Slashdot Mirror

1. The article is NOT a news piece, it's an op/ed essay. Its author, Steven Milloy, is better known as the owner of JunkScience.com, and is presenting CFLs in the worst possible light.
2. The Bridges family is out $2000 (and this sensationalist story consequently exists at all) mainly because whoever they talked to at Maine poison control hotline went way overboard. EPA recommendations say that a small amount of mercury (5mg qualifies as small) can easily be cleaned up by a normal person without much trouble.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_M illoy

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

One large grain of salt coming right up

New weapons for the military-industrial-Congressional complex.

War mongeringly yours,
George W. Bush

Oh please, Lindzen is a well known shill, he holds his position because of his ability to attract industry funding, he has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper in the last 20yrs. He is however a regular contributor to the opinion pages of the WSJ even though what he says is contantly contradicted by the news section of the same paper.

I have no problem with you expressing your myopic political fantasy, but I do object to your pseudo-skepticisim, misinformation and attempts to pass off the pontifications of politcal hacks as credible science.

"By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true?"

The fact that I never claimed I could is probably as meaningless to you as any other fact that does not fit your dogma. I'm not saying that logic has anything to do with your rant, but it would seem a tad nonsensical to ask someone to point to a doomsday prediction that has already come to pass.

friendsofscience.org is a site expressly designed to counter anything that realclimate.org and ucsusa.org puts out. I.e, they are a complete shill. For a bit more on their background story, here are Sourcewatch and Wikipedia entries regarding them. Finally, pretty much everything on that site directly contradicts results of peer-reviewed articles. Why believe them over what people doing actual research in the field are saying? Or are you just grasping for straws?

**Me: Adjusts tin foil hat***

I think the point Gore was trying to make is that the tobbaco companies spent decades obfuscating and falsifying the science that "connected the dots" between tabacco and cancer, but there came a point for his farther when he could no longer (in good conscience) accept the innane arguments of the tabacco lobbyists.

Now in the above sentence substitute "fossil fuel" for "tabacco" and "climate change" for "cancer", it still makes sense.

The second hand smoke "connection" (I don't know of a quote) could be a somewhat obscure reference to a prominent tabacco lobbyists. A certain Fred Singer, who after loosing the good fight to preserve our freedom to blow smoke in someone else's face, went on to perform similar "scientific" duties for the fossil fuel industry in thier global war on common sense. It's also worth noting that in the 90's Gore fought hard for envronmental laws regulating second hand smoke, laws that have now become a part of common courtesy in western culture.

From my vanatge point on the other side of the Pacific, Gore strikes me as a nerd in a suit trying to educate a bunch of rednecks who are busy flinging turds at him and his slide show.

**Me: Removes tin foil hat***

OTOH: As you pointed out, there is also a fitting analogy where climate science is viewed as a medical diagnosis/prognosis.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blame lesbians, gays, abortionists and the ACLU for WTC attacks. He has also over the years blamed things like Katrina on them.

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Robertson appeared together with Jerry Falwell on the "700 Club" and declared that the American Civil Liberties Union along with feminists, gays and abortions were responsible for the attacks because their lack of religion had caused God's wrath:

        FALWELL: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

        ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

        FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

        ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

        FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

        ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system. [4]

Sourcewatch offers a bit of illuminating data. Since the site is built on media wiki software, I advise a gander at the article's history too.

What wasn't discussed by the Telegraph is that other associations the former professor has may be a motivating force for his hate mail. There are those who believe that astroturfing for Oil Corporations is not the most honourable of activities.

Sourcewatch offers a bit of illuminating data. Since the site is built on media wiki software, I advise a gander at the article's history too.

What wasn't discussed by the Telegraph is that other associations the former professor has may be a motivating force for his hate mail. There are those who believe that astroturfing for Oil Corporations is not the most honourable of activities.

