HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:18:33 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>zs> [W]hat is in dispute on Global Warming is not whether or not the Earth
>zs> is warming, it is. The dispute is how much hotter it will probably get 
>zs> and what the possible consequences are.
>
>  The earth (as in globally averaged temperature) is not *known* to be
>  warming. Some areas have shown warming, others have not. If you know 
>  even a little bit about how the temperature data we do have is distrib-
>  uted, and what data we wish we had, then you cannot say unequivocally
>  that the earth is warming.

If I may refer you to "Science", February 2, 1990, AND January 18, 1991.
Before going on, Science is one of the most respected peer-reviewed scientific
journals in print.

In both of these stories there is a graph which was prepared by the University
of East Anglia and the UK Meterological Office. It is labelled "Annual Surface
Temperature For the *WORLD*". (Emphasis is mine.) The range of dates is
1856 to the current time. (Naturally, the graph in the 1991 issue's story
has one more year on it.)

The graphs CLEARLY show a warming trend, an increase of about 0.5 degrees
Centagrade. Granted, 0.5 degrees C isn't a whole hell of a lot, but it
only takes a few degrees of increase of average temperature to influence
global weather patterns, and thus global climate.

The graph also shows that the increase is increasing. The data also shows
that the 1980s was the hottest decade on record and that 1990 (and since then
1991) were the hottest years on record.

Yes, I can unequivocably say the Earth is warming.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:28:15 GMT

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:

>Zack, you are incredibly amusing.  It is obvious that he was speaking of an 
>enhanced greenhouse effect, a.k.a. global warming.  I ask you, has global 
>warming been proven in "laboratory experiments"? *chuckle*  Boy, if everything 
>worked in the world as it did in the lab we wouldn't need any engineers.  Then 
>maybe less lawyers, etc....It's incredible that you can claim that we 
>"dittoheads" (that is a compliment, by the way!) take everything Rush says as 
>fact and don't think for ourselves.  Maybe you should stop and listen to 
>yourself.

Ahh, Susan, long time, no hear! No, all of the possible consequences of
Global Warming have not been proven in the lab. I have never said that
they have. And I have admitted time and time again that the issue of
Global Warming is still a hotly debated issue. And why would a scientist
refer to Global Warming as the Greenhouse Effect? Yes, I knew that Pat
was talking about Global Warming, one of my intents was to show that
a good scientist would KNOW the difference between the Greenhouse Effect
and Global Warming and wouldn't refer to them as one and the same.

>>Sorry, but you seem to be misinformed. While a large part of the Global
>>Warming theory does rely on various models, the models are but one part
>>of the equation. Other parts are 1) the Greenhouse Effect IS an obserseved
>>phenomena, 2) man's production of known Greenhouse Gases has been increasing
>>for the past 100 years, 3) observed levels of CO2 have been increasing
>>ever since they have been measured, and 4) the average global temperature
>>has been rising since it has been observed, over 100 years.
>
>I believe that these aspects are included in the models. If they aren't, maybe
>you could persuade some scientists to do it! ;)

Yes, all of the above ARE included in the models. Of course they are. Why
shouldn't they be? What is your point?

>Zack, I have a question for you:  Is global warming occuring?

Leading question. The observed global temperature has been rising ever
since they have been recorded. (Science, February 2, 1992). Does that
answer your question? ;-)

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-government media bias (was Re: Media bias)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:18:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul22.061520.18874@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.011105.1309@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>>	And not driving a car will reduce auto accidents, not swimming
>>	will reduce drowning deaths and not going to work will reduce
>>	the spread of nasty flu viruses. 
>
>But you don't see activists clamoring for the government to "do something"
>about auto accidents, drownings, or the common cold.

  You DON'T?   (This has to be one of the most uninformed postings I've
  seen recently on Usenet)  What about all those NHTSA laws concerning
  automobile crashworthiness?   What about other DoT rules concerning
  passive restraints, brakelights, child safety seats, etc?   The 
  activists for this were mainly the IIFHS, the Red Cross, the National
  Safety Council, Ralph Nader and his minions, and several phsyicans
  groups.  
         
