Oobie's Big Book of Stuff

"… in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent…"

Posts Tagged ‘Fox News

Say WHAT?!? April 14, 2011

leave a comment »

So, today’s crazy-du-jour comes courtesy of the far-right’s ability to manufacture a culture war sort of controversy out of anything, no matter how utterly meaningless it might actually be. First, I’m going to show you a picture. It strikes me as an innocuous little moment between a mother and a son. Then we’re going to examine the hysteria in an article by Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist writing for Fox News, in which he links this moment to “grotesque” sex change operations and claims it will lead to the complete and utter ruin of society. I kid you not.

This is the demon seed some supposed -people- want to plant into your children’s heads. Beware! BEWARE! *insert Boogeyman creepy fingers here*

So, according to the author of that article, because a little eight-year old boy has his toenails painted pink, that clearly means that this photo was staged as part of an organized effort by J. Crew to break down the walls of gender and forever throw our society into chaos.

I’d like to take this moment to remind you that the author of that claim is a psychiatrist.

Now, let’s insert a little reason that doesn’t even require a degree.

1. The kid is eight. He’s not even thinking about girls or how to impress them, or if maybe boys are better than girls afterall. He’s a little kid who doesn’t think about these things yet, and he happens to like pink.

2. The author writes, “This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females…”, and goes on to describe the feminization of men, but when it comes to women he only says that they are more openly sexual now than before. Remember, he’s using that as evidence to support his claim that men and women are acting more like each other, so he’s essentially claiming that it’s perfectly normal for a man to want to have sex with anything on legs, but that women should be the demure little naysayer in the matter. I’ve never quite understood how women’s sexuality has always been a more taboo thing than men’s.

3. He also writes, “… it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.” Okay, folks, this is an important one. For the kid, it’s just a little bit of color on his nails. And anyone else in the world that needs psychotherapy because they just saw a kid with pink toenails really probably needed that psychotherapy a long time ago for entirely different reasons. It’s just a color. Calm down. Take a breath. Have some dip.

4. From the article: “If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?” This is the classic culture warrior strategy, to take something tiny and utterly meaningless and then link it to something that people would more easily object to. Also:

Oh, the times, they are a-changin!

So, to cap it off, I’d like to end with an unedited section of Dr. Ablow’s article to show how quickly he jumps from something meaningless, to something completely objectionable, using only the power of his own delusion. Writes Ablow:

“If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?

“Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts?”

Yes! This is the fundamental argument of the culture warrior, folks. Pink toenails might not strike most people as bad, so you have to very quickly make the link between them and boys wearing dresses! And if people out there still think that might not be so bad (or also have vintage family photographs of young boys wearing what look suspiciously like dresses, and know for a fact those young boys grew up as healthy members of the male populace), then what you should really be afraid of is all those confused young men that are going to be getting their penises lopped off! Brilliant!

It’s toenail polish. On a kid. Who likes pink. And is also eight. He might wind up completely screwed up in the head somewhere down the line, possibly even to an impressive scale like Dr. Ablow and those that are whipped into a frenzy by him and his ilk, but it won’t have anything to do with the existence of a photo in which his toenails are pink.

Dr. Keith Ablow, folks. Disembodied wangs by the truckload won’t be on HIS conscience.

(Bonus, another article by Erin Brown calls the picture “… blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children.” I wasn’t aware toenail polish meant someone was transgendered, especially when they’re, ya know, eight.)

Advertisements

Cable Wars I – The Foxxening

leave a comment »

One of my biggest pet peeves in the world today is cable news. The perpetual-news-cycle-as-profit model is one that lends itself to blowing stories completely out of proportion just to have something to talk about. No juicy story means no reason for people to watch. If nobody’s watching, there’s no reason for advertiser’s to shell out money for commercial time. If there’s no advertising money there’s no profit. And, finally, if there’s no profit, there’s no good reason to keep running a 24-hour news network.

So, essentially, cable news networks have to spend more of their time doing everything they can to carve out an audience than they do informing their viewers. CNN made cable news big shit during the first Gulf War, when everyone was watching smart bombs fall down a chimney. Several years later, Fox News blew away the competition and showed everyone else the sort of profits that could be made in the cable news business.