Of course in the case of Linzden, it is helpful to remember that he charges "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

If they are, then we might possiblly be able to reverse them given reductions in CO2 output and carbon sequestering. If they aren't, then rising CO2 probably isn't helping and should still be reversed, and we might also look into other solutions for it. (bold mine)

And therein lies the problem. Deniers and self-styled fence-sitters like Lindzen are trotted out by pro-business economist institutes who refuse to accept that companies should ever have the need to be responsible. If there is no MMGW, then there is no need to lose profits by changing to less-polluting materials or processes. Lindzen himself has had no problem being trotted out on the bill of free market corporocrats or the energy industry.

If you don't believe him, all you have to do is to look back at ANY Slashdot article on global warming in the last 5 years to see an incredible amount of vitriol and hate directed at those like myself who are highly skeptical of "Global Warming" as a man-made phenomena.

We are called "Deniers", fools, idiots, trolls, tools, apologists for "big oil", ignorant, and any number of insults that you can imagine. Our intelligence is derided, our ability to research and think critically is questioned and our honesty is doubted.

and a scientific abstract that further explains their position here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Their science is sound

oreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.

Before throwing your hat in with this guy, you might want to research his motivations.
Also, he is a geographer, not a climatologist. Has written zero papers on climatology, has no experience in climatology.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal l

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). [2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. [3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]


The links to PR companies is what bothers me. PR companies have studied and refined group psychology for decades, centuries even if you look at how it evolved from greek study of rhetoric, and it has even gotten us into wars like the 1st gulf war ( http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html ). They make Hitler's propaganda team look ineffecient in comparison. Stalin would be envious of them. Having observed PR campaigns for decades, this is a very high level and well funded campaign. I see their tactic - attacking global warming advocates as emotional and vindictive. Basically taking the science out of global warming and turning themselves into victims, because everyone likes a victim. I wish I wasn't so skeptical and negative but having seen PR companies in action, this has all the hallmarks of a PR campaign. The best PR goes unnoticed, it's not obvious to those uniniatied in PR tactics, but it is most definitely happening.

I personally only want to see peer reviewed data, nothing else matters. The PR companies want to take this to the people rather than to the journals.

If he's trying to clear his name, he's doing a bad job of it.

I found an article by him in which I hoped to hear his logic and reasoning against global warming.

He claims it is just a natural cycle. That he's seen two of these in his career and he'll see one more before he dies. If his "death threat" was someone saying that he won't see temperature returning to normal before he dies, I don't think it was a death threat.

I can't find a formal report of his research but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this is his argument, he leaves out a lot of things that need to be explained to me before I let it go. Like, why are polar bears suddenly on the endangered species list? What's happening to all the snow on the tops of mountains? Where are the ice glaciers (with ice that has been around for thousands if not millions of years) going? What is his retort to the CO2 levels being their highest ever--even after looking at ice core samples?

His article only mentions a professor from MIT but not what his criticisms are.

If their work is being derided, I want to know what their work is. I'm a skeptic also, if these people are being published in newspapers, you would think that they wouldn't waste their time on death threats and counter-counter-criticisms but would instead try to get the truths they have been finding in their research out to the public. If you're conducting good science that, in and of itself, will clear your name in the end.

The more I search for information on Timothy Ball, the more he seems like he's playing just as dirty as the people he's fighting. Check out his lawsuit for a journal publishing a letter. I feel we're not hearing the full story here.

When I'm at work and I enter situations in which someone is decrying someone else and vice versa, I just present everyone with facts. If I had done research and I received death threats, I would submit to major newspapers two things: my research published with permission to reprint it & the death threats in their original form. Nothing could boost my efforts to get the truth out there more. The fact that I see a PhD and scientist spending more time saying his life is in danger than presenting me with his findings tells me a lot about what his motives are.

He was published, I guess in Ecological Complexity which I do not have access to. If anyone has papers from his work, I would love to see it--otherwise I'm going to tune this soap opera out as emotional noise in what should be a stoic process.

Question everything. Question both sides. And if you have something that is true, present it. I'm not calling him a liar, I just can't call him anything right now because all I can find are stories about who called who what.

FWIW, from my perspective, it is in fact much harder to find media that is *supportive* of the government in the US.

