Dilemma: Fox and Friends would like science-type people like Michael Moyer, editor of Scientific American, to appear to talk about future science trends, but they do not believe climate change is a future trend. Solution: let Moyer come on, but ban him from talking about climate change, because he should really talk about jetpacks or where the missing plane is.
And then he turns around and insults their intelligence publicly, just like a poindexter. Thinks he's soooooo smart because he values reproducible observations 'n stuff.
The fact that God's had this "sign" in the works since long before Adam and Eve (calendar of your choice) is what the Xtards really should be pondering.
I hate to say it, but, yeah. I was a subscriber from about 1969, but I let my subscription lapse two years ago. I sympathize with their problems as a print magazine, but trading substance for style just isn&#039;t the way to go for science publication. They might as well be <i>Discover</i> at this point.
Why bother limiting topics? Just do what FOX news always does - shout over them and then cut their mic. Then you don&#039;t have to waste time explaining what&#039;s off-limits.
You would think this would aid in culling them from the gene pool at a much faster clip...
Nice conversations are safe conversations. Bouncy, optimistic, easy conversations.
(Is there any other time in history when such boneheaded hucksterism could earn so much for so many?)
And no votes were harmed.
&quot;Bias has to do with the elimination of points of view, not presenting a point of view.&quot; -- Roger Ailes
(Your minimum daily requirement of irony.)
And then he turns around and insults their intelligence publicly, just like a poindexter. Thinks he&#039;s soooooo smart because he values reproducible observations &#039;n stuff.
&quot;Low even by Fox standards&quot; is so recursively self-canceling that it may have caused entire galaxies to unexist...
It&#039;s gotta be (accidentally) more informative than their February sweeps episode, &quot;Pull My Finger.&quot;
&quot;What are acceptable science topics for Fox News?&quot;
um, the science of kneeling?
hair bleaching?
making Jello?
A sign scientists knew was coming for 300 years.
FIFY
The fact that God&#039;s had this &quot;sign&quot; in the works since long before Adam and Eve (calendar of your choice) is what the Xtards really should be pondering.
NOT,K.
I hate to say it, but, yeah. I was a subscriber from about 1969, but I let my subscription lapse two years ago. I sympathize with their problems as a print magazine, but trading substance for style just isn&#039;t the way to go for science publication. They might as well be <i>Discover</i> at this point.
Strictly speaking, that was a Fox News hairdresser. I&#039;m pretty sure the &quot;news&quot; staff has even crazier ideas.
I&#039;m liking Fauxgiston Theory a lot. Does it involve bozons?
Third possibility: they are fucking idiots.
Surprisingly, Moyer didn&#039;t have to explain what the word &quot;future&quot; means.
Why bother limiting topics? Just do what FOX news always does - shout over them and then cut their mic. Then you don&#039;t have to waste time explaining what&#039;s off-limits.