It seems I need to address myths and misconceptions about climate change. Again.
Mythconception #7: A 1922 Washington Post article stated: ‘If the warming trend continues, many coastal cities worldwide will be uninhabitable’.
This quote was not in the Washington Post article as stated by Jeff Erding in a recent FCJ article, nor would the claim be true, because the original 1922 Monthly Weather Review (the Washington Post citation) referred to sea ice. Neither sea nor oceanic ice contributes to sea level rise. Scientists have known this long before 1922. This concept is illustrated by ice in a glass of water. The level of water remains the same before and after the ice melts. Glacial ice coming from landmasses contributes to sea level rise, not sea ice.
Mythconception #8: “One hundred percent of scientists who want to stay on the government gravy train of grant money will say they believe in climate change.”
Two points to address. First, climate change isn’t a belief system. It’s the cumulative effects of global warming resulting from increased greenhouse gases in our finite atmosphere. Carbon dioxide emissions allow more water vapor to be trapped in the atmosphere and are therefore the driving forces behind climate change. Even the U.S. military acknowledges and recognizes climate change as a major destabilizer of regions adversely affected by new and often extreme weather patterns. U.S. servicemen and women deal with the effects of climate change often, at home and abroad.
Second, there is no “government gravy train” for climate change research. According to the Office of Budget and Management, from 1993-2017, $154 billion was spent on climate change programs. However, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found of six agencies it studied that 94% of the funding went to nuclear power programs and technology; that means it was not going to scientists researching the past, present, or future conditions and hazards that climate change poses. Climate scientists (including geologists) would likely fare better working in the private sector instead of having to beg for grant money. Grant writing is arduous and time-consuming, nor accompanied by any guarantee of funding.
The U.S. Department of Defense has deemed climate change a national security threat. In January of 2019, the Department of Defense provided a 22-page report concluding: “About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought. About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires…. In a few instances, locations considered not currently vulnerable were deemed to be vulnerable in the future…. It is relevant to point out that “future” in this analysis means only 20 years in the future.” –Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense 2019 Former Defense Secretary James Mattis stated: “I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation.”
In March 2019 the Government Accountability Office issued an annual High-Risk Series report emphasizing areas the United States government can improve economically. Their chapter titled: “Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks” consists of measures the U.S. Government is failing with regard to climate change resiliency programs, focusing particularly on disaster relief and USDA insurance programs. In summary, due to a lack of preparation for climate change now, we may experience major financial shortfalls in the future.
I am proud our U.S. military bravely stands and vocally recognizes the legitimacy of the world’s climate scientists and their research. If neither the scientific community’s research nor the United States military’s published warnings of climate change convince you of human-caused climate change I’m unsure what will. I applaud everyone else who has decided to face the reality no matter how unwelcome it is.
I request the Fillmore County Journal cease allowing climate deniers a platform to invent or repost misinformation that misguides the public. Opinion is one thing. Fabrications is another. We may expect such nonsense on Facebook, but we must hold our local newspapers to a higher standard. It shouldn’t become a conduit for fake news, or “alternative facts”.
Cheers.
Sources:
1922 Monthly Weather Review: ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
1922 Washington Post article content: https://www.truthorfiction.com/newspaper-article-from-1922-discusses-arctic-ocean-climate-change/
The Washington Post article image: http://letsrebuildit.com/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-news&id=443%3Aglobalwarming&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=50
U.S. Dept. of Defense 2019 Report: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/29/2002084200/-1/-1/1/CLIMATE-CHANGE-REPORT-2019.PDF
2015 GAO: https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673823.pdf
2018 GAO Nuclear numbers: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-223
2018 GAO Climate Change Finances: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691572.pdf
2019 High Risk Series Report: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697245.pdf
Armed Forces: http://time.com/5507465/climate-change-impact-armed-forces-bases/
Jeff Erding article: http://fillmorecountyjournal.com/climate-science-or-climate-science-fiction/
Mythconceptions Pt. 1: http://fillmorecountyjournal.com/devils-advocateclimate-change-mythconceptions/
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis: https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/03/14/secretary-mattis-clear-eyed-on-climate-security-risks/
Climate and Security: https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/03/16/release-u-s-military-leaders-applaud-secretary-mattis-clear-eyed-view-on-climate-change-and-security/
Sara says
It’s amazing how anyone would call this ‘ranting’ or ‘laughable at best’. It is filled with sources and citations that give the ground to the solid evidence provided.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Kim Wentworth says
Aaron, your argument is a bit ranting but it with passion. Any attempt to say the ” majority” of scientists support your argument is laughable at best. My sources 😃: Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh. I am not a fox news guy per sayI SO WISH A DEBATE THERE. I really think your last paragraph is out of frustration. I understand that. I wish you the best and so look forward to other debates. I promise to be as factual as I can but I don’t cut and paste. I appreciate the back and forth. You get me thinking, for what’s it’s worth. From my past comments you should know I am very pro earth. Happy Fathers Day 😃
Aaron Bishop says
Thank you for reading my article, Kim. I appreciate the dialogue.