Why would you trust GE? They haven't earned your trust, among other things they have a terrible environmental record. They may be trying to improve, but they're starting at the absolute bottom.

GE also has a huge public relations and lobbying staff. What do you think companies have PR departments for? It's to respond to crises like this. Australia bans incandescent bulbs, California starts talking about it -- and if it snowballs across the nation, suddenly GE's looking at writing off whole factories and a couple billion dollars. At that point, ethics go out the window.

So someone in the PR department calls up the head of whatever R&D department they have left and says, hey, do you have anything we can use to make a case that banning incandescents isn't justifiable. So some proposal which was too costly and was sitting on the shelf suddenly becomes the subject of a media blitz, even though it's best case vaporware, worst case FUD.

Why are you so credulous? Have you learned nothing from the auto industry's 30 years of broken environmental promises?

Wait until they show up in 'news' footage in two years.

two years? yeah right! video news releases are here now without the aid of digital effects.

I know the UN is flawed and often edentulous in its actions, but I strongly suggest that the US accept that it's the best we have so far and rather than undermining it it should be supported and improved.

Insightfull or Funny which is kinda sad

Come to think of it, I guess you probably meant something along those lines, too...

He's been served a perfectly normal run-of-the-mill subpoena

He has video of what are presumably illegal acts by anti-G8 demonstrators,

by a lobbying group funded by ExxonMobil

The Government is basically saying that since they are now in compliance with statutory rules guiding FISA warrants, that the original plaintiffs, who won the suit under appeal, no longer have standing. Yet their pleading arrogantly begs for an appeal determination by denying the original case controls, and that the compliance to FISA warrant rules is not the result of them following the lower Court's determination. From the supplemental submission:

This suit is predicated on the notion that the TSP is unlawful because it authorized electronic surveillance that was not supervised by the FISA court. As the Government explained in its briefs, the TSP was lawful and in accordance no only with statutory authority but also the President's inherent constitutional authority. Nevertheless, not that the President has decided not to reauthorize the TSP, and any electronic surveillance that was being conducted under the TSP is now being conducted solely subject to the FISA Court's approval, the essential predicate for plaintiff's claims and request for relief no longer exists. Accordingly, the intervening FISA Court orders fundamentally alter the nature of their litigation.

This is an appeal to a lower Court case which determined the the NSA had acted illegally, and any arguments questioning the standing of the original plaintiffs needs to take into account a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the same criminal NSA behaviours in the future. Yet this pleading does not even recoginse the lower court's ruling as law, instead conversely states that it is not law, that Mr. Bush's powers as President place him without the very constraints of the document which is the only grounding for the legitimacy of his acts, The US Constitution.

Mr. Bush and his Administration have in the past shown themselves to possess a preponderate predilection to engage in lies and deceptions, attempting to obfuscate many actions it engages and had engaged in. When the continuing facts had become public; the evidence leaving no doubt as to the Bush Administration's blatant dishonesty, and unlawful acts, the Bush administration then attacked the press as sappers of National Security. It is laughable to allege that Mr. Bush will not, as soon as he believes no one is looking, again unconstitutionally authorise unwarranted surveillance.

Mr. Bush is not above the law. The plaintiffs should still have standing in the appeal case, and this sham of a pleading should be denied.

Don't forget that our president was elected based on a highly questionable election in 2000. Many people called it a bloodless coup! I have no explanation on how he was re-elected in 2004

You really, really don't sound like the sort of person who could get a "peer reviewed paper" published on climate change.

You don't seem to understand the chaos theory you rely on, especially the difference between predicting small-scale events and long-term trends. The difference between weather and climate has been beaten to death in this forum, so I'll just limit my commentary to stating that your demand for a good thirty day forecast strikes me as irrelevant.

You say that climate is always changing, and that's true. But you're only arguing against a rather naive and simplistic view that the environment is entirely static, which no informed person on any side of the global warming debate shares (read: strawman). Having said that, it's clear that we've had about ten thousand years of relative stability, followed by a century of abrupt warming that coincides with mankind pumping billions of tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. While certainly there is such a thing as coincidence, no alternative explanation can compete with the anthropogenic theory. Solar forcing is often proposed, but it only manages to account for a small fraction of the total.