  And as for drownings:  I've never lived in a town yet that didn't require
  a fence around any private pool (the legal term is "attractive nuisance".)
  And many of the public beaches around here have tax-supported lifeguards.
  And the fire departments give CPR classes and they are trained in thin
  ice rescues.  And what about the Coast Guard's safety standards and
  inspections?   
              

---peter






Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:18:15 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:


>Most of what Zack Sessions quotes from is indeed something I wrote,
>but the part about the Urban Heat Island is not.  I fear that
>some adversary will expose as imposture what he will take to be
>a false claim that I did research at Cornell.  He'll brandish
>letters from various departments saying they never heard of me.

I did indeed notice that the article I was responding to was not yours,
but one which someone else had responded to. My apologies. However,
I feel that your fears will probably not be responded to.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Saddam, Bush, Rabin, Clinton: speculation
Keywords: bombs away
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:22:10 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 92Jul26203224@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
>So Bush may really mean it.  I was very pleased to see Clinton and
>Mitchell back up Bush.  I hope that if the crisis were to last into
>a Clinton presidency, Clinton would also be resolute.  However, I
>worry that it might be mere electoral tactics.  If Bush has to zap
>Saddam again, the public will support it, and politicians who don't
>will lose.
>
I'd be doubtful about Clinton's resolution in the same situation that 
Bush faced in late 1990.  As I recall he kept a pretty low profile
on the issue, despite being a principal in the DLC, a moderate
Democratic policy group with visibility on national issues.  Now
of course it has been shown that military action against Iraq was
relatively painless for the US and popular as well, so it isn't much
of a reach for Clinton to support it.  Gore voted for the use of force
resolution in the Senate, but his position was heavily qualified.  He
in effect wanted the mere passage of the resolution to disuade Iraq,
while not necessarily being in favor of launching the war.  Noble
enough, but making threats without the intention of backing them up
is not good policy.  I don't see either of them doing the job Bush
did--creating an international coalition and driving the issue
domestically, or putting enough troops in SA for offensive action.

>I suppose it may not be the Israelis but merely Bush's electoral
>situation that makes him take a tough line.
 
I don't think this is true.  Bush was taking a tough line (once he made up
his mind after a couple days of flip-flops) in the face of considerable
doubt during 1990.  He made the choice then when the results
were uncertain and when many were predicting thousands
of US dead.  You can critisize Bush for a number of things but
his handling of the war was resolute and effective.

Best quote on the subject, as always, goes to Bob Dole: If Saddam
does not comply with our demands, "it's bombs away."

---
Don McGregor | "The platform the program runs best on is the 
drm@esl.com  |  overhead projector."

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2457 alt.rush-limbaugh:2992 talk.politics.misc:35543
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:35:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mississippi State University

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>>Also, listen carefully to the abortion debate.
>>Remember that the "labels" of choice for each of the sides are
>>Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.  What you will hear the media call them most of
>>the time is Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion.  Subtle, but the connotations
>>are certainly not beyond the average journalism student.

>Sorry, you must be listening to some different media that I am. I always
>hear them referred to in the media as pro-choice and pro-life.

I disagree, I haven't heard anyone call the 'Operation Rescue' people 'pro-
life', they are on network news all the time and what is said is 'Anti-
abortion demonstators blocked....'.  I can't think of a single instance
that the mainstream media refers to 'pro-life' supporters as 'pro-life'.
I (and I feel safe in speaking for the conservative side..) don't really
care if you like the name they have chosen to use or not...but we do
care when you change it for them (I know of people that would rather
the 'pro-choice' people would call themselves 'pro-abortion' and quite
trying to candy-cote the real agenda).  If 'Choice' was really the issue,
then you would see these people protesting the arrest of drug users, etc.
who might choose to smoke a little dope without hurting anyone else.


>-- 
>Zack Sessions
>sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
>University of North Carolina at Wilmington
>"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."

Would you please tell me what your major/or expertise is in?  You seem to 
know so much about so many things, it must impress the people you work with..