Cheers!
Herb Panko says
So you don’t name call or hurl insults, Hawkeye? How about your sarcastic references to me as ” a self-proclaimed expert” and my “vast intellect”? I just find such words humorous, hypocritical, and juvenile. But then you were also demeaning and insulting to Aaron in your last post to him when you you told him he had “to get off his high horse.” Once again as I’ve told you before over the years, when you know you have lost the argument, you resort to insults. Aaron bested you in this global warming debate, and you won’t admit it I will not reply to any more of your posts
Hawkeye63 says
@ Herb, since when is sarcasm the same as name calling? I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left as you insist on exercising your free speech rights while censoring those who don’t buy into the radical left wing agenda. You are unwilling to admit your prejudice and bias but every word you write reveals it.
Regarding your future refusal to respond further, I get it. Debating free speech and other Constitutional issues is not something you can do without losing….. because you believe the Constitution is obsolete and everyone would be better off if America adopted the philosophy of intellectual elites ( like yourself) on the left. The rest of us should just dummy up and accept our inferior status as servants of those like yourself who are so much better qualified to rule and set policy.
Excuse me for not feeling devastated by your refusal to interact further with me. I will try to carry on with my life as best I can.
Kim Wentworth says
Herb, after the dust has settled, are picking up your toys and going home? I was born in the sitxes, raised in the seventies. I get a kick out of some people getting hurt over a debate. I honestly don’t get it. Climate change is such a B. S. debate. It is all politics, all income theft. Aaron last post falls short as debates go. But he is arguing from a weak hand. POINT: EVERYTHING based in ANY aspect of human existence is science, you are right Herb. But the problem is science, on ANY topic is never been based on fact, do your research. Name calling?? You libtards make it so dam easy. 😃. Happy Fathers Day.
Herbert Panko says
Hawkeye, as I have learned in the past with you, no amount of factual informatìon that contradicts your claims will move you in the slightest. When you realize you have lost the argument, you resort to insults & name-calling as you just did with me. I’m disappointed that you resort to such juvenile tactics.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Herb, you really do crack me up. We all know you would shut down Fox news, lock up every conservative commentator and throw away the key, and have every officer of the NRA in prison if you could do it. Plus, I did not call you any names…. The way you did when you wrote online about Erding. Maybe you want to go back and read what you wrote and then publish an apology for name calling. I won’t hold my breath.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Hobbes, Held how and who’s standard?
@ Herb, I still want to hear your thoughts.
Thomas E.H. says
@Hawkeye63
//Held how and who’s standard?//
Held higher by the viewer’s standards.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Thomas, Viewers can hit that little button that changes the channel or turn the tv off. What else you got?
Thomas E.H. says
@Hawkeye63
//Viewers can hit that little button that changes the channel or turn the tv off. What else you got?//
That’s precisely what people should do. That’s all I’m suggesting.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Aaron Bishop, help me understand a few items please.
You say the statement about coastal cities being flooded was not in the 1922 global warming article, but when I looked on line, it is quoted that way in almost every source. What is the deal? Did the article even actually exist?
Mr. Erding’s commentary seems to be based on trying to point out that climate has hit lots of extremes and changed a lot over time , way before man could have been responsible. Do you take the position that humans can stop climate from changing by eliminating sources that produce CO2?
Do you feel the views on climate expressed by Issac Orr, who Mr. Erding listed as a source, are irresponsible and inaccurate? Should people who don’t believe humans can control climate be censored?
Do you feel that Democrat proposals to go 100% green by 2050 despite the huge costs is a good investment for Minnesota? Will it move the needle on stopping global warming? Is there data that shows Minnesota can lower temps on a global scale by going green?