Scientists know full well that they're dealing with a chaotic system when they're looking at the climate. But the climate has been reasonably stable over recent history, and that stability has been very good for human activity. Chaotic systems often fall into regions of stability, but they can be knocked out by external influences (say, pouring billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere). So if we know nothing else about the climate (as you want to lead us to believe) that only leads us to conclude that we're better off not messing with it so brazenly, because we don't know where it will end up or how easy it will be to adapt to the new conditions.

You want to convince us that "real science" doesn't do consensus, and that the media has been painting a false picture of emerging scientific agreement. I would argue the opposite: that the consensus among active researchers is far stronger than the media usually portrays. Two things are happening here. First, the media both loves controversy and hates appearing one-sided, so if journalists believe that there might be two sides to the issue, they usually try to at least pay lip service to both. Second, entrenched industrial interests take advantage of this by paying a small, incestuous group of climate skeptics and policy organizations to cast doubt on the reality of global warming, its human origins, and the need to take political action to counter it.

In short, I would be unsurprised if 95% of the scientists actively doing climate research believed in the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and I would be skeptical of claims of robust disagreement. Industry forces have certainly tried to manufacture the illusion of deep disagreement in the past.

Need sources? Need proof how the govt "envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States"? Don't see why this is provocative? And as far as religion is concerned... oh well never mind.

Need sources? Need proof how the govt "envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States"? Don't see why this is provocative? And as far as religion is concerned... oh well never mind.

Need sources? Need proof how the govt "envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States"? Don't see why this is provocative? And as far as religion is concerned... oh well never mind.

Know your sources:

On the one hand we have a climatologist (a real live PHD) saying that people who try to pass off political controveries as science should not be doing so while enjoying the certification of a scientific organization. Seems reasonable.

On the other hand, a guy described by slashdot as a scientist but who is really a conservative attack dog slagging the climatologist by making all sorts of unjustified remarks about censorship. This guy used to work for Rush Limbaugh as his Washington Correspondent. This guy was one of the first to break the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" story. Now he is a climate expert?

Hmmmm. Which person should I trust on climate .... hmmmm .... tough one ... weasel vs. expert .... hmmmm ....

Sources:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=senator_inho fe_s_pet_weasel&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo rano

A weather presenter has every right to an opposing view but whilst a member of that organisation s/he should be clear their view is personal and unpublished.

"I'm pre-med myself, but I have no illusions about the profession."

Someone else also pulled me up on this and as I stated I don't live in Australia and made some "bold" legal assumptions in my post. It does not invalidate my point about the meaning of censorship and the overuse of conclusion mats.

Your post also begs the question, what should be done to improve US standards?

BTW: Your link points to an article by the noteworthy Fred Singer who gained noteriety for his tabbaco industry bullshit before moving on to fossil fuel industry bullshit, I would be surprised if he was unknown to all your lecturers. He is the guy you call when you want to delay something for a few decades (such as officially aknowlaging a smoker has a 1/20 chance of dying from their drug addiction and it is almost a certainty it will damaging their health), yes I'm a smoker but I don't encourage others and don't deny it's illogical.

Fred's own "survival" is liked to his ability to draw grants from vested interests. Since he also lobbies space policy I would not be surprised if he hand in redirecting NASA's gaze away from our own biosphere.

If you want to practise skepticisim, you can talk directly to some of the world's top climate scientists here. Being "pre-med" and all that, you will easily recognise the analogy between "consensus" climate diagnosis and a "firm" medical diagonsis.

Marc Morano (the Senate blog poster) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo rano , is an outspoken right wing aide to republican senator. He is complaining, clearly, about the anchor at the weather channel, certainly not encouraging her. This is *not* coming from the Senate, but rather from the Weather Channel.

