[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Is "credibility", as you use it, really another word for "party allegiance"? If
not, explain.

[Platt]
Do you consider Fox News a credible source? If not, please explain.

[Arlo]
I consider Fox News, like CNN or MSNBC or any media agency, "credible" for
reporting most events. When they reported Anna Nicole was dead, for example, I
didn't doubt this story.

But the question for you remains, Platt. Is "credible" simply another word for
"party allegiance"?

[Case]
I would not use Fox as a source for much of anything because they actually revel
in their bias. Owned by a foreign media conglomerate I think they represent the
worst in American journalism but they continue to pay lip service to
journalistic ethics.

[Arlo]
Case, you and Platta are arguing past each other. You (so it seems to me) appear
to be arguing for a "body" that is above political slant. Platt is pulling the
argument into everything being political slant. While you hoist "credible" onto
the backs of peer-review, and I'd imagine, consensus, validity, replication,
citation and the host of other latches The Academy demands to constrain
movement towards finer and finer understandings of "the world", Platt drops the
whole game and says, in effect, "truth" is a function of political allegiance. 

This "Brave New World" where information is selected and accepted based on
agreement with Party Orthodoxy, where information dissemination is only seen as
"credible" when filtered by Party Loyalists, where the test of "right or wrong"
is another way of saying "my party or not", is where we are now living. The
lunatics have taken over the proverbial asylum.