And pretty much everything has suffered since then.

So I’m going to start a three-part (not necessarily consecutive) piece, taking a look at the three main cable news networks: Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

We’ll start with the big boys over at Fox. I’d say it’s because they’re the biggest, but it’s mostly because they’re the nuttiest and I can’t imagine how people take them seriously.

It's okay. They can take a punch.

The Players:

We’re just going to focus on a few big names over there, because if I were to write about all of them I’d need an entire book. Names like Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Michelle Malkin won’t be making the list. Neither, sadly, will Rupert Murdoch (again, deserving of an entire book in his own right). If you’re curious about any of them, or others at Fox, a little research goes a long way.

Now, onto the festivities. (A little note, first: All of the examples of lies, bias, or just plain weirdness I show here are only -some- of those that exist. Each subject could probably have a book written about them too, and some already do.)

Sean Hannity

This guy LOVES America.

Sean Hannity is a patriot, and if you don’t have the same vision of America that he does, than you’re fucking not. Sean is your prototypical ultra-conservative. He’s never taken a stand that wasn’t one-hundred percent right, and if you ever disagreed with him, you were one-hundred percent commie. Or Nazi. Or maybe you were just high at the time, or were born with fewer brain cells than the enlightened. Point being, if you weren’t on his side, you were on the wrong side of history, my friend.

Of course, Sean’s vision of America tends to blur the facts every now and again. But, hey… that’s the price for loving one’s country, right?

He likes to question people in such a way that they either have to agree that his totally skewed characteristic of their view is right, or disagree and damn whatever larger political figure Sean is linking them to with his analysis. I think he gets off on preparing for interviews, actually, and you can see that in his frustration when one doesn’t go the way he wants it to.

But, hey. Hannity cares about the lesser folks, too. He’s heavily involved with a charity called “Freedom Alliance”, so that’s a pretty swell thing, huh? Problem is, it gets a pretty mediocre rating from Charity Navigator, and awful ratings from other charity rating systems. It’s not crooked, just bad at getting money to people that need it.

He also lies about things. A lot. It’s kind of a problem. I’d say he’s working on it, but he mostly just does it more and more as he keeps getting away with it.

Glenn Beck

This is the face of Truth.

Where do you really start with this guy? Well, first I think it’s important to note that he worked for CNN before Fox, so he’s a real veteran of the cable wars. And being one of the very few high-profile fence-jumpers seems to have done strange things to Glenn’s psyche.

See, Glenn just wants people to know when someone’s out to get them. Or him. Or maybe someone’s out to get themselves. It all gets pretty tangled up when you listen to Glenn talk. Anyway, if you don’t believe me, you’re probably just a Nazi.

Or a Communist.

Or a racist.

The point is, Glenn knows these things. And he’s scared! Or angry! Or… I don’t know, fake crying! The point is, he wants you to be those things too. And if you’re not, then dammit! You’re a part of the problem! Don’t you understand? This is exactly what happened when Paul Revere tried to warn the people of this country that the British were coming, and nobody listened! Nobody! And if they had, this country would be much b-…

Oh, they did listen? Oh, right. Shit, nevermind. He’s just crazy.

Bill O’Reilly

Did you say... looooofaaaah?


Bill gets credit for being the non-idealogue of the Fox heavyweights
. There are a lot of people that like to defend him as a guy that just says what he believes instead of going along with the Republican line, as a lot of Fox does. And that much I think is probably true. However, he’s still really bad at passing information along to people, and has no problem making things up to support his point of view (which still -generally- leans to the far right).

Bill likes to shout, and he likes to be right. So, it’s not at all unusual, when a guest is pointing out ways Bill is not right, for him to start shouting them down. If those un-American bastards should continue to try to exercise their Communist-given right of free speech over his loud braying, he’s liable to cut their microphone off like any true patriot would, and then spend the next several years lying about what they very clearly said on television.

