Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Other Bubble | Main | Forced unionization hurts the economy »

Friday, September 10, 2010

Sun TV News not Fox News North

Heather Mallick writes that having a “Fox News North” is a “rancid idea.” She describes her personal, professional, and political dislike for Fox News in a long ranting column for the Toronto Star. She then uses her negative personal experiences with Fox News to demonstrate why the new station being introduced by Quebcor is such a horrifying idea.

The problem with her logic is that it is called Sun TV News and not “Fox News North.” This new station has absolutely nothing to do with Fox News or Fox News’ parent company. So on what basis does Ms. Mallick assume that they are going to be exactly the same?

I think it is reasonable that we all wait to actually see the product before we judge it.

Ms. Mallick may be right, it could be rancid. But it could also introduce a new and valid voice to public debate in Canada. I do not understand how any fair minded person could view that as a bad thing.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on September 10, 2010 | Permalink


Are you kidding me, we should watch Colbert and Stewart leftwing loons. All I can say is where is our Glenn Beck and O’Reilly? If we had center right TV hosts where oh where would they be allowed to broadcast from?? Only in Canada eh!

Posted by: Paul | 2010-09-10 8:00:51 AM

Im hoping the station will favor libertarian ideas, i just cant stomach watching the news on tv . I find most reporters lazy.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-10 9:17:43 AM

Well, I would think intelligent people on any side of the political spectrum would find Fox News rancid. And MSNBC for that matter.

Certainly, though, Heather Mallick's point that we shouldn't be forced to pay -- through our cable companies -- for such a station is an argument I can relate to. Unfortunately, I doubt she'll accept the same logic applied to any of the Category 1 stations she enjoys.

End the CRTC!

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-10 9:27:02 AM

I've never watched Fox News. But I've recently had the displeasure of watching MSNBC. What a disgrace. That said, I agree with Mike Brock, stop controlling what people can and cannot watch.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-10 9:33:00 AM

"Well, I would think intelligent people on any side of the political spectrum would find Fox News rancid. And MSNBC for that matter."

Really Mike? Really? Intelligent people would find Fox rancid? Are you kidding me? Do you watch any of it? I have yet to experience the slanted, foul, ignorant rants of an Olberman, Schultz, Maddow or Malick for that matter when watching Fox. Beck is over the top but has at his foundation a perspective that is about small government, less tax and individual responsibility. His critics go after him because of his religion and the fact that he does not hide it in shame, damn christian that he is. Me, I am an atheist and find his persective on relgion amusing. I am not about to dismiss him and Fox entirely because of his regious perspective.

Rancid ... give me a break.

Posted by: B | 2010-09-10 9:56:49 AM


You should realize that Mike likes to show his left liberal friends that he is the kind of libertarian that likes to distance himself from conservatives so much that his insults in their direction include libertarians, neoclassical liberals, fiscally conservative social liberals (independents) but particularly, the socially conservative Jesus Freaks! IOW, Fox News in a nut shell.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-09-10 11:09:11 AM

I do like Judge Napalitano, of course. But Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity? They are two of the most ignorant and stupid people I've ever seen on television.

I think the former mayor of Toronto, Mel Lastman holds the world title on that count, though. From his appearance on CNN during the SARS outbreak.

The funny thing is, even though I think Glenn Beck is fucking crazy, I actually like him better than most of the others. =)

John Stossel over a Fox Business Network is awesome, though.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-10 11:23:17 AM

I've been watching Fox News for about 2 months now, and I find it refreshing. O'Reilly has no resemblance to the character his detractors have painted. I'd only seen clips of him, and from those clips, it would be easy to believe some of the accusations. He's probably the most balanced interviewer in cable news, even though his conservative bias is never hidden.

Hannity is totally biased in his style, and presentation, but everyone knows that going in.

Glenn Beck is a nut case, but I defy anyone to prove him wrong on any facts he presents. He's the first American I've seen pick up on Maurice Strong's trail of deception. Some of his conspiracy theories really hold water.

