Another attempt to discredit scientists by the Conservatives

Once a renowned and respected news anchor Environment Minister Peter Kent is now wallowing in the bowels of Fox News North. His spin and deceitful comments with regard to scientists, far more intellegent than he, only proves that ignorance abounds within the Conservative Party.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/kent-says-canada-must-counter-disinformation-environment-ecologists-235645248.html

I have no particular expertise in the field of environmental studies however at 67 years of age I do have a knowledge of the past years and can say without a doubt that the climate has changed since my boyhood. The winds, the suns intensity and the shear violence of the storms we are experiencing today are far greater than what we experienced 20, 30 and 40 years ago.

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

Richard Muller, a physisist and global warming denier has confirmed that global warming is in fact occuring. One-quarter of the $600,000 to do his research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

So does his rhetoric sound like it is a directive from the Fox News Popaganda Book?

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.