Bill’s also big on taking really big stands, and then arbitrarily declaring victory every now and again. For instance, he once called for a boycott of France. Yeah, the whole country. And later claimed that his boycott cost them “billions of dollars” according to the “Paris Business Review”, a publication that, strangely enough, doesn’t exist. Who knew? Also, the “billions of dollars” they lost actually looked strangely like a small gain in exports to the States.

Also, he’s really all that stands between the world and the vile forces that hope to bring darkness upon it. He’s a Culture Warrior, folks, and he wants you to know that. He’s going to protect the sanctity of Christmas, by making damn sure the retailers banking on the commercial end of the holiday are saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays”. Take that Jesus-haters! Why you guys gotta be all jealous and shit?

Here’s a little more on Bill.

The Analysts

Ann Coulter

Haters gonna hate.

Ann is the author of books with the following titles: “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right”, “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism”, “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)”, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”, “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans”, “Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America”.

If you couldn’t gather it from those really terribly vague titles, Ann is not a fan of liberals. Also, the titles of the first two books make very clear that she has a non-existent sense of irony.

So, Ann is basically a smear-merchant. The way she makes her living is by selling books to closed-minded, bigoted people who hate those with progressive ideologies, and just want to read about someone else hating them too. And those titles make very clear that she understands that perfectly, and is absolutely alright with making her living by helping to breed hate.

Fun fact: Ann Coulter once suggestively called John Edwards a “faggot” at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and that’s barely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fun things she’s said. However, to the best of my knowledge, she has never taken part in any felonious activities with rogue nations.

Oliver North

... on the other hand.

If the name Oliver North sounds familiar to you, than you either know exactly who he is, or you’re older than I am and it just sort of rings a bell. If you don’t already know who he is, allow me the pleasure.

See, Ollie made a nice little name for himself in the late 80‘s as a colonel in the Marine Corps. Good stuff for Fox, right? Military officers -definitely- lend credibility.

Except there’s a little snag with this one. Turns out, Ollie was involved in selling a whole lot of weapons to Iran, who we weren’t supposed to be selling weapons to at the time. But industrious Ollie didn’t stop there; selling weapons to one rogue nation wasn’t enough.

See, then Ollie came up with a new part of this plan: he gave that money from Iran to rebel groups in Nicaragua. Granted, these groups were fighting against a communist regime, and it’s not a big secret that then-president Reagan was sympathetic toward these groups, but there’s yet another problem for Ollie. As it happened, there was a little legislative amendment that prohibited the US from helping these groups overthrow their government.

Whoops.

North was convicted of three felonies in the investigation, but the convictions were dropped as part of the pre-trial immunity he was granted, since the investigators were mostly trying to tie the whole thing to Reagan.

So, we’ve got a confirmed war criminal and someone that makes their living off hate-speech. Nice. All we’re missing now is someone with a debilitating perversion, and we’ll be all set.

Dick Morris

Ask and ye shall receive.

Dick Morris (which sets us right up for the perv jokes) was a political adviser to President Clinton. Now he spends most of his appearances on Fox deriding Bill and, even moreso, Hillary Clinton. Pretty big jump in ideology. Of course, whenever the likes of O’Reilly and Hannity have him on to bash the Clintons for no particular reason, they like to introduce him as “a former Clinton adviser”.

What they don’t introduce him as is “the former Clinton adviser who got fired because he let a prostitute listen in on conversations with the president, read drafts of speeches for the president and vice president, and also paid her to let him lick her feet”. But that would be a little more accurate.

Now Fox pays him to go on television and regularly bash the Clintons, even when they aren’t particularly newsworthy. They really know how to pick ‘em.

In closing, wow. That’s it. Just wow. There are no words to sum this up.
Examples of Fox News Bias (From an admitted liberal… and kinda boring guy, who doesn’t really seem to understand what “But I want to know what you think” means, since he always asks loaded questions after saying so. BUT! He’s usually on the ball.)

“Rally to Restore Sanity” Effect

leave a comment »

So, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert held their rally to restore sanity on Saturday. There, Colbert continued to play the laughable foil to Stewart’s plea for reasonableness. By most estimates, over two-hundred thousand people attended, with thousands more turning away when they realized they couldn’t see or hear anything because of the size of the crowd.