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:49:52 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>#- 				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
>	What can one expect? Someone for the unlimited right of known
>criminals to possess guns.


References please.  Oh, you don't know what you are talking about?  OK.

>For myself, I would favor a uniform system
>of gun permits with the permits revoked for those with a record of
>violent crime.

What you favor is the law in 50 states.   In no state is it legal for
felons to purchace or possess firarms.

Jim Del Veccchio
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:32:41 GMT

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>In article <1013@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:


>	If the media is out of touch with the audiance, then market forces
>would heavily favor a more balanced source of information.

Why do you think Rush Limbaugh is so popular?  He gives people an
alterante view of the news and quite often reports things that were
never even covered by the rest of the media.  Market forces would only 
work if there were a substantial number of journalists who could fill
the void.  Unfortunaltely, journalism is still a magnet for liberals.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
                        
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:22:26 GMT

rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>>It really bugs me when someone makes such a comment, especially from an
>>uninformed position.
>
>I don't know what you do for a living, but I am a meteorologist and
>oceanographer.  Dual degrees at the bachelors and masters degrees.
>One of the projects I lend a hand to is the effort to get *accurate*
>measures of global average temperatures through ocean sound speed
>measurements.  My previous research area was synchronously coupled
>atmospheric and oceanic forecast models.  I read the original research,
>not the summaries in Science......
>
>So exactly who is uninformed on this subject?

My response was your childish rebute of my claims that there has been
an observed increase of temperature over the past 100 years. Maybe I
should have not used the word "observed", but there has been a great deal
of research by teams at both the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, both of
which took the effects of heat islands into account. Do you dispute their
findings? Do you have the credentials to do so? These same figures have
been used in several articles in several magazines, including National
Geographic and Scientific American.

Look, this whole thread started when Pat Fitzpatrick stating that he was
a scientist claimed that Global Warming was a hoax. While I agree that
it is still a disputed and unproven issue, it most certainly is not a
hoax, and to back up my position I have cited various research and
data which the pro-global warming position has published, including
the global temperature reports. If you dispute the findings of NASA
and U. East Anglia, you need to take it up with them and not with me.
Keep us posted as to your success/failure in such an endeavour.

fwiw, I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science and have
almost 20 years experiance in data processing, currently managing several
VAX computers and a large PC network.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: (REMINDER) Give Levi-Strauss A Call!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:47:44

What did Levis do that I might want to boycott them for doing?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:53:33 GMT




>>alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
>>You're quite happy with Rushs comments on the environment when Rushs
>>source Dixy Lee Ray, and Dixy Lee Rays source is (among others) Lyndon
>>LaRouche!
>
This bothered me a week ago when I saw it.  Perhaps I have missed a citing of 
Lyndon LaRouche as a source in Dixy Lee Ray's book.  Could you tell me where 
you found it?  Most of the sources in her book are congressional hearing 
transcripts, and magazines such as Science,"Scientific" American, and various
climate and environmental magazines.  There are hundreds of them listed in the
endnotes.  And I DO realize, of course, (from past experience! :)) that two
people can read the same article and come to completely different conclusions.
I prefer the wisdom of someone who has a scientific background though.
-- 
Susan E. Schudt
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
"When you're Right, you're right!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: bhattach@dip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya)
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:49:43 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul27215400@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I think this article by Maneka Gandhi is nonsense, but I have time
>to comment on only two items.
>
>1. It is asserted that Union Carbide manufactured a chemical at
>Bhopal that it was not allowed to manufacture in the U.S.  At the
>time of the Bhopal accident it was reported that Union Carbide
>made the same chemical, methylene chloride if I remember correctly,
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As far as I remember, it was Methyl isocyanate (MIC) that was involved
in this horrible disaster.

>in West Virginia.
>
>2. "resources that it [the West] extracts forcibly".  This assumes
>that the Government of India, of which he was a minister, was helpless.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maneka Gandhi is a she, not a he.

