The article is titled "Next Gens most.." not "video games most"... Also Pc video games are fairly small portion of the market. There are more NHL 200k fans then there are PC gamign fans.
So it'll be be a ultra wide but ultra shallow game with some pretty pictures and a byzantine story full or people you have a hard time caring about. and it will have boobs... damn I'm not lookign forward to that.
Chinese people are mentally different. You know the theory that language molds the mind. Chinese has a more conformist attitude and generally attempt not to shake the boat. Perhaps it because the language is more about rote memorization. I happen to be chinese and have visited china often. They are aware of the funny things the gov does and are aware of the outside world. They simply want to live life, work hard, and raise a family. Not unlike most people and they just don't enjoy rockign the boat.
I missed your first stament. I mean your second one. "No, the Old Testament is a compilation of texts. "
When I refer to archaic hebrew I mean the older one:
archaic: old-fashioned or no longer used;
Then we are dicing about what the "bible: is. Your refering to a seperate set of books and not the christian, Jewish, or Moslem holy book and actually misusing bible as the common definition is the "Christian" cannon including OT and NT. You are using a alternate and minority defintion as a "holy book".
Have there ever been wars fought over "trade"? It seems to me that any such wars would be caused by a lack of trade. This is one reason that first-world democracies don't invade each other--there is no need to conquer the other guy to get his resources when he is willing to dig it up and deliver it to your doorstep.
Yes, There have been wars started due to one side deciding they get a better deal trading with someone else.
Hmm.. Linking to a obciously biased source which doesn't link to any data (fabricated or otherwise) to support it's claims. I think you really should be modded down a few times.
Crossovers don't usually create anything "new" but simply mix up existing traits and information. So while crossovers introduce variance into the population and help new genes spread their influence is limited. At best they'll give you a good set of genes but you're still limited to what you started with. Mutations on the other hand introduce new genes which may (or may not) have a beneficial effect.
The Genome is a code. For an anology take the code base for Vim and the code base for VI. Not at random points swap sections. Now tell me it doesn't create anything new. Genes trasnlate into sequences which then translate into 3d structures with some help from other systems. Cross overs will alter the function by altering the shape and active areas of the end protien. You can have 2 genes that exsist in the same area but have a slight difference but end up with a structural similiar protien and if you have a cross over event you may get a thirs product that is distictly different.
Your first statement cotnradicts you point. The old testement is a subsection of the christian bible. If it's a collection of books so is the bible. IF you refer onyl to the Torah/Koran then your entire post is meaningless and wrong as both are collections too. And he did ask if you read archaic hebrew, although I should also insist you be able to read greek, understand aramaic and have some depth of history beyond The study of religious texts.
The source of all mutations is some form of point mutation, frame reading error, substitution, addition, or chromosome suplication. The mechanisms are well observed. The part of evolution your describing is the election phase after a muatation has occured. Your subsequent addition about creationism is hubris.
It all depends on whose numbers you take. The margins for a label for the artist will appear low because the label claims a lot of expenses that are bullshit. It will pay itself $20,000 for the recording and mark that down as an expense. Pay itself 150,00 for promotion ditto with the fucked up accounting then it will pay the artists ect.. and int he end your left with 2-8 % but it managed to be the lions share of the expenses so in reality it made a lot more money but defered it to another portion of the label. Movies do the same stupid shit with fucked up accounting.
1 - Everyone in the music dept will now be shuffled into janitorial services. a new sony online stores opens to great success. 2- PS4 will look fabulous, perform slightly slower then the next Xbox but will excel at 1 or 2 game genres so much we'll forgive him. It will also be $1900 and somehow we will buy it anyways. 3- The PSP2 will suddenly be the most popular consumer product ever. It will actually be a repackaged DS but with a better shell. Analysts will be stunned. 4- Oddly most fo slashdot will be proclaiming the Death of Steve led Sony due to insane profits and the fact they don't have 99% market share.
It's the games. There are stil quality games coming for that system and it's now dirt cheap with access to the back library available on the second hand market and greatest hits it's an easy buy. Even my die hard Xbox / GC fan boy friends picked done up cheap to play FFXII and the discounted gods of war/shadow fo the collosus/GT4. I'll problably be getting a WII as a present with money set aside for a PS3 in the new year (perhaps when MG4 comes out).
It's all about games. If the 360 had a higher density of the games I want I'd pick it up. The xbox has a few interestign ones btu since almost all the ones I was interested in (halo/Oblivion/KOTOR I II/ FABLE) are available on The Pc Id idnt' pick one up.
A cell procesor computer for a grand with a decent GPU and insane memory bandwidth. It's got a few niches (poverty stricken research labs comes ot mind).
Some voted him in because of non-science issues like Supreme Court nominations and anti-abortion stance. (Please don't say abortion isn an issue of science - it's an issue of metaphysics and ethics.)
Many of us who voted for him realized we were getting some good things (Justice nominations, etc.) and accepted that being at the cost of known bad things (leaning toward corporate interests), and never realized how bad a deal we were getting (settlement with Microsoft, ignoring global warming research, lying about and invading Iraq, caving to terrorists by trading away our liberties and refusal to torture, etc.)
There's nothing anti-science about intelligent design. Intelligent design is just saying, "Hey, the universe seems pretty well ordered. What are the chances of that?" It's a metaphysical inquiry that's informed by science. There's no problem with teaching that (or don't you want students to question assumptions, such as reductionistic Darwinism (aka Epicurianism)?) You're probably upset with the teaching of a 6,000 year old earth based on the book of Genesis. I agree that that's a hard one to reconcile with carbon dating, etc., but that's truly a step beyond intelligent design. So my main point is this: you're being seriously unrealistic if you conceive of most Christians as blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a telescope and a rectal thermometer.
Point 1- Okay
Point 2- Alright
Point 3- ID is very very very very anti-science. It denies emperical evidence and tries to pick evidence that supports a presumed conclusion. Also known in scientific circles as fraud, data doctoring, and generally frowned upon. ID has no support by the evidence on hand. Is not a scientific theory, and is generally deleterious to real knowledge.
so your telling me 470.2 billion dollars is spent on 660,000 troops with no fat to cut? that there aren't any no bid contracts for provisions and supplies for a soon to be over invasion that couldn't be put towards education or that there isn't excessively expensive white elephants like a missle defence program that could be reudced in scope? My my. we spend almost a million dollars a year on each soldier with absolutely no way to cut this?
Also for tarrifs, tarrifs are artificial price increases to protect native industries. High tarrifs does not protect yoru industry, only make less incentive for them to be more productive. For instance the formerly high tarrifs on import cars and import car parts. This lead to the now high reputation of american cars world wide? So in your world american cars are the quality and sales leaders?
You labor under a fairly simplistic view of the world economy. Tarrifs and subsidies may help some of your native industries but in general hobble your ability to compete. There are more markets then just the Us, currenty the US is the single largest market but if you try to get high tarrifs this may change. The US maintains a lot of it's foreign policies and relations through economic coercion. Trade is it's number one tool to ensure it gets it's way. If you become a protectionist/isolationist state you'll soon fidn your influence and importance greatly diminished. It's something thats up to you guys to decide but Ma and Pah voter isn't goignt o look kindly on their $0.99 piece of crap chinese plastic become a $9.99 chinese piece of plastic crap so you'd have a fairly hard time trying to institues those tarrifs int he first place. The tarrifs are of a dubious value, and int he long run simply hobble you in the world wide market.
You are somewhat correct in the concept. Yes lowering the debt is the proper solution in part. However; if you merely transfer the debt to the public as a whole via taxes or national debt you just load down the whole economy. The raising of taxes to pay for college just accelerates the collapse of US Jobs. The solution here is much more basic. We have to protect the economy with tariffs and we have to pay down our debt and at the same time support 35% of our population for about 20 years. This isn't as hard as it seems. Productivity will cover this if we don't allow the foreigners to loot our economy. This problem is a conceptual problem of understanding what a nation is and how they work with other nations. The "Free Traders" have it wrong. Lowering tariffs only denuded the USA in the world. We are now walking about with no clothes freezing and the whole world is laughing at us and deriding us for being fools. Once well clothed again, we can easily get about supporting ourselves and growing out power.
Someone else problably replied to this but simply reducing military spending would be enough. Drop it by 20% and apply that to education and you'd almost double the current education spending. Protectiev tarrifs may hurt the economy much much more then higher taxes.
The second with the list clarifies I meant Fundementalists groups which is a sub group of "religious" groups. You were arguing against a statement I did not make. The initial comment also linked to website outlining exactly which groups were involved (the discover institute and related groups) the following links were articles that referenced this group as "peers" or "vocal religious groups" opposing the acceptance of global warming. The second comment also states I am part of a mainline religion. You are the ignorant party as you either read into both posts meaning that I did not write into them or you are intentionally tryign to strawman.
Media tends to clump in the middle left and middle right. Both exstremes view it as being the opposite. A Neo Con would view the Edmonton Sun (my home town conservative paper) as hippie liberal while a Hippie would see it as a neo con paper. Bush has very poor foreign, domestic, and economic policies. Those have caught up to him this election. Iraq is a PR disaster as well as a botched invasion. Climate change is real, only the cause is debatable and even then it's garenteed to be some part our fault. The arguement is about weather if that part is significant. There is only circumstantial evidence that voter fraud brought in Bush. The companies that were in charge of the electronic voting had insecure systems and oddly donated to the bush campaign (even donating $100 would appear to be a conflict of interests given their position). The media is problematic and biased but not exclusively to the left or right. Draw your news source from mutiple sources of both right and left and you'd infer a better picture of events then over reliance on one source. IF you read only right leaning papers you tend to get half the picture and only the half that support you beign farther right. If only left the same thing. Take a balanced approuch and you get a better idea.
1. The CS Monitor article is talking about the effects of global warming, not denying it. In any case, the Christian Science Monitor isn't a religious publication and doesn't represent any religion - despite the name.
2. The second article is about evangelicals talking about how important it is to fight global warming. Yeah, they're real skeptics.
3. The website called "Answers in Genesis" does not represent the position of any church - which is what I specified, remember? In any case, it's an editorial complaining that Christianity Today - which does represent a national christian organization - wants Christians to do more to fight global warming.
4. An article in "Grist" - which turns out to be another editorial complaining about Christians, but not actually representing the position of any Christian organization.
5. You cite a blog about films!?! as evidence that Christians don't believe in global warming?
6. A timeline quoting headlines related to environmental news. Okay. Topics include Pat Robertson announcing that he believes in global-warming.
Holy Shit, dude. This is your evidence that mainstream Christian organizations don't believe in global warming?!?
Great job strawmanning there. My original post was about certain groups opposing and creating controversy over certain scientific ideas to put doubt into peoples minds about science. My second post linked to articles that alluded to this collection of groups, further clarifying that it was fundementalists. Your rebuttal was about main line religions which was not what I was talking about. I did miss your "major" in your original post so perhaps the fault for letting you straw man so easily is mine; I didn't catch that bit earlier. Your post is not informative and you simply picked a different arguement to rebutt. Good job as saying nothing.
there are a lot more. I'm not saying religion in totality is trying to spread FUD I'm sayign certain religious groups are stirring opposition for no other reason then to undermine certain scientific corner stones and theories they find inconvienant. Like parts of geology, astronomy, genetics, immunology, ect..
I am myself a moderate catholic. I find the exstremists and fundementalsist distasteful.
I'm speaking from "first hand" info. I had a few minor news stories in my town that appeared int he papers and the details were wrong. I was aquainted with all parties involved but they messed up all of that. It was a murder involving 3 individuals in my city at a night club. The papers had interviews with the family and it was 3 up standing citizens who were caught in an act of random violence. The truth was it was 3 ganster wannabes who reneged on a medium sized drug deal and put their supplier in a bad spot. The police came out and said it was not "gang related" but it later came out and said drugs were involved but the paper onyl picked up the sensationist bti about by standards being shot. Other incidents include a brawl a while ago involving 2 asian University students and a group of thugs. The paper suggested it was gang related. ect...
Every story that has touched any part of what I know has been wrong. From this I cannot help but formed the slack jawed image of journalists. The quality of US TV journalists and some controversies with some print journalists that faked their sources also cast soem serious doubt on the profession.
On the other hand; even unbiased, intelligent and serious minded journalists can only get 2nd hand info most of the time. Since the subject involved are in custody and even first hand accounts are biased.
For a long time I always wondered why religious groups have been heavy sceptics of global warming. I didn't think it had anything to do with their sphere of influence or even was a remotely interestign subject to them. I thought it was somethign related with their idea of the rapture and armageddon being more military related vs climate armageddon.
Then I happened upon this article article on wikipedia and it seem to make sense. They want to promote doubt upon the scientific community so they can much more easily circumvent Evolution. The idea being if the religious community can cast enough doubt by spread FUD about scientific theories/methods/facts/ideas they can more easily push their agenda to remove evolution from class rooms. Evolution is very inconvientient to fundementalists because it undermines their ability to make any literal reading of the bible.
The sources are wikipedia but the sources seem legit and the arguements about why certain groups oppose certain theories are there and are a matter of simple googling to find supporting news articles on it. I think a lot of the opposition to global warming coming fromt he right originates from the strategy of trying to discredit all science. Global warming and climate change is a fact the only portion of the models and theories under scrutiny is whether it's humans actions as the principal driving force.
Slashdot Mirror
Curing gays? why would they want to be less fabulous. Actually Linux and Mac uses would be the aberation. Since they are the statistical outlyers.
The article is titled "Next Gens most.." not "video games most"... Also Pc video games are fairly small portion of the market. There are more NHL 200k fans then there are PC gamign fans.
So it'll be be a ultra wide but ultra shallow game with some pretty pictures and a byzantine story full or people you have a hard time caring about. and it will have boobs... damn I'm not lookign forward to that.
Chinese people are mentally different. You know the theory that language molds the mind. Chinese has a more conformist attitude and generally attempt not to shake the boat. Perhaps it because the language is more about rote memorization. I happen to be chinese and have visited china often. They are aware of the funny things the gov does and are aware of the outside world. They simply want to live life, work hard, and raise a family. Not unlike most people and they just don't enjoy rockign the boat.
I missed your first stament. I mean your second one. "No, the Old Testament is a compilation of texts. "
When I refer to archaic hebrew I mean the older one:
archaic:
old-fashioned or no longer used;
Then we are dicing about what the "bible: is. Your refering to a seperate set of books and not the christian, Jewish, or Moslem holy book and actually misusing bible as the common definition is the "Christian" cannon including OT and NT. You are using a alternate and minority defintion as a "holy book".
Have there ever been wars fought over "trade"? It seems to me that any such wars would be caused by a lack of trade. This is one reason that first-world democracies don't invade each other--there is no need to conquer the other guy to get his resources when he is willing to dig it up and deliver it to your doorstep.
Yes, There have been wars started due to one side deciding they get a better deal trading with someone else.
Hmm.. Linking to a obciously biased source which doesn't link to any data (fabricated or otherwise) to support it's claims. I think you really should be modded down a few times.
Crossovers don't usually create anything "new" but simply mix up existing traits and information. So while crossovers introduce variance into the population and help new genes spread their influence is limited. At best they'll give you a good set of genes but you're still limited to what you started with. Mutations on the other hand introduce new genes which may (or may not) have a beneficial effect.
The Genome is a code. For an anology take the code base for Vim and the code base for VI. Not at random points swap sections. Now tell me it doesn't create anything new. Genes trasnlate into sequences which then translate into 3d structures with some help from other systems. Cross overs will alter the function by altering the shape and active areas of the end protien. You can have 2 genes that exsist in the same area but have a slight difference but end up with a structural similiar protien and if you have a cross over event you may get a thirs product that is distictly different.
Your first statement cotnradicts you point. The old testement is a subsection of the christian bible. If it's a collection of books so is the bible. IF you refer onyl to the Torah/Koran then your entire post is meaningless and wrong as both are collections too. And he did ask if you read archaic hebrew, although I should also insist you be able to read greek, understand aramaic and have some depth of history beyond The study of religious texts.
The source of all mutations is some form of point mutation, frame reading error, substitution, addition, or chromosome suplication. The mechanisms are well observed. The part of evolution your describing is the election phase after a muatation has occured. Your subsequent addition about creationism is hubris.
You are aware that "Debian Sarge", for instance, contains pretty much every bit of functionality a person could want?
You mean it comes with WOW?
It all depends on whose numbers you take. The margins for a label for the artist will appear low because the label claims a lot of expenses that are bullshit. It will pay itself $20,000 for the recording and mark that down as an expense. Pay itself 150,00 for promotion ditto with the fucked up accounting then it will pay the artists ect.. and int he end your left with 2-8 % but it managed to be the lions share of the expenses so in reality it made a lot more money but defered it to another portion of the label. Movies do the same stupid shit with fucked up accounting.
Under Steve Jobs:
1 - Everyone in the music dept will now be shuffled into janitorial services. a new sony online stores opens to great success.
2- PS4 will look fabulous, perform slightly slower then the next Xbox but will excel at 1 or 2 game genres so much we'll forgive him. It will also be $1900 and somehow we will buy it anyways.
3- The PSP2 will suddenly be the most popular consumer product ever. It will actually be a repackaged DS but with a better shell. Analysts will be stunned.
4- Oddly most fo slashdot will be proclaiming the Death of Steve led Sony due to insane profits and the fact they don't have 99% market share.
It's the games. There are stil quality games coming for that system and it's now dirt cheap with access to the back library available on the second hand market and greatest hits it's an easy buy. Even my die hard Xbox / GC fan boy friends picked done up cheap to play FFXII and the discounted gods of war/shadow fo the collosus/GT4. I'll problably be getting a WII as a present with money set aside for a PS3 in the new year (perhaps when MG4 comes out).
It's all about games. If the 360 had a higher density of the games I want I'd pick it up. The xbox has a few interestign ones btu since almost all the ones I was interested in (halo/Oblivion/KOTOR I II/ FABLE) are available on The Pc Id idnt' pick one up.
A cell procesor computer for a grand with a decent GPU and insane memory bandwidth. It's got a few niches (poverty stricken research labs comes ot mind).
Some voted him in because of non-science issues like Supreme Court nominations and anti-abortion stance. (Please don't say abortion isn an issue of science - it's an issue of metaphysics and ethics.)
Many of us who voted for him realized we were getting some good things (Justice nominations, etc.) and accepted that being at the cost of known bad things (leaning toward corporate interests), and never realized how bad a deal we were getting (settlement with Microsoft, ignoring global warming research, lying about and invading Iraq, caving to terrorists by trading away our liberties and refusal to torture, etc.)
There's nothing anti-science about intelligent design. Intelligent design is just saying, "Hey, the universe seems pretty well ordered. What are the chances of that?" It's a metaphysical inquiry that's informed by science. There's no problem with teaching that (or don't you want students to question assumptions, such as reductionistic Darwinism (aka Epicurianism)?) You're probably upset with the teaching of a 6,000 year old earth based on the book of Genesis. I agree that that's a hard one to reconcile with carbon dating, etc., but that's truly a step beyond intelligent design.
So my main point is this: you're being seriously unrealistic if you conceive of most Christians as blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a telescope and a rectal thermometer.