The message throughout seemed to be pretty clear: that we need to act less out of fear and more out of reason, as well as work together as reasonable human beings who disagree with each other, rather than resorting to pointless name-calling and shouting down views we don’t agree with. Standard stuff, and absolutely impossible to argue against, no matter your politics.

Unless your politics are influenced by the paycheck you make from distorting politics.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann tweeted, “It wasn’t a big shark but Jon Stewart jumped one just now with the “everybody on cable is the same” naiveté”. He followed it up with a couple of tweets that said, essentially, we can’t be reasonable because if we are then the loony right takes over with their looniness. Which is exactly the sort of attitude the rally was designed to contest. Olbermann, apparently, didn’t get the memo.

That not at all overblown slogan shows Keith is -clearly- above the fray.

So, it’s a good thing we have Fox News around to counter that sort of negativity designed for the sole purpose of dividing us, right?

Turns out, much to my surprise, not so much. Here are a few links to the story that was run Saturday by every major news outlet.

MSNBC
Yahoo
Fox News

You’ll note  (if you actually read them, otherwise you’re just taking my word for it) that the first two links are just identical copies of the AP report of the event. The Fox report borrows heavily from the AP report, and adds a whole lot of left-wing conspiracy to the mix. Here are some phrases unique to the Fox version of the report:

~

“Just three days before pivotal midterm elections, comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert threw a “sanity” rally in the shadow of the Capitol that organizers insisted wasn’t about politics.”

“Some of the signs on display mocked Republicans who are expected to take control of the House Tuesday if not the Senate.”

“The event sought in part to be a counterpoint to the “Restoring Honor” rally in August by Glenn Beck, the Fox News commentator popular among conservatives and tea party supporters. Beck’s rally, which had strong religious overtones, drew some protests from civil rights supporters.”

~

And while the AP reported that most of the performers had links to Democratic causes, it also pointed out that none of them made any such statements during the rally. The Fox report only mentioned the connections, and left it up to their readers to decide if those performers were trying to sway voters.

But, that was just the work of a writer nobody’s ever heard of, right? So we shouldn’t really pay any attention to that, since I’m sure virtually no one read any of those reports any way. So, how about a Fox show actually talking about it. Cue the always reasonable crowd over at Fox & Friends:

*sigh* Okay, so… Gretchen Carlson thinks it’s unfortunate that two comedians are considered news people, and then either pretends to not know the name of the rally’s title and Colbert’s name, or displays a staggering ignorance of current events, since anyone this side of Jupiter has been inundated with news about both over the past few weeks and months. Yes, very unfortunate, Gretchen. Great news work. She also made a point of saying, “… he looks fancy in his nice suit, like he actually is a real news person,” with a snide chuckle. Which begs the question of what a comedian hosting a rally is supposed to look like.

Gretchen makes for a convincing human being in that fleshy meatsack.

Steve Doocy also made a point of saying that Stewart “tried to stir up the crowd… to vote.” Stewart never said anything at the rally about voting, and when asked at a post-rally press conference if he thought people should vote, he skirted the question and said only, “I think people should do what moves them, and that’s not my place to make that choice for them.” So bullshit, Steve. Thanks for playing the distortion game with us today, we’ll get you some lovely parting gifts.

So the immediate reaction from the media types was to get defensive to cover their own asses, or to discredit and distort what actually happened, perfectly living up to the very media-critical montages Colbert played for the crowd. But what about the politicians? Maybe they’ll be a little bit more reasonable in the days leading up to the election?

Democrats link Republican Candidates to Palin

Yeah, or I guess not.

The Democrats are trying to make Sarah Palin a big part of many senate races and local congressional races. Because, apparently a vote for any Republican is a vote for Palin. Is that the message? Or is it that Sarah Palin is so bad, that if she stands next to a candidate, her awfulness must surely rub off on them? I’m not really following the logic here, but its purpose is very clear. A lot of people don’t like Palin, so if the Dems can make an emotional connection in the minds of voters between the Republican they might be voting for and Palin, they are less likely to vote Republican.

