Posted on Jul 27, 2022
OAN, a Dependable Trump Promoter, Faces a 'Death Blow'
509
22
17
6
6
0
Not sure if this has been shared or not. But this is excellent.
OAN, a Dependable Trump Promoter, Faces a 'Death Blow'
Posted from yahoo.com
Media
Journalism
Conservative
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
2
2
0
That's how the big media companies get rid of the programming they don't like. No surprise. The left has been pushing for Fox to be dropped from the platforms as well.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Thank you for letting me know but even I didn't know about them.
On the flip side of this, I was listening toIs National Public Radio a couple days ago. I listen to them every day for their hourly updates but I haven't listened to their podcasts in quite some time. I couldn't believe how partisan NPR has beenConcerning the under 45 year old democrats that are giving president Biden a 5% approval rating because hes not tough enough on find the change? Are you are you kidding me ? The under 45 crowd that are paying for high gas prices and run away inflation is only concerned about saving the Earth?You gotta be kidding!I heard the whole Podcast and I didn't melt like others do when they listen toThe Fox News Channel.I can listen to other points of view and not collapse like Superman being exposed to kryptonite.
I have been listening to National Public Radio since the Clarence Thomas hearings in the early nineties.
I can't believe how partisan NPR has become and it might as well be a public affairs channel for the White House.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/20/ [login to see] /just-5-percent-of-young-voters-strongly-approve-of-bidens-performance
On the flip side of this, I was listening toIs National Public Radio a couple days ago. I listen to them every day for their hourly updates but I haven't listened to their podcasts in quite some time. I couldn't believe how partisan NPR has beenConcerning the under 45 year old democrats that are giving president Biden a 5% approval rating because hes not tough enough on find the change? Are you are you kidding me ? The under 45 crowd that are paying for high gas prices and run away inflation is only concerned about saving the Earth?You gotta be kidding!I heard the whole Podcast and I didn't melt like others do when they listen toThe Fox News Channel.I can listen to other points of view and not collapse like Superman being exposed to kryptonite.
I have been listening to National Public Radio since the Clarence Thomas hearings in the early nineties.
I can't believe how partisan NPR has become and it might as well be a public affairs channel for the White House.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/20/ [login to see] /just-5-percent-of-young-voters-strongly-approve-of-bidens-performance
Just 5 Percent Of Young Voters Strongly Approve Of Biden's Performance : The NPR Politics Podcast...
The president's support among young voters — who generally trend Democratic — is anemic, with their level of support comparable with his numbers among whites without college degrees and white evangelical Christians. Part of the problem for Biden may be his big promises: then-candidate Biden promised transformational change, but his narrow control of the Senate and intraparty opposition has constrained his progress on key goals like climate....
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
PO1 Jeff Chandler -
You stated:
"Science isn’t a democracy."
and
"Why does the left think “consensus” is science?"
I never claimed either of those things, but we need a way to evaluate the information that science, as a field, is giving us to make it useful one way or another. The large parts of the field of engineering relies on being able to do this. There will always be contrary opinions on everything that the scientific community as a whole comes up with. Can I find some scientist somewhere that claims the world is flat? Likely. Should I then conclude that it's just some thing we don't know? Eh, probably not.
This gets down to how we evaluate reality and how we come to the conclusion of what is likely true, what is likely untrue and what we just have no idea about.
You stated:
"Science isn’t a democracy."
and
"Why does the left think “consensus” is science?"
I never claimed either of those things, but we need a way to evaluate the information that science, as a field, is giving us to make it useful one way or another. The large parts of the field of engineering relies on being able to do this. There will always be contrary opinions on everything that the scientific community as a whole comes up with. Can I find some scientist somewhere that claims the world is flat? Likely. Should I then conclude that it's just some thing we don't know? Eh, probably not.
This gets down to how we evaluate reality and how we come to the conclusion of what is likely true, what is likely untrue and what we just have no idea about.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
LTC (Join to see) -
You stated:
"if you don't have a thesis that fits their agenda, they are not going to fund your research project When they say 95% of scientists agree, that means the other 5% are fired."
Who are "they"? Public funding? There are lots of private energy companies who fund research too. They have funded a lot of research to try and show first that climate change wasn't happening and then that it wasn't man made. To the extent that private funding has dried up has been a result of such studies rarely creating the results that the energy companies were hoping for.
You stated:
"if you don't have a thesis that fits their agenda, they are not going to fund your research project When they say 95% of scientists agree, that means the other 5% are fired."
Who are "they"? Public funding? There are lots of private energy companies who fund research too. They have funded a lot of research to try and show first that climate change wasn't happening and then that it wasn't man made. To the extent that private funding has dried up has been a result of such studies rarely creating the results that the energy companies were hoping for.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
PO1 Jeff Chandler - Right off the bat, if we are going to have a discussion about science, we should be using the terms science used. You said theory, you meant hypothesis. BTW, a hypothesis can mature into a theory but a theory never becomes a fact. A fact is something that can be observed. A hypothesis and theory deal with why we think it is happening. You state that you can prove the earth is round but climate scientists feel they can prove what they are saying too. At this point climate change is a fact and the body of science around it deal with "why" it is happening. Earlier hypothesis are maturing into theories as their predictions on the fact of global warming are coming true.
I can use all the arguments you have presented here to maintain a position that the earth is flat. You can present all the evidence you want, but I'll just counter with a bunch of whack job researchers saying what I want to hear. There's always a few if we want to look for them. You'll never be able to get by my personal incredulity and all the evidence in the world won't change that and all the consensus you can show me won't overcome the argument you made earlier in this thread. Pictures can be faked, there are other crackpot explanations can be presented, etc. It will be a lot easier if I can use scientific terminology incorrectly too.
Now we both know that doing that is simply ridiculous, but to be quite frank it isn't that far a step from where you are with climate change. From an evidence perspective we've moved well beyond the is it happening question to the "are we causing it and by how much question". The fact that this warming was predicted by earlier work makes it much more credible.
I can use all the arguments you have presented here to maintain a position that the earth is flat. You can present all the evidence you want, but I'll just counter with a bunch of whack job researchers saying what I want to hear. There's always a few if we want to look for them. You'll never be able to get by my personal incredulity and all the evidence in the world won't change that and all the consensus you can show me won't overcome the argument you made earlier in this thread. Pictures can be faked, there are other crackpot explanations can be presented, etc. It will be a lot easier if I can use scientific terminology incorrectly too.
Now we both know that doing that is simply ridiculous, but to be quite frank it isn't that far a step from where you are with climate change. From an evidence perspective we've moved well beyond the is it happening question to the "are we causing it and by how much question". The fact that this warming was predicted by earlier work makes it much more credible.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford If the hypothesis doesn't fit the narrative of the left, they won't fund it. Scientists are supposed to have their papers published and all people try to recreate their hypothesis to prove that it works.. The left doesn't work that way
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google