Thanks.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Hawkeye,
To be clear, the 1922 article was not a global warming article. It was referring to a localized weather event affecting a region in the Arctic. An extreme weather event, I might add, that has now become the norm, as the conditions described in the real 1922 article (and subsequently the source of that article) are now commonplace instead of being anomalous.
To answer your question, the primary source is the only source I am interested in when searching/citing sources. You say that when you looked online, “it is quoted that way in almost every source.” What sources were you using? Since you implied that not every source had it quoted that way, which sources were not quoted that way? Again, I used the primary source (you can see the image and words in my sources).
As I mentioned in my original article, even if the quote were in the original WP article (it wasn’t), it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t in the primary citation the WP/AP article based the information on. We could easily state the WP/AP article had made it up just to grab headlines. But it didn’t, because it wasn’t there. As I stated, the science doesn’t work anyway. Sea/ocean ice melt does not contribute to ocean level rise.
Jeff Erding’s commentary points to specific (and notable) weather events hitting at different times in different locations throughout recorded history. The rate of change of temperatures and ocean acidification is attributed to CO2 emissions that humans are expelling into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Or nearly unprecedented. One can see similar CO2 rate changes leading to the most catastrophic extinction events on Earth.
I take the position that humans can mitigate the effects by not compounding the problem. I don’t know everything Isaac Orr or Jeff Erding has to say on the climate change topic. From what I have personally seen in reference or in writing, neither has a firm grasp on the topic, even if they have a strong opinion on it. One suggestion I would have for them would be to read the Department of Defense reports I provided in this article (and the many others from the DoD over the years that also address climate change). I do not support censorship of honest questioning, skepticism, or disagreement of the facts.
I would like to be sure it is fully understood that humans don’t control climate. If we could, there’d be no problem. What we do is cause an imbalance in the climate. People who don’t understand that are welcome to express their opinions on the matter, but not make fabrications of fact. I gave Jeff Erding two opportunities to present his source for the WP/AP article (you are also welcome to provide your source as well) before writing this article. Please do so if you’re willing.
Minnesota doesn’t have many natural gas, oil, and coal resources. Would you prefer we remain dependent upon purchasing energy from outside sources or producing our own? According to our own state websites, we’re doing quite well in our renewable energy resource goals: “In 2015, over 21% of electricity generated in Minnesota came from renewable energy sources. Minnesota is on track to meet its renewable electricity standard for over 25% renewable electricity by 2025.” It’s been years since then, and more transition has been made. Investments in smarter and more efficient technology is better in the long run. Huge costs for fighting something the GAO (as mentioned in my article) says will be far more expensive in the future if we don’t face the reality now. This is why I focused so much of my article on the perspective from the U.S. military who do take climate change seriously. They are fully aware of the risks and hazards of climate change.
That said, I believe the most effective path to mitigate climate change (when discussing energy use) is conservation. Consumption vs. conservation is a discussion that is truly worthwhile.
What Minnesota does regarding climate change will be watched by other states. Lowering temperatures of the world is not the sole target. We can do that with more pollutants (aerosols), but that will only be masking the effects for a limited time. Yes. Minnesota can certainly help move the needle. How much? That depends on how successful we are at obtaining energy independence.
Cheers
Hawkeye63 says
@ Aaron, thanks for the reply. To be clear, what you are saying is:
1) Humans cannot control climate.
2) Humans are producing vast amounts of CO2, which is contributing to warming global temps.
3) The 1922 article does exist, everything Erding listed was in it except the coastal flooding, which, you say, was not. But we should not think the situation in 1922 is relevant, because we are now in a permanent warming phase and we can stop it by spending billions on green energy initiatives.
Ok, that is your opinion. Lots of scientists agree with you, lots do not. You are entitled to your opinion.
Also, you do not know what Issac Orr thinks , which is obvious because he has nothing to say about climate change. His article in Thinking Minnesota is strictly about the costs to taxpayers of Democrat proposals and alternative methods to achieve the same environmental results without breaking the financial backs of citizens, schools, and businesses. You list a dozen or so sources and expect us to check them. Erding lists one or 2, and you can’t be bothered to look it up?