"Posted by Marc Morano"

This is bullshit. The press release is by Richard Viguerie, who is the head of American Target Advertising. This basically affects his business because his business is astroturfing. So he seems to have started his own little astroturfing campaign to stop this bill from being passed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=America n_Target_Advertising

Read the bill. Pretty much everything in the press release is a lie. Shame on you, Slashdot.

Slashdot: Propaganda for Knee-Jerkers. More sources: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard _Viguerie

Do you beleive that GW is a natural thing, or human?

I say this because I'm interested in the whole debate but yet find very little evidence to suggest that the Earth is behaving anythin other than naturally

We have just come out of a "little ice age", centred around the middle ages. The warming of the climate then allowed humans to spread. Eventually the Earth will find a balance and it will go cold again

Have a read of this. Sparked my interest:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

At least with the Gates foundation, the money is going to treat disease, bring clean and renewable drinking sources, textbooks, etc,...

Here are some numbers from B&MGF's financial statements [This works in 'preview'; sure hope it doesn't trip any lameness filters after submission]

Year__ Assets___________ NetROI__________ GrantsPaid______ GP/Assets_ GP/ROI
2001 _ $23,875,273,000 _ $1,182,049,000 _ $1,146,958,000 _ _ 4.80% _ _ 97.03%
2002 _ $24,082,053,000 _ $1,965,411,000 _ $1,158,293,000 _ _ 4.81% _ _ 58.93%
2003 _ $26,810,518,000 _ $3,928,204,000 _ $1,182,791,000 _ _ 4.41% _ _ 30.11%
2004 _ $28,798,609,000 _ $2,632,002,000 _ $1,252,371,000 _ _ 4.35% _ _ 47.58%
2005 _ $29,153,508,000 _ $1,421,334,000 _ $1,356,327,000 _ _ 4.65% _ _ 95.43%

I'm sure that after adjustments for certain overheads, GrantsPaid will consistently be between 5.00% and 5.10% of the assets for each year. Under IRS law, a philanthropic organization has to pay out at least 5% of its assets each year to continue to qualify for its special tax breaks.

It is enlightening that on the average, B&MGF earns through its investments half again as much as it pays out through grants.

Basically this looks like a for-profit institution that distributes no more to charities than the minimum needed to qualify for tax breaks. The good works it does are an artificial side-effect of its primary activity, which is its investment arm.

This can actually be quantified: B&MGF is 4.61% for philanthropic work, and 95.39% for other activity (possibly just to make even more money, which seems like a ridiculous goal for someone as clever as BG; or possibly to use the lever these investments provide to attempt to reshape economies. He is recognized as a visionary by those who idolize him.)

I can't find the reference anywhere either. Pat Michaels is still spewing half-truths, myths & canards. Ironically, he is also saying that we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases [which aren't a problem in the first place].

Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch
Patrick J. Michaels - Cato Institute

I think the worn-out funding source "argument" needs to be given a rest and the science objectively evaluated instead.

Their opinion pieces are objectively evaluated and found to be nothing more than half-truths, myths & canards wrapped in a good amount of politicizing and hype.

The funding sources are very relevant. Would you trust the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to give you an accurate report on the health benefits of smoking cigarettes? How about Microsoft-funded studies on the security of *nix OSes?

But apparently it takes a bored IT guy on slashdot to correct an international consortium of climatologists.

And why not? It took a bored minerals consultant and a bored economics professor to point out that the infamous hockey stick being touted by "real" scientist Michael Mann was actually spitting out hockey sticks with random data. If it has been accounted for, then please enlighten us... How much lower would the temperature be *EXACTLY* without the solar radiation increase according to the computer model you say accounts for such a thing?

I mean, we're all curious and you seem to know so much about it. So please, do share that information in between insulting the people who dare ask questions.

But apparently it takes a bored IT guy on slashdot to correct an international consortium of climatologists.

And why not? It took a bored minerals consultant and a bored economics professor to point out that the infamous hockey stick being touted by "real" scientist Michael Mann was actually spitting out hockey sticks with random data. If it has been accounted for, then please enlighten us... How much lower would the temperature be *EXACTLY* without the solar radiation increase according to the computer model you say accounts for such a thing?

