<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Greenbats Exposed</title>
	<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/11/23/greenbats-exposed/</link>
	<description>Our Unique Perspectives on Life and Politics</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/11/23/greenbats-exposed/#comment-27938</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/11/23/greenbats-exposed/#comment-27938</guid>
		<description>I thought &lt;b&gt;Jonah Goldberg&lt;/b&gt; captured the left's reaction to this news very well:

&lt;blockquote&gt;The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) "consensus." Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There's no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the "consensus" they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. . . .

And journalistic skepticism is almost nowhere to be found. If you know people in the "skeptic community" (for want of a better term) or even just normal, honest scientists, the observation that federal and foundation funding and groupthink is driving, or at least distorting, the climate debate is commonplace. But it's given almost no oxygen in the elite press, because they are in on it.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought <b>Jonah Goldberg</b> captured the left&#8217;s reaction to this news very well:</p>
<blockquote><p>The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) &#8220;consensus.&#8221; Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There&#8217;s no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the &#8220;consensus&#8221; they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. . . .</p>
<p>And journalistic skepticism is almost nowhere to be found. If you know people in the &#8220;skeptic community&#8221; (for want of a better term) or even just normal, honest scientists, the observation that federal and foundation funding and groupthink is driving, or at least distorting, the climate debate is commonplace. But it&#8217;s given almost no oxygen in the elite press, because they are in on it.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kini</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/11/23/greenbats-exposed/#comment-27936</link>
		<dc:creator>Kini</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/11/23/greenbats-exposed/#comment-27936</guid>
		<description>We always knew global warming was a global hoax.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We always knew global warming was a global hoax.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
 
 


