It didn't used to be that way. Sports, especially newspaper sports, used to be the last bastion of 50/50, with a main split being whether or not you thought the Guild was any damn useful.

But as sports news coverage drifted to cable, social media, and opinion/debate... the landscape has changed.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

Podcasts have really exposed the soft underbelly of outlets like WSCR where you hear the same thing from people who think the same way over and over again, rather than taking advantage of the live on air opportunity to give something unique the guests/hosts seem almost paralyzed by the fear of either saying something offensive, or offending their minders.

Whenever you hear someone give you political takes that are not only tedious because you've heard them repeated time after time, but also insulting to the intelligence of anyone that has access to the internet and at least a little bit of intellectual curiosity, one tends to dismiss all of their sports thoughts as well because that person has shown to be an individual that simply is repeating what they are told, and not able to do any actual thinking for themselves. You can get the same thing in 5 seconds from any other media outlet, so why waste time listening to them?

Climate Change is like forced masking- a political movement rather than anything backed by real science.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

Most podcasts suck and 99.5% of the ones that cover local sports are no more elevated than someone posting here.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

_________________

There is science and there is justice. When you need to use modifiers like "climate" or "social", you're pimping a political agenda.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

Then it should be easy for you to expose the ideological bias contained in the report's key findings without relying on ad hominem attacks. Go ahead and have at it.

_________________

I haven't made any ad hominem attack. Taking measurements is science. I don't disagree with accurate measurements. Who would? Where it turns into politics is in the conclusions and "WHAT MUST BE DONE."

I can go back to the fifties and show you articles with similar climate alarmism as we see today. In the 70s there was an "Ice Age" scare.

If scientific measurements suggest that the climate is changing, I take no issue with that. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't. The climate has always changed. I don't even take issue over man's effect although how great said effect is isn't as cut and dried as those who stand to benefit from "Climate Crisis" would like us to believe.

I would submit that climate change may be a problem. It's certainly not a CRISIS. And the best way to deal with the problem isn't to go back to living like medieval peasants. Because those that aren't forced to won't.

I would think the useless, failed, and ultimately destructive measures that were impulsively and politically taken to "FIGHT COVID" would be an object lesson regarding how not to approach the problem of our changing climate.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

he must have a friend in management who schedules him with leila. you can tell he's dying to get into her...

You said that "climate science" is "pimping" a political agenda. I asked you to prove your point. You haven't done so.

_________________

I finished the book Unsettled by a guy who led climate policy in the Obama administration. It was not particularly interesting, but it was even handed and dispelled a lot of the stuff coming out of both sides.

Clearly, there is a ton of alarmism going on and also lots of faulty assumptions and estimates into models that are pitched as accurate.

And yet directionally the climate folks are right. The big lie is that we can do anything substantial (read politically palatable) to stop it and need to focus on mitigation.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Mitigation doesn't stop increasing energy demand. And it's a DEMAND. People can pretend we don't have increasing demands. When they do, that's when we'll get solutions such as nuclear and geothermal. You now, shit that can actually keep up with demand.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?

When someone uses the term "climate scientist" you can be certain that a political agenda is involved. Is the fact that there is a "Context" disclaimer posted on this video that would not be posted on a video that promoted the idea that there is a "Climate Emergency" that demands you radically change your lifestyle enough proof for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvVephTIHU

_________________
Don't take it personally.

Climate is in a constant state of flux, the entire Midwest was once covered in ice, the Sahara Desert was once a huge river system, humans will be forced to adapt to these changes for as long as they exist.

So here is the solution, first we tax the crap out of you because we are smarter than you and we will then use that money to....well that's none of your business because, well we are smarter than you. Of course we have absolutely positively no control over what the major polluting nations like China do, so even though they are continuing to use old technologies that put more emissions into the air in a minute than you do all year, well...just ignore that because the Chinese are not buying that we are smart than them. Hey, Mr/Ms smart person, shouldn't we be taking all that tax money and buying up the rain forest, or planting all kinds of trees? How dare you question those smarter than you, of course using all that tax money to line our pockets, err, I mean to line the pockets of, err, I mean how dare you question us, your a right wing/homophobic/misogynistic/colonist.

This isn't proof of anything.

_________________

Are you arguing that "Climate Change" isn't highly politicized?

_________________
Don't take it personally.

I am arguing with your assertion that "climate science is pimping a political agenda".

_________________

The idea that stadiums are more frequently domed because of climate change doesn’t seem grounded in scientific literacy.

_________________

Are you arguing that "Climate Change" isn't highly politicized?[/quote]

I am arguing with your assertion that "climate science is pimping a political agenda".[/quote]




Groups are certainly adding their political agenda into the climate science and making it into one issue.

Our Mission: To discuss and explore the linkages between environmental quality and social justice, and to promote dialogue, increased understanding, and appropriate action.


https://www.sierraclub.org/environmental-justice

_________________
"I give you my word as a Biden"

Ok, so I have 60 mins of spare time to get in my cardio and catch up on Bears news, do I invest that time listening to WSCR, where they are maybe less elevated than someone posting here, and I have maybe 5-10 mins of content amongst the other BS they use to fill gaps, or do I listen to a local Bears specific podcast, betting most would choose the latter.

Rongey got a regular weekday 10-2 show at kmox with a partner. The commenters from the article I read were not too thrilled with him.

He struggled overnight like Les, and all-post Les hosts. Just no phone calls then they kill time aimlessly rambling all night. Then, give up and play best of.

Good for him in getting that job.

_________________