Chuck Todd Devotes an Hour to Attacking a Strawman

The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.

Got that. Let’s repeat:

It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.

Source: Chuck Todd Devotes an Hour to Attacking a Strawman

A look at the workings of ‘Climate Propaganda Inc.’

Mooney relies on a staple of alarmists, what Andrew Revkin calls the “single study syndrome” (e.g., see his NYT articles here and here). The mainstream media broadcast scary papers but never mention those that contradict the doomster climate story. For example, a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate: “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.” This is one of several paper suggesting that the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the major climate models assume. Letting people learn about this science would ruin the science is science is settled narrative.

Source: A look at the workings of ‘Climate Propaganda Inc.’

THIS Is Extremely Dangerous For Our Republic!

These “news” casters are really political operatives working against the American people and undermining the REPUBLIC. They don’t even know what they are talking about. Or do they. We are a REPUBLIC and not a pure democracy.They have a huge impact on forming and shaping public opinion. If they choose to lie, there is no law to prosecute them with, or is there?

Watch the whole thing, it’s only 1 minute and 37 seconds.

Source: Citizen Free Press

The Media, the NRA, and Islam

So whom are you going to believe, Anderson Cooper, who knows as much about Islam as he knows about picking up girls in singles bars, or ten thousand imams who have literally memorized every verse in the Quran?

But does it even matter?  Because regardless of who’s right about the true tenets of Islam, millions of Muslims believe that killing innocent, unarmed civilians is their ticket to paradise.

How do I know?  Because most of the time, they announce it by shouting “Allahu akbar!” right before they slaughter everyone in sight.  Still, the American left and its lapdog media claim to have a hard time figuring out the motives behind such attacks.

Source: The Media, the NRA, and Islam

Scare-tistics

For example, and I’ll pull numbers out of the air, because the news piece came out a few years ago, but there was breathless reportage that “breast cancer diagnoses are up over thirty percent from forty years ago!” and implied that some dreadful thing in the environment was causing breast cancer. To which the person in my family who works in a related medical field snorted and said something that rhymes with “pulpit.” What has happened is that 1) mammography has become cheap and common, and 2) because of that and better technology and imaging, more and more tumors are found that would not have been caught before because of their tiny size. Many of those are very slow-growing, most are not malignant at the time of discovery and are tracked but not removed.

Source: Scare-tistics

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.

In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.

“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.

This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.

When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”

source: Popehat