Since I started receiving Fox News, I've gradually stopped watching any other world news source. They cover things the others intentionally ignore. That's the real fear some folks have of a conservative news channel in Canada. If done right, it will soon dominate the ratings, just as Fox does in the US. It might also unearth some of the unholy alliances that exist between Canadian media, and Canadian political parties.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-10 12:01:54 PM

He's probably the most balanced interviewer in cable news.

Okay, what do you mean by "balance"?

Balance means something different in Language of Conservatism than it means to people like myself.

Balance in "Conservatese" means things like "presenting both 'sides' of the evolution 'debate'". Which isn't balance at all, really. It's just demanding that every ass-backwards, anti-intellectual position that the attendant constituency holds is treated as "equal" to any countervailing viewpoint.

Now, this isn't meant to be a sweeping defence of anyone else. Because I don't think other people are that balanced. I would argue that MSNBC is just as imbalanced as Fox News Channel in the opposite ways.

But when "balance" to you means persenting "both sides" of the debate, it's meaningless.

I could say: "Fox News isn't balanced, because it doesn't invite spoke people from Islamic Jihad on to give their side of the debate on suicide bombing".

After all, I'm sure Islamic terrorists have their own take on morality and politics of it. But I'm pretty sure that neither myself or yourself would call not doing that "imbalanced".

So when conservatives say news is simply unbalanced when it doen't put forward conservative considerations on abortion, same-sex marriages, evolution, the existence of God, the role of religion, etc. -- you're not talking about balance. What you're saying is you want your ideological positions to be treated as equally valid in all cases.

Even if those positions, say on evolution, are completely nutty, are based on nothing more than superstitious pseudo-scientific bullshit. You want there to be a "balance" between the Bible thumpers and scientists -- when there's no need for any balance there!

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-10 12:18:48 PM

Mike- I'm not religious, but I find athiests like you to be more backward, and ignorant than some of the most off the wall bible thumpers. You're so busy admiring your own vision of how smart you are, to realize most people think you're a retard. How the hell do you know for sure that Darwin et al have the origin of life all figured out? Someone told you, right? Or did you somehow mind meld with all the other liberal athiests in some sort of synchronous miracle of awareness, that only others of your level of intelligence were priviledged to be part of?

You should chew on this for a moment; even the most left-wing pundits claim to have some sort of faith, if they want to attain any sort of stature in the national spotlight. Even Obama pretends to be a Christian, though most realize he's just moving his lips. Everyone ridicules Stephen Harper for not hiding his beliefs, but try to name one western leader, ever, who wasn't connected to some sort of Church.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-10 2:26:19 PM


There are plenty of evidence for evolution. There is zero evidence of God or any other religion. I don't claim to have the whole universe figured out, and I doubt Mike does either. But I will always tend towards the answer that is...you know...empirically proven.


Who cares if left-wing pundits are religious or most leaders are attached to some church. What exactly does that prove?

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-09-10 2:43:34 PM

How the hell do you know for sure that Darwin et al have the origin of life all figured out?

Those very old bones in the ground are rather compelling, unless you think Satan put them in there.

Mike, I too find Fox awful but I think the world is better for having a counterweight to the MSNBCs of the world. At least Fox is making an effort to put intelligent people on its show, like Neopolitan and Stossel. Reilly and Hannity are talentless air bags. Glenn Beck is insane but...he keeps getting certain things right. Like the "I love Mao!" lady who worked for Obama. That was actually true. I hate the fact that Beck and I agree on so many things because I despise his personality in every way. He looks and feels just so so punchable.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-09-10 2:49:29 PM


I think you misunderstood my point. It wasn't specifically about evolution. It's about considering "balance" to be having things you happen to "believe" or worldviews that you hold be given equal consideration.

But the problem with trying to spin "balance" in such a way is meaningless. Because there's no shortage of worldviews and opinions.

In fact, "balance" in this sense is a form of relativism that conservatives tend to reject in all other forms. That, if you're going to present the "scientific side", you have to present the "biblical side".

But why not the Quoranic side? Or the Bhuddist side? Or the native American side? Or the Scientologists side?

What you consider balance is just as biased, viewed at this level, as anything else you'd call imbalanced.

What conservatives are really saying is: