Back by popular demand a reposting of my January look at the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn*, the reporter who believes there's no place for honesty or integrity in today's media or political landscape.
{"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH" Ben Weingarten | The Blaze | Jan. 27, 2014 }
{"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH" Ben Weingarten | The Blaze | Jan. 27, 2014 }
Steyn, Weingarten and friends are fighting a tooth and nail PR campaign against one of the world's experts on paleoclimate studies - {which alone is a good enough reason for the Republican/libertarian machine to make him enemy number one - despite the fact that recognized experts in the field, who actually understand the details of Dr. Mann's work consistently side with Dr. Mann's interpretation rather than the disjointed rhetorical attacks of the science rejecting, faith-based Republican crowd}.
Over the course of the day I've been wondering about my words:
"the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn" - was I too extreme, could I support it?
but you know . . . what's the point?
I challenge Weingarten, Steyn, or any 'champion' to explain in a rational good-faith manner where any of what I have written in this post is wrong.
~ ~ ~
Objectively, rationally... we don't need to like one another to have a civil dialogue.
{Here's my prediction, you will hear nothing but the sounds of silence to my challenge, another failure to get through.
PS. you are welcome to grab anything I've written and rework it and make it your's. Sharing and spreading information and ideas is what it's all about. }
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If you are trying to understand the "right wing" approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an "even playing field" - here's an article that highlights their contempt for a civil and honest exchange of information.
It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud. In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s). But, do his claims stand up?
It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud. In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s). But, do his claims stand up?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"
Ben Weingarten | Jan. 27, 2014
