First of all, one of my concerns about the whole global warming movement is that the movement seems to align itself with a lot of un-Godly positions. For example, they intend to align themselves with, uh, a lot of what I would call liberal-type positions: abortion, ACLU, evolution, pro-gay, I mean a lot of these types of positions seem to be very consistent with the people that are on the pro-global warming bandwagon. Not all, of course.What?
Really? That's his argument? He's claiming that if a person agrees with the consensus of scientists that the Earth is warming because of human-made effects, that person is an ungodly liberal. Wow, that's some intellect. It's amazing this guy can tie his shoes in the morning.
Does if follow that Catholics are ungodly? After all, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops have said opined on climate change and said, "we believe that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect." That doesn't sound very ungodly to me! Of course, numerous other religious groups are on this ungodly global warming "bandwagon," too. So they must not subscribe to the "One True Religion," as defined by Bob Dutko.
Bob went on:
But you have other issues as well. By buying into the whole global warming scare you're giving more clout, more credibility to the United Nations and giving them more potential power to infringe upon the United States sovereignty. [You're] buying into global warming tends to boost the forcing of the U.S. government to obey world sentiment.Where does Bob get this nonsense? Is he making it up or does he subscribe to "talking points for the insane?
Could someone explain how agreeing with climate scientists gives the UN power over U.S. sovereignty? (HINT: It doesn't!)
International agreements aren't imposed on the U.S. by the UN or some overpowering "world sentiment." International agreements are approved by our elected officials who act on behalf of their constituents. The U.S. doesn't automatically cede any power, just because the UN has "credibility."
Bob's lucky to have a job with Crawford Broadcasting. With his complete lack of intelligence, I'm sure he be living out of a shopping cart and collecting bottle returns to support his family.
3 comments:
On the subject of global warming, one of Bob's sources has been the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine," which can be Googled by searching on "OISM." Though I have not heard him lately use the source, he did for a number of years prior. He gleefully spoke of a "poll" conducted many years ago by OISM. If once searches the 'net for information on OISM and its staff you will find it is hardly a credible source.
It's just another example of how irresponsible Bob is when it comes to fact-checking. That's not something he does.
It also tells much about how he regards his audience. Apparently, he believes they are too un-curious to check, to learn more about what Bob is claiming. Just like the example of his abuse of the Hippocratic Oath mentioned here earlier.
I'm truly curious about how often his listeners contact WMUZ or Crawford to inform them of Bob's abysmal scholarship and frequent dishonesty. Perhaps management says, "Ok, he lies. So what? He's defending the faith so that's fine with us." Or, his listeners don't complain. Perhaps they don't care to scrutenize his line of patter. No possible explanation is favorable to him, WMUZ or his audience.
I doubt that the Crawford management is concerned about any lies, half-truths, or distortions that Bob makes. They're saving souls and making a tidy profit at the same time (or is it the other way around?). As long as Bob's show is paying the bills and lining their wallets, they couldn't care less.
I'm sure that if management were pressed on the issue, they would simply reply that what one person calls a "lie" is just a different interpretation of the "truth". You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe.
I can guarantee that Crawford Broadcasting Inc. doesn't care about what half-truths Bobbo spews.
Why do you think they run those "The views of the participants are not the views of Crawford Broadcasting" disclaimers?
Because Crawford wants plausible deniability.
Post a Comment