But the Democrats certainly aren’t alone in this silly endeavor. My favorite quote from the above story comes from Nachama Soloveichik, someone with no sense of irony, and a communications director for Congressional candidate Pat Toomy, a Republican out of Pennsylvania. Said Soloveichik: “I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s Sestak trying to run away from his own record of voting with Nancy Pelosi nearly 100 percent of the time.”

So, the message from Republicans is clear: Democrats’ efforts to tie Republican candidates’ image to Sarah Palin is absolutely absurd. And was probably all Nancy Pelosi’s idea. You don’t like Nancy Pelosi, do you America? Then why would you vote for these people that are just like her!

Female leaders: They'll polarize the SHIT out of your politics.

And then I start to cry a little.

But, wait. There’s one more bastion of hope. Maybe the people of this country, the ones who Stewart and Colbert were really reaching out to, maybe they took the message of the Rally to Restore Sanity to heart.

And then I read the comment section of that very same story, and see such wonderfully classless insult-trading going on, such wonderful efforts to toe the party line without the slightest bit of thought from both sides, and racist slurs for Obama, sexist ones for Palin and Pelosi, and I think to myself…

Yeah, that.

So, what is the result of the Rally to Restore Sanity? Well, it was pretty funny for the most part, so there’s that. And otherwise? Well, nothing really. People don’t like the idea of civility nearly as much as being right. The people that were most drawn to this event were people that didn’t need to be told our world of politics wasn’t civil, or that the twenty-four hour news blows things out of proportion. The people that did need to be told that didn’t much care, as they are wont to do.

It’s a shame that the most touching, apolitical rally put on in this age had to come from two comedians (even if they did look fancy in their nice suits), but it’s an even bigger shame that its message will go largely unheralded.

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=J11QB43FGV0CJ8TV&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp

Written by oobiedoo

November 2, 2010 at 12:31 am

Christopher Monckton and “Apocalypse? No!”

with 2 comments

 

 

Chirstopher Monckton

Global Warming denier Christopher Monckton.

 

So, at the urging of a friend I finally sat down and watched Apocalypse? No!, a presentation on climate change done in a similar fashion to “An Inconvenient Truth”, only this puts forth the argument that there is no link between the actions of man and climate change. I went in particularly skeptical of what would be presented, and I was absolutely not disappointed. First my complaints from the presentation itself, which stoked me to dig a little deeper into Monckton and his findings, and then a little history of the man himself. I recommend anyone really interested in this watch the presentation first, the video is nearly ninety minutes but I shut it off after the presentation appeared to be over just past the hour mark, and come to your own conclusions before reading mine. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

*has a sandwich*

Okay. Now that we’ve all seen it, let’s begin. These are all -my- observations, and I am absolutely not an expert on anything but how to bullshit people, and I feel pretty qualified in pointing out the times it is apparent to me that Monckton is doing just that. I’ll leave refuting Monckton’s claims to the experts and present some of that at the end.

At the outset of the presentation, Monckton claims that he will only be presenting the facts as they are, and won’t be offering his own opinion to support his position, claiming that’s what people who put forth the global warming argument do. He then quoted the Fox News slogan “We Report, You Decide” to describe how he would run his presentation, and I assure you the people at Fox would approve of his use of their slogan.

 

 

Journalistic integrity.

 

In fact, his first point is presented to the audience and then spun in a misleading fashion. Not ten minutes in, Monckton has already revealed himself to be quite high on himself with little regard for his audience. He presents three quotes from scientists preparing an IPCC report on climate change, that all basically say there is no conclusive evidence to say global warming has been caused by man, that were not included in the report and replaced with the statement, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” He then used that discrepancy to claim the IPCC was claiming there -was- a problem where the scientists said there -wasn’t- a problem.

Now, I feel the need to repeat that I am not an expert or a scientist of any description (exactly like Monckton), but I know a little bit about the scientific method. And anyone adhering strictly to the scientific method to prove something cannot claim that it has been proven until every shred of doubt has been removed. So, when I see quotes from scientists that say there is no clear connection between climate change and the actions of mankind, rather than just flat out saying there is -no- connection, it leads me to believe there is -some- evidence to suggest there is a connection. And, to breakdown the official IPCC line, “The balance of evidence suggests…”, it is making the claim that there is more evidence for the argument than against.

