The Bias of Liberals, Again
Oh, the horror...
Amy Ridenour (of the NationalCenter.org) posts an e-mail she received from a college student who was horrified that Ridenour's "official sounding" website was, in fact, part of the vast, right wing conspiracy. This student complained: "I noticed that Envirotruth was sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which sounds like a some sort of government office, but I was appalled when I realized it was a conservative propaganda group!"
Now, let's break this down:
First, the college student claims that she was looking for unbiased information. Of course, unbiased information of this sort can only be garnered from government sources. Ridenour's site sounded erroneously like "some sort of government office." Amy Ridenour dryly responded that this student was "shocked to find that not every aspect of the policymaking arena is controlled by the federal government."
Second, the student utterly rejects the credibility of the Envirotruth site. In her mind, it's merely a "conservative propaganda group." Therefore, I assume that this student believes that Envirotruth is biased. Yet, when governmental agencies fund scientific research from tax dollars, doesn't this create a biased relationship between the two -- a bias favoring the continued existence of the bureaucracy?
I have looked at the Envirotruth website, which contains shockingly biased, right-wing articles, such as one written by advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Andrei Illarionov. In an article also printed in the Financial Times, Mr. Illarionov wrote this concerning the global warming myth:
Why spend so much blog space on this silly e-mail? Unfortunately, it parades the ignorant biases of the modern left -- most notably the blind acceptance of anything-government, and the failure to even consider a contrary point of view.
Amy Ridenour (of the NationalCenter.org) posts an e-mail she received from a college student who was horrified that Ridenour's "official sounding" website was, in fact, part of the vast, right wing conspiracy. This student complained: "I noticed that Envirotruth was sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which sounds like a some sort of government office, but I was appalled when I realized it was a conservative propaganda group!"
Now, let's break this down:
First, the college student claims that she was looking for unbiased information. Of course, unbiased information of this sort can only be garnered from government sources. Ridenour's site sounded erroneously like "some sort of government office." Amy Ridenour dryly responded that this student was "shocked to find that not every aspect of the policymaking arena is controlled by the federal government."
Second, the student utterly rejects the credibility of the Envirotruth site. In her mind, it's merely a "conservative propaganda group." Therefore, I assume that this student believes that Envirotruth is biased. Yet, when governmental agencies fund scientific research from tax dollars, doesn't this create a biased relationship between the two -- a bias favoring the continued existence of the bureaucracy?
I have looked at the Envirotruth website, which contains shockingly biased, right-wing articles, such as one written by advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Andrei Illarionov. In an article also printed in the Financial Times, Mr. Illarionov wrote this concerning the global warming myth:
Kyoto is scientifically unsubstantiated. Climate change is an inalienable feature of Earth. But it is not proved that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes changes in global temperature. Variations in energy flow from the sun determine our climate much more than anything else, including emissions of greenhouse gases. Historically, global temperature has fluctuated more than the increase of 0.6° Celsius over the past 100 years cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In the past, Earth's climate was warmer, the global temperature rose faster, sea level was higher, floods were more severe, droughts lasted longer and hurricanes were more devastating than they were in the 20th century. Even during Roman and medieval "climatic optimums", when virtually no fossil fuels were burned, temperatures were higher than today. Climate change is real, but it is caused by forces of nature, not of humankind.
Why spend so much blog space on this silly e-mail? Unfortunately, it parades the ignorant biases of the modern left -- most notably the blind acceptance of anything-government, and the failure to even consider a contrary point of view.