Aaron, you need to realize that you, Erding, Eric Leitzen, Goodmundson, etc, are sending in commentaries. You are not Journalists. Period. These are opinion pieces, and until the thought police in the Democratic Socialist party get control, America still has freedom of speech. Agreed?
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Hawkeye63,
1) Take care to not oversimplify, as that often leads to inaccurate conclusions. Humans can cause changes in climatic conditions, although we cannot (at this point) control it like we can in a climate-controlled building.
2) Yes.
3) The first part was correct, the second part is not accurate. I would expound if you’d like, but only after you’ve answered my questions. Fair is fair.
4) When you use words like “Lots do, lots don’t” you make it sound as though equal parts do and don’t, (e.g. 50% do agree with the facts/findings while 50% do not). This is not an honest way to illustrate or portray the vast number and percentage of relevant scientists who accept the reality for what it is when it comes to climate change; that it’s happening and humans are a driving force with our actions.
5) Incorrect. Isaac Orr had nothing to say on climate change in the article Jeff Erding referenced. However, I did indeed bother to read up on Isaac Orr’s skeptical position on climate change. He’s got quite a bit to say about it, contrary to what you said. I’m surprised you didn’t do the research that you have claimed I did not do. Prior to your recent line of questioning, I’d read Orr’s position here: https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-skeptics-and-believers/a-18914293. Feel free to do so yourself. If I’m wrong and this is a different Isaac Orr who coincidentally also works at the Heartland Institute, set me straight.
Again, I did not dispute anything Jeff Erding claimed Orr said in my article as it wasn’t pertinent to what I had to say on the matter. Please do not accuse me of something you’re not fully prepared to back up. I listed my sources to make fact-checking easy and because I want to be accurate when I say something. I want the full context to be accessible to anyone so if I do make a mistake, it can be corrected.
The direct and primary sources I provided had to do with my article, and some of those were applicable to Jeff Erding’s commentary. Clearly, neither you nor Jeff (even though Jeff wrote the article) found the primary source for the very information he was writing about.
As I mentioned, the vast majority of my article referenced the U.S. military’s position on the matter, something you have chosen not to address. I would state it would have been convenient for Erding to provide a source citation for Orr’s words such as a direct URL link (Jeff, care to do that?) I still would like to see the source you and/or Jeff found for the 1922 WP/AP article (as I’d requested). The lack of such makes it far more cumbersome to crosscheck. This is why I provide all my sources for the world to see. No hiding behind the maze of internet results when searching for key words.
6) These are not solely opinion pieces, not that I would have any problem if they were solely opinion pieces. My problem was Erding stating something as fact when it is not fact. Should the Journal publish something that I write that is wholly fabricated? If I were to say, “In 1956, Donald Trump said he was going to help the Soviet Union take over the United States” or some screwball thing like that, should that be allowed? Freedom of speech, right? Wrong. There are limits to the freedom of speech. Lying is covered by the freedom of speech in most cases and is absolutely allowed to happen. However, the Fillmore County Journal need not accept commentary with lies or fabrications or falsehoods or fakenews or be the conduit and mechanism for their dispersal. They are a private business with rights as well.
Hawkey63, you have ignored my questions to you. Here they are again. “You say that when you looked online, “it is quoted that way in almost every source.” What sources were you using? Since you implied that not every source had it quoted that way, which sources were not quoted that way?”
And: “Minnesota doesn’t have many natural gas, oil, and coal resources. Would you prefer we remain dependent upon purchasing energy from outside sources or producing our own?” I’m honestly curious, and since I have answered your questions to the best of my ability, I politely ask you to indulge me.
I believe I have answered all of your questions and would end with saying you’ve completely ignored the conclusions made by the U.S. military with regard to climate change. Inconspicuously so. Perhaps you’ve accepted they have more resources in, and knowledge of, this subject than yourself.
Cheers
Hawkeye63 says
@ Aaron, In a roundabout way, I guess you answered my questions but lord man you are so verbose it’s time consuming to sort out the answers. You are indeed the king of internet research.
The problem is, all the research is based on climate models…. and climate models just do not work. Just because a scientist works for the U.S. Military, he is not infallible and his affiliation does not make his conclusions any more accurate than anyone else’s
William Happer, Ph.D, is one of the most brilliant scientists the world has ever seen. He has written extensively on this subject, and rightly points out that in 2017, weather experts could not even predict if the path of hurricane Irma would travel up the west coast of Florida or the east. I will quote him briefly
. ” Climate modeling is a very hard problem…. involves the interaction of 2 turbulent fluids, the atmosphere and the ocean. Devilishly hard to predict what a fluid will do.”
