
>well, david, the fact of the matter is that satellite data *does* match
>surface measurements to the extent that there is any expectation that they
>need to match. in other words, they agree.
Well, Mark, the fact of the matter is that you're completely wrong. They
do *not* agree. The satellite data simply doesn't show the global warming
trends that the surface measurements do.
Perhaps if you read more science and less Newsmax, you'd know that. (Or is
the truth that you haven't read any Newsmax, and were just trying to
pretend that you knew what it said?)
>> Or why the majority of the observed warming in
>> the 20th century occurred in the first half of the century.
>what difference do you think that would make?
If the mechanism for gw were as it is purported to be, then we'd expect
increased gw in the second half of the 20th century, as so-called
greenhouse gases increased. It hasn't worked that way. The correlation
between the two doesn't fit the hypothesis.
>> Unfortunately for you,
>LOL.. more like unfortunately for *you*.
>> science isn't determined by polling -- not even when
>> the respondents are scientists -- but by hard evidence and _established_
>> Which there isn't, for anthropogenic global warming.
>except that there is.... as most experts who look at the data agree.
Of course, that's not true at all. Most activists who selectively look at
the data agree.
>> That's why the "consensus" for global warming is as reliable as the
>> "consensus" for global cooling 25 years ago.
>so you contend that because our understanding has increased over time that
>we should pretend that we can never know anything?
No. I contend that citing "scientific consensus" is an invalid scientific
approach. You need hard evidence, not "consensus." What makes you
arrogant enough to believe that our generation's "scientific consensus" is
accurate but the last generation's scientific consensus wasn't?
David M. Nieporent firstname.lastname@example.org