Point 1- Okay
Point 2- Alright
Point 3- ID is very very very very anti-science. It denies emperical evidence and tries to pick evidence that supports a presumed conclusion. Also known in scientific circles as fraud, data doctoring, and generally frowned upon. ID has no support by the evidence on hand. Is not a scientific theory, and is generally deleterious to real knowledge.
US defense spending 2006: 470.2 Billion
so your telling me 470.2 billion dollars is spent on 660,000 troops with no fat to cut? that there aren't any no bid contracts for provisions and supplies for a soon to be over invasion that couldn't be put towards education or that there isn't excessively expensive white elephants like a missle defence program that could be reudced in scope? My my. we spend almost a million dollars a year on each soldier with absolutely no way to cut this?
Also for tarrifs, tarrifs are artificial price increases to protect native industries. High tarrifs does not protect yoru industry, only make less incentive for them to be more productive. For instance the formerly high tarrifs on import cars and import car parts. This lead to the now high reputation of american cars world wide? So in your world american cars are the quality and sales leaders?
You labor under a fairly simplistic view of the world economy. Tarrifs and subsidies may help some of your native industries but in general hobble your ability to compete. There are more markets then just the Us, currenty the US is the single largest market but if you try to get high tarrifs this may change. The US maintains a lot of it's foreign policies and relations through economic coercion. Trade is it's number one tool to ensure it gets it's way. If you become a protectionist/isolationist state you'll soon fidn your influence and importance greatly diminished. It's something thats up to you guys to decide but Ma and Pah voter isn't goignt o look kindly on their $0.99 piece of crap chinese plastic become a $9.99 chinese piece of plastic crap so you'd have a fairly hard time trying to institues those tarrifs int he first place. The tarrifs are of a dubious value, and int he long run simply hobble you in the world wide market.
You are somewhat correct in the concept. Yes lowering the debt is the proper solution in part. However; if you merely transfer the debt to the public as a whole via taxes or national debt you just load down the whole economy. The raising of taxes to pay for college just accelerates the collapse of US Jobs. The solution here is much more basic. We have to protect the economy with tariffs and we have to pay down our debt and at the same time support 35% of our population for about 20 years. This isn't as hard as it seems. Productivity will cover this if we don't allow the foreigners to loot our economy. This problem is a conceptual problem of understanding what a nation is and how they work with other nations. The "Free Traders" have it wrong. Lowering tariffs only denuded the USA in the world. We are now walking about with no clothes freezing and the whole world is laughing at us and deriding us for being fools. Once well clothed again, we can easily get about supporting ourselves and growing out power.
Someone else problably replied to this but simply reducing military spending would be enough. Drop it by 20% and apply that to education and you'd almost double the current education spending. Protectiev tarrifs may hurt the economy much much more then higher taxes.
Right now at google.ca if you put in"search engine" into google. The #1 response is msn.search.com. odd
The second with the list clarifies I meant Fundementalists groups which is a sub group of "religious" groups. You were arguing against a statement I did not make. The initial comment also linked to website outlining exactly which groups were involved (the discover institute and related groups) the following links were articles that referenced this group as "peers" or "vocal religious groups" opposing the acceptance of global warming. The second comment also states I am part of a mainline religion. You are the ignorant party as you either read into both posts meaning that I did not write into them or you are intentionally tryign to strawman.
Media tends to clump in the middle left and middle right. Both exstremes view it as being the opposite. A Neo Con would view the Edmonton Sun (my home town conservative paper) as hippie liberal while a Hippie would see it as a neo con paper. Bush has very poor foreign, domestic, and economic policies. Those have caught up to him this election. Iraq is a PR disaster as well as a botched invasion. Climate change is real, only the cause is debatable and even then it's garenteed to be some part our fault. The arguement is about weather if that part is significant. There is only circumstantial evidence that voter fraud brought in Bush. The companies that were in charge of the electronic voting had insecure systems and oddly donated to the bush campaign (even donating $100 would appear to be a conflict of interests given their position). The media is problematic and biased but not exclusively to the left or right. Draw your news source from mutiple sources of both right and left and you'd infer a better picture of events then over reliance on one source. IF you read only right leaning papers you tend to get half the picture and only the half that support you beign farther right. If only left the same thing. Take a balanced approuch and you get a better idea.