Nobody said there -was- a problem, and more importantly, nobody said there was -not- a problem. The scientists said they couldn’t -prove- (meaning beyond any shadow of a doubt, a virtual impossibility with an issue so large with so many constantly changing variables) there was a connection, and the IPCC said they had more evidence to say there was a connection than they had to say there wasn’t.

So, Monckton is doing the work of Fox News heavyweight Bill O’Reilly, in giving the people the facts and then oversimplifying them and spinning them to his audience so that they can see those facts in the same slanted light he does.

 

 

"Well, hello there, good lookin'."

 

Throughout much of the presentation, Monckton presents graphs used by Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” or published in IPCC reports to support the global warming arguments, and then refutes their worth. He sometimes replaces those graphs with his own, compiled by his own rather unclear methods. (I’ve since come to find he used one particular equation the IPCC used in their reports… in the wrong context and inserted numbers in the wrong place.) He then presents other graphs and charts in rapid succession that bear a similar appearance to his own or the ones he’s chosen to represent the facts.

And again, his talent for bullshit is on display. He offers no context for any of these graphs he presents as irrefutable proof that the point he has just made is fact. No mention of where they came from, no mention of what they’re measuring. He doesn’t care to offer the timeframe that they’re measuring, or the location these measurements were taken. In fact, some of the graphs bear absolutely no discernible similarity to the others that he’s already presented, but he shows them just the same, with no explanation as to how they continue to support his point, just glibly claiming that they do.

 

 

As you can see, this graph perfectly illustrates my point about rising levels of bullshit.

 

Now, these graphs may do exactly what he says they do, in debunking much of the global warming argument, but I absolutely couldn’t tell you how they do that, and I’d say that’s a pretty colossal failing on the part of the presenter. (And, according to the vast majority of leading scientists in the field of climate change, his charts either -support- the arguments for global warming or have been compiled with faulty data.)

Toward the end of the presentation, Monckton draws comparisons between the global warming hype and that of two other issues, one that turned out to be valid (HIV) and one not so valid (DDT). He seems to be using this mostly to justify himself, as he makes the claim that if people had just listened to him at the beginning of the HIV epidemic that everything would be pretty well solved at this point. (Which is interesting, since he also claims now to have developed a wonder cure for HIV and MS, among others.) This is a very clear tactic of the bullshit conman: Reference a previous stand you might have taken that would have turned out to be correct, and act as though it somehow gives you credence on a completely separate issue.

 

 

The wonder cure also gives free blowjobs and, if sprinkled on the ground, grows adorable puppy trees.

 

I think that’s all the time I’m going to give to my own observations on the performance by Monckton. I think it’s enough to set the stage for a man who is clearly pushing something that should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism, and who is perhaps a complete fraud. But don’t take my word for it…

Abraham v. Monckton – A 72-minute slideshow refuting Monckton’s claims. After seeing this slideshow, Monckton responded thusly: “so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.” There are no personal attacks in Abraham’s presentation to be described as “venomous” or “ad hominem”, but hey… we certainly can’t take the word of someone that looks like a prawn. Am I right?

 

 

Prawns: They'll lie to you about global warming and eat your face.

 

Monckton’s Rap Sheet – A long list of flawed findings and really weird fucking behavior.

And, just because I felt like reading over the other side of the argument, I did a Google search for “scientists for Monckton”. The results didn’t bring up quite what I was looking for, with such headlines as “…scientists refute Monckton…”, “…scientists debunk Monckton…”, and “… scientists eviscerate Lord Monckton…”

Admittedly, I went into watching his presentation skeptically, and was very early-on not of the most open mind when he cited a Fox News slogan to describe how he perceived himself. Nonetheless, what I’ve come across is enough for me to very safely discount the work Mr. Monckton has put forth and continue my own advocacy to change the wasteful way most in America live their lives, myself very much included.

A little something more for people that want to listen to really droll explanations: