Or not. Spotted this through another source, and I was kind of surprised.
Daily Kos: The First RuleSo, if the info is MENTIONED by those sources, it's considered tainted? If the source are those sites, and the information is verified elsewhere, is it still tainted info and can't be mentioned?But this does raise an opportunity to discuss the First Rule of the Primary Wars. It is expected that there will be diaries criticial of any and all candidates during this time. No one can complain about that. Indeed, your candidate will not be our nominee unless he or she can survive our scruntiny. But, when writing such diaries critical of a candidate, you may not now or ever use source material that emanates from the right wing or Republicans to support your criticisms or attacks. (emphasis original - J.)
If your source is NewsMax, delete the diary.
If your source is Insight, delete the diary.
If your source is Drudge, delete the diary.
If your source is Free Republic, consider suicide.
Daily Kos will not be used as a Right Wing echo chamber, for they already have enough echo chambers of their own.
Man, and they accuse the right of groupthink...
Take a look at the comments - lots of folks saying this site or that should be blacklisted also. Even Instapundit! To be fair, there's some who say the information should be judged on it's own merit, and not by the source - but there's a whole lot of folks to whom the source is much more important than the information.
J.
Comments (5)
And we have the lady with the climate-change show over on the Weather Channel writing that any TV weatherman who publicly questions the reality or severity of anthropomorphic global warming should be defrocked.
Meteorology...
Climatology...
Same thing, right?
Posted by F451 | January 20, 2007 11:16 AM
Posted on January 20, 2007 11:16
Not in my opinion. Hey, James - you studied this for a while, you got an opinion?
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 20, 2007 9:56 PM
Posted on January 20, 2007 21:56
They are the same thing, but on a different timescale:
A meteorologist can't tell if it will rain next week...
A climatologist can't tell if the global average temperature will go up over the next century...
(Ba-da-boomp!)
Posted by F451 | January 20, 2007 10:56 PM
Posted on January 20, 2007 22:56
Is the climate changing? The climate is ALWAYS changing. Only an idiot would think that it stays static forever. I don't understand how anyone can say that X will happen on a planet-wide scale over Y years, when local weather forecasts more than 72 hours out are often little more than educated guesses.
The fossil record indicates that the earth has been both hotter and colder than it is now. The sun has been in a hotter phase for several years, and hot and cold periods over the last 1000 year have been correlated generally with the solar cycles since Galileo started observing the sun. Accurate recording of temperature has only been going on for less than a century. A lot of that data has only been gathered since WWII.
Given that there is climate change, is it man-made? Only in a micro-sense, in my opinion. For instance, big cities tend to gather and hold heat, due to the dark pavement and concrete structures, and a lack of vegetation. However, once you get away from the city center, it starts moderating.
I think it is pretty arrogant to say that any climate change is solely man-made.
Posted by James | January 20, 2007 11:54 PM
Posted on January 20, 2007 23:54
Ask for next week's weather and you ask for a meteorologist.
Ask for what the climate might be you ask a climatologist.
Ask how changes in global temperatures relates to climactic change over time and you ask a geologist.
Seems that folks are ignoring the wealth of data already present and wanting to concentrate on this teensy sliver of 100 years which is *not* representative of much of anything. And there has been way higher CO2 in the atmosphere *and* glacial periods *both*. Sorry, continental configuration, orogeny (mountain building) and vulcanology all play parts in that, along with net insolation variations over time. Climatologists do not come equipped to answer questions based on those things: geologists *do*. There are even paleo-climatologists who can use the plant spores, animal remains, oxygen isotope variations in calcium carbonate rocks who can get a very good idea of what past climates looked like. And tell you what the drivers for it were.
Beats me where this 'global warming' idea comes from in an inter-glacial period that has highly chaotic and drastic changes in climate get the idea that man drives that or that CO2 does. Call me in 10,000 years and we will see if there is any correlation... and *no* the Earth will not turn into a barren desert.
Posted by ajacksonian | January 21, 2007 8:39 AM
Posted on January 21, 2007 08:39