1. The CS Monitor article is talking about the effects of global warming, not denying it. In any case, the Christian Science Monitor isn't a religious publication and doesn't represent any religion - despite the name.
2. The second article is about evangelicals talking about how important it is to fight global warming. Yeah, they're real skeptics.
3. The website called "Answers in Genesis" does not represent the position of any church - which is what I specified, remember? In any case, it's an editorial complaining that Christianity Today - which does represent a national christian organization - wants Christians to do more to fight global warming.
4. An article in "Grist" - which turns out to be another editorial complaining about Christians, but not actually representing the position of any Christian organization.
5. You cite a blog about films!?! as evidence that Christians don't believe in global warming?
6. A timeline quoting headlines related to environmental news. Okay. Topics include Pat Robertson announcing that he believes in global-warming.
Holy Shit, dude. This is your evidence that mainstream Christian organizations don't believe in global warming?!?
Great job strawmanning there. My original post was about certain groups opposing and creating controversy over certain scientific ideas to put doubt into peoples minds about science. My second post linked to articles that alluded to this collection of groups, further clarifying that it was fundementalists. Your rebuttal was about main line religions which was not what I was talking about. I did miss your "major" in your original post so perhaps the fault for letting you straw man so easily is mine; I didn't catch that bit earlier. Your post is not informative and you simply picked a different arguement to rebutt. Good job as saying nothing.
this one
Sort of this one
this one
this one
this one
this one
there are a lot more. I'm not saying religion in totality is trying to spread FUD I'm sayign certain religious groups are stirring opposition for no other reason then to undermine certain scientific corner stones and theories they find inconvienant. Like parts of geology, astronomy, genetics, immunology, ect..
I am myself a moderate catholic. I find the exstremists and fundementalsist distasteful.
I'm speaking from "first hand" info. I had a few minor news stories in my town that appeared int he papers and the details were wrong. I was aquainted with all parties involved but they messed up all of that. It was a murder involving 3 individuals in my city at a night club. The papers had interviews with the family and it was 3 up standing citizens who were caught in an act of random violence. The truth was it was 3 ganster wannabes who reneged on a medium sized drug deal and put their supplier in a bad spot. The police came out and said it was not "gang related" but it later came out and said drugs were involved but the paper onyl picked up the sensationist bti about by standards being shot. Other incidents include a brawl a while ago involving 2 asian University students and a group of thugs. The paper suggested it was gang related. ect...
Every story that has touched any part of what I know has been wrong. From this I cannot help but formed the slack jawed image of journalists. The quality of US TV journalists and some controversies with some print journalists that faked their sources also cast soem serious doubt on the profession.
On the other hand; even unbiased, intelligent and serious minded journalists can only get 2nd hand info most of the time. Since the subject involved are in custody and even first hand accounts are biased.
For a long time I always wondered why religious groups have been heavy sceptics of global warming. I didn't think it had anything to do with their sphere of influence or even was a remotely interestign subject to them. I thought it was somethign related with their idea of the rapture and armageddon being more military related vs climate armageddon.
Then I happened upon this article article on wikipedia and it seem to make sense. They want to promote doubt upon the scientific community so they can much more easily circumvent Evolution. The idea being if the religious community can cast enough doubt by spread FUD about scientific theories/methods/facts/ideas they can more easily push their agenda to remove evolution from class rooms. Evolution is very inconvientient to fundementalists because it undermines their ability to make any literal reading of the bible.
The sources are wikipedia but the sources seem legit and the arguements about why certain groups oppose certain theories are there and are a matter of simple googling to find supporting news articles on it. I think a lot of the opposition to global warming coming fromt he right originates from the strategy of trying to discredit all science. Global warming and climate change is a fact the only portion of the models and theories under scrutiny is whether it's humans actions as the principal driving force.