I mean, we're all curious and you seem to know so much about it. So please, do share that information in between insulting the people who dare ask questions.

Public Relations work is actually fairly cheap. Even the largest PR company, Edelman PR, only had revenues of $206 million in 2002. [1] All they needed to do, in this case, is to create the impression of a "controversy" by ensuring that a few high profile "experts" get funded, so that politicians who wouldn't be inclined to act against global warming anyway would have a moral justification to do so. The Discovery Institute, by far the single most important entity in the similarly huge Intelligent Design "controversy", only received about $3.5 million in reveneues in 2004. [2] Now compare that number to the amount of media stories about "Intelligent Design" (a pure PR rebranding of the earlier "creation science" effort) in 2004. Of course, ExxonMobil's campaign is also part of a larger effort, as detailed, for instance, by PR experts Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton in this article.

1. Yet another reason to use encrypted email
2. Yet another reason to impeach him
3. Yet another reason to abolish presidential signing statements
4. Yet another reason to 'not trust the government'

That was my first thought too: so I Googled: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_a bout_Science links them originally to pro-GM PR, but also to other far-left / anti-environmentalism groups and individuals.

But I have no idea how reliable Sourcewatch is :-)

Does it really sound like the public is being served by the private media? Don't you wish we would have been a bit savvier when, through being misinformed, we supported our politicians in their attack on Iraq?

In this case, it wasn't even worth the reporter's time explaining who in hell the "International Policy Network" is, let alone why an opinion from them should be pertinent here.

Beautiful. You cite Capital Research to back you up. It's an organization "whose stated mission is to do 'opposition research' exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups." I too need to read more Capital Research because of those terrible liberal causes like watching out for consumers and addressing public health issues - like poisons in the environment - are way out of hand. Thank you for bringing this very important research to our attention, my good sir!

I also like your sense of fair play and objectivity in selecting Michelle Malkin. I much prefer her 2005 perspective rather than this article from 2006 from the liberal spin machine. While we are talking about her ground-breaking research, we should also point out her other important ideas such as her book documenting the important need to bring back Japanese-style internment camps for Arab Americans - which is also coincidentaly based on the cutting-edge research of another person doing important work exposing the myth of the so-called "holocaust".

I can only applaud the efforts of the Slashdot moderators to make sure that your comments get pushed right to the top. No one should be compelled to go through another day without an awareness of these two fascinating, unbiased sources of good information. As a good conservative, I am finally starting to feel like Slashdot is like a second home.

Beautiful. You cite Capital Research to back you up. It's an organization "whose stated mission is to do 'opposition research' exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups." I too need to read more Capital Research because of those terrible liberal causes like watching out for consumers and addressing public health issues - like poisons in the environment - are way out of hand. Thank you for bringing this very important research to our attention, my good sir!

I also like your sense of fair play and objectivity in selecting Michelle Malkin. I much prefer her 2005 perspective rather than this article from 2006 from the liberal spin machine. While we are talking about her ground-breaking research, we should also point out her other important ideas such as her book documenting the important need to bring back Japanese-style internment camps for Arab Americans - which is also coincidentaly based on the cutting-edge research of another person doing important work exposing the myth of the so-called "holocaust".

I can only applaud the efforts of the Slashdot moderators to make sure that your comments get pushed right to the top. No one should be compelled to go through another day without an awareness of these two fascinating, unbiased sources of good information. As a good conservative, I am finally starting to feel like Slashdot is like a second home.

Channeling Dinesh D'Souza eh? Because the Hoover Institution is totally the place to get neutral information. At least you're reading the news; that's a start on your way to the truth, but you need to be careful about who you get your information from. There's a difference between religious people killing other people over religious disagreements (Inquisition, witch trials, etc.) and non-religious people killing people over things that aren't religion. I hope you have a barn for all that straw.

Sourcewatch page on the CEI: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competi tive_Enterprise_Institute