Aaron, that is why the models which predicted rising oceans and global temps have been so far off the mark. Nothing close to the predictions has happened.
Happer goes on to say, ” Poorly informed proponents of climate alarmism like to claim that the science of climate change is as well understood as the laws of celestial mechanics and that we can predict climate 1 hundred years from now as well as we can predict an eclipse of the sun….. which is absurd. ”
He does not believe CO2 is a major factor influencing climate.
He does not believe we should embrace ” wrenching economic policies” which will be ” a minor inconvenience for the privileged saviors of the planet ” but will ” hurt the rest of humanity and probably damage the environment as well.” I agree: all one need do is check out what solar and wind do to good ag land.
He also describes how the motions and parcels of air and water, combined with the forces of gravity and the viscosity of vapors and pressures along with sun spot activity combine to create an equation impossible to solve, even with the aid of the most powerful super computers in the world.
I agree with Professor Happer. I am not against reducing carbon emissions, but solar and wind are not the answer. They both cause far too much environmental damage and never operate at even close to their advertised capacity. Plus they are too expensive to build and maintain. All we need to do is look at what Europe has experienced to conclude wind and solar are a dead end. The R.O.I. is just not there to justify using wind and solar.
And yes Aaron, they are opinion pieces. You wanting them to be more then that does not mean they are. Are you or Erding or anyone who submits a “Commentary” getting paid? I think not. Being a perfectionist on sources yourself does not make you infallible…. what if, despite all your efforts, your source is full of baloney, and you use it because it happens to agree with your personal philosophy? You really need to get off the high horse somewhat. You might think you are perfect, but everybody makes mistakes.
I apologize for not punching in links. I get most of my info from magazines like Range, Thinking Minnesota, Etc. Not much on the internet. sorry.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Hawkeye63,
The problem is not that the research is based on faulty climate models. I didn’t use climate models in my article to make any predictions. The information that I used in my article is based on emerging trends and the overall concept that significantly increased water vapor in the atmosphere will cause a changing in climate across the United States and world.
The military information was from the Department of Defense and their real-time experiences, not an assessment of a model some military scientist cooked up. Nowhere in the report did it cite a scientist or a study about atmospheric patterns. It simply illustrated the lack of preparedness for the future if the current trends they’ve experienced continues its trajectory.
William Happer, who specializes in atomic physics and spectroscopy, was talking about a hurricane path. The direction of a particular hurricane falls under the “weather”, not “global climate change”, category. Climate modeling doesn’t explain where a hurricane will go (blame the meteorologists), but it can make the prediction that weather events will become more extreme. Of course, fluid dynamics are difficult to predict on a regional scale. That’s why the climate are generalized. Although I would agree with Happer that we cannot predict the climate as we can an eclipse, I’m unsure if he’s pulling that argument from thin air or if it’s just an anecdote, but I hope you, Hawkeye, don’t believe most people who accept anthropogenic climate change think we can make such predictions about the future climate. We can’t. Only generalizations.
Climate modeling covers the basic knowns. More water vapor in the atmosphere will alter air currents, bring more rain more intensely in some places, and less rain more prolongedly in some places. Maybe in the same place, but different times. Sea levels rise when more water is entering the oceans than leaving it. Determining how much rise depends on evaporation rates as well as location since water behaves differently as it warms and moves (not to mention the salinity of the water plays a role). Currents that once consistently moved one way may begin shifting, increasing the likelihood of sea-level rise changes in differing areas. What areas to what level of rise? That’s the hard part.
I’m not sure your position on climate change as a whole. Perhaps you’re in the “it’s happened before, is happening now, but humans aren’t the cause of it now” camp. But let me ask you what the driving force behind climate change is right now, if you think it’s happening. I’ve asked these questions for myself already, which is partially how I’ve ended up with the current conclusion that I have.
Is it the sun? It plays a part, but isn’t the sole driver: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Is it volcanoes? No. I already addressed this in a previous article: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Is it aerosols? No, because these temporarily cool the planet, which may have masked warming effects earlier last century.
Is it deforestation? The lack of natural CO2 filters has indeed contributed to atmospheric CO2 levels. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6088/1573
But, what do you think?
1. What did climate change look like in the past? (geology)
2. What factors contributed to rapid climate change in the past?
3. What evidence would we expect to find if climate change is happening now?
4. What are the main factors causing the climate to change now?
5. What role do humans have in those factors?
My answers may seem verbose to you, but I don’t know any other way to articulate my point for fear of it being misconstrued (as you illustrated by trying to summarize my position early). However, I have, at least, answered your questions which is more than I can say of you.
I hope what you don’t take away from our discourse is that you and I are so different, our backgrounds so variant, and our future outlook so obscure that we cannot ever agree on anything or that we shouldn’t agree on anything. There will hopefully be a time you and I share similar thoughts on a topic and can work together to tackle a problem if one persists. It’s really difficult to portray undulation or emotions when typing/reading online. It’s the bane of social media forums as well. I do not mean to make it seem as though I think I’m always right, and I illustrate that by providing my sources to allow others to read the full source in context. I welcome corrections, but I won’t lie down and be spoonfed information from media sources. Sure, they can make some things more digestible, but I usually find it also makes those things less accurate; too simplified (is chocolate good for us?).
That’s why I read and use as many primary sources as possible for my articles. But, if I “sound” rude in my typing to you, or if you “hear” me talking down to you, I apologize and truly want you to know that it’s not my intent. I may indeed get frustrated when I feel I have to always answer questions and not get my own questions answered, and that may indeed be a source of the “high horse” appearance, because I do like to delve into questions I’m passionate about. An admitted character flaw. I know I’m not even close to perfect, Hawkeye, but I do strive to be my best, and I can only do that by being as honest about my ignorance (and knowledge) as I can.
You and I mostly agree that wind/solar isn’t the end-game final answer to the energy/climate crisis. You and I mostly agree that throwing money around in the name of climate change won’t do the trick (as I stated in my article, most monies slotted for climate change research has gone to nuclear programs). You and I most likely agree there is environmental damage taking place that occurs with or without climate change that should be focused on and addressed. I hope we’ll be able to work on the same side of an argument one day, because lord man, you are tenacious. (And I mean that kindly)
Cheers
Herbert Panko says
Great rebuttal, Aaron! Your article is well researched and professionally documented. I also agree that the press in general should not print fabrications masquerading as facts.. Keep up the good work. Democracy dies in darkness.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Herb Panko, glad you chimed in! You must be mellowing… shutting down a small fry like Mr.Erding is small potatoes. What should be done with people like Hannity, Dennis Prager, Limbaugh, NRA officers Like Wayne Lapierre? How about Ben Shapiro, or Candace Owens, or Larry Elder? What ever shall we do with Fox News? Please share your thoughts on what can be done? Thank you.
Herb Panko says
Hawkeye, read the last paragraph of Aaron Bishop’s rebuttal to Erding. I think what he and I are suggesting is that the press should not give equal weight to an article that is based on facts and one that is based on deception, fabrication, and obfuscation, pretending to be facts. Dishonesty has no place in journalism. We are living in a period where good journalism is called “fake news” if does not fit or align with our own political prejudices. Fox News and Trump are the biggest purveyors of such deceit.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Herb Panko… So the names I listed are all staunch conservatives and Trump supporters. In a perfect world, what is to be done with those people and entities?
T.E. Hobbes says
@Hawkeye
They should be held to a higher standard.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Herb, I would love to hear your thoughts about conservative spokes people and Fox News, which by the way is the only cable news entity that invites all sides to share their views and frequently has guests who are members of the left.
Are you afraid to discuss these things with a farmer who spent minimum time in college? You, who taught school for years and is a self proclaimed political expert?
Come on , Herb. Bring your vast intellect to the discussion. Tell us your vision for America and how Liberal ” Thought Police” are needed to save the country. I can’t wait!
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Hawkeye63,
It’s not so much about “though police” although that may indeed be a valid concern. My request is not about suppressing anyone’s voice. It’s merely a request to ensure the claims being touted as fact (not opinion) are indeed valid. As I alluded to in my article, we get enough of the fake quotations attributed to people (conservative and liberal) on social media sites, and I for one do not want to see our local newspapers (and especially its readers) fall victim to fabricated statements.
Cheers
Aaron Bishop says
Thank you for reading my article, Herb.