>

[ rest deleted]

>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

--
Sayan Bhattacharyya, Artificial Intelligence Lab, The University of Michigan

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:49:04 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul24143436@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Here are some opening paragraphs of Clarinet U.P. stories of the last
>few days.  I have inserted *s to mark some of the places where I think
>Chip Switzer's grumbles about bias are confirmed.

>	     GARFIELD, N.J. (UPI) -- President Bush, *virtually
>     ignoring the recession*, attempted Tuesday to push the
>     Democratic Party off its centrist platform,

	This is an entirely valid point, *if* the recession has been
the topic for awhile. This statement implies that a change of course
has been made by the president. This sort of reference is made whenever
a campaign is perceived as changing direction.

>	     GARFIELD, N.J. (UPI) -- President Bush made a direct
>     appeal Tuesday for the support of so-called Reagan
>     Democrats, *touting* his achievement in ending the Cold War
>     and promising a stronger, revitalized nation.

'touting' is used correctly here, and is used fairly regularly in the print
media, probably as a result of the Word-Perfect Thesaurus. I saw it used
during the democratic convention, when somebody was blowingtheir own horn.

>	     WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The administration, facing
>     continuing defiance from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,
>     warned Wednesday that it may take military action against
>     the *ravaged* country to force its compliance with U.N.
>     resolutions.

	I've seen the pictures of Iraq, I think that ravanged applies.

>	     WASHINGTON (UPI) -- President Bush discussed his
>     *flagging* re-election campaign Wednesday with a group of
>     Senate Republican leaders who came away convinced that he
>     will retain Vice President Dan Quayle on the ticket.

	The GOP has been losing points in the polls steadily for some time.
It would not be fair to say that they are about to lose, but their campaign
is certainly lagging behind what they had hoped for, I'm sure. How would 
you describe Bushs current standing?

	If this is what you consider bias, then I concede the argument. It
seems that anything that does not show your side in the best light is bias,
in for that perspective, the media, along with most of the rest of the
world, is biased to the left. Touche.


-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alberta@sarsun.larc.nasa.gov (Tim Alberta)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: usa
Keywords: bias
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:48:17 GMT
X-Posted-From: sarsun.larc.nasa.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Jul24.174330.45454@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:

|> Finally, about Science magazine. you are right, this is one of the better
|> science magazine for laymen. However, for real insight on Global Warming,
|> I challenge you to read these journals instead:
|> 
|> 1) Bulletin of the AMerican Meteorological Society
|> 2) Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
|> 3) Monthly Weather Review
|> 
|> These will show the true complexity of the theory, not little blurbs
|> present in typical peasant magazines and newspapers.
|> 
|> Good hunting!
|> 
|> Pat Fitzpatrick

Also check out Journal of Climate.  Any of these journals can be found at academic libraries.

Zack, I'd like to hear your comments on the effect of the Urban Heat Island on the increase in temperatures measured at various stations throughout the world.  I don't have a reference, but a grad student was working on this when I was doing research at Cornell.  She was able to show that the increase in "urbanization" had a statistically significant effect on the temperatures measured at stations near the urban heat islands.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Keywords: bias
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:12:46 GMT

In article <l6on1iINN44@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.175614.2434@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>|> The NRA supports
>|> sanctions against criminals who purchace, steal or possess firarms, as
>|> well as against those who use them in crime.   They have supported 
>|> laws calling for instant backround checks, such as the one used in VA.
>                    ^^^^^^^
>|> Convicted felons may not legaly purchace or own firarms in any state.  
> 
>On the other hand, if the background check takes 5 days, the NRA is
>against it.  Any waiting period is considered a violation of the
>constitutional right to bear arms.  ???

That's easy to explain:  there is no reason for a check to take five days,
so politicians calling for delays must be up to something.  All that is
needed is a list of state residents (interstate firearm sales are already
illegal, unless the buyer has a Federal Firearms License) who have not
been found insane or convicted of certain crimes, and a way to see if a
person is on this list.

This can't be any harder than credit card verification, and ought to be
easier -- the scale is smaller, and the seller never needs to change
anything.

--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2450 alt.rush-limbaugh:2980 talk.politics.misc:35482