oh, i can give a senario (simplified of course just to
be a little brief although this will still be long) .
1. a few scientist notice something they have not
noticed before and tells a few more. 2. a few weeks
later they discuss it again and say, yes, i see it too
now. 3 they plublish a limited finding. questioning
what might cousde this abnormalty but, coming to no
conclusion. 4 a leak to the media happens or a media
person just finds it. alarm sells! newspapers,
magazines. alarm gets viewers on tv and radio. so
media gives an alarm. "we are going into an ice age x,
y, z, scietist says." no mention to start that there
are just questions out there that are not yet
answered. 5 some scientist disagree, but, quite reason
does not sell. it does not sell newspapers, magazines
nor does it drive ratings so those scientist are
ignored by media. 6. another scientist puts forth a
theory in answer to the one ignored and the media runs
that becouse it sells. " "midwest to become frozen
tundra according to scientis b. 7. some of the public
begins to be alarmed. 8 politicians notice that some
of the public are allarmed. 9. they look at scientist
x,y, z, and b's view and also note that SCIENTIST A,
C, AND D ARE CALMLY REFUTING IT. WHAT TO DO? WELL
ALLARM MAKES THE PUBLIC ACCEPT even demand that there
be a government program and also the tax to get the
money to spend. quiet reason however usually does not
a tax levied or nor a program started. so the
politicians go with scientist x,y,z, and b since they
wish to have the money to spend. 10 once a proposal is
made then the politicians can not allow the alARM TO
DIE DOWN So they and the media keep quoting the
alarmist and iqnoring the descenters. 11. it becomes
poplitically incorrect to oppose "conventional wisdom,
consensus is declared. descent is pretty much
censored. 12 time passes and the costastropee does not
happen but, after many years no one seems to remember
that the decenters "told them so."
yes it is simplified, but no it is not absurd to say
that the castastrophe predictions are media driven.
quite literally most have been.
i have read about several in history and lived through
one myself. when one reads history it is one thing but
then add in living through an event and when you see
something that looks similar the light goes on in your
head "i have seen this before." do you ignore what is
being presented? no, of course not, but you do look at
it with a heavy dose of sceptisism.
you young people can accept everything you are given
pretty quickly, but, forgive us old goats that have to
factor in our experience and give things a much harder
look.
--- Peter Hunsberger <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> On 9/16/07, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > media has pretty well driven one side of the
> arguments
> > every time, and every time a group of scientist
> have
> > followed. absurd as it might seem. that is
> history.
>
> To suggest that the popular media somehow sets the
> agenda for any
> research scientist is absurd at best. However, it is
> certainly not
> history, nor can you point me at one real example of
> such. If you
> have ever gone through the research grant process
> you will know that
> by the time popular media has picked up on something
> it is no longer
> possible to get a grant to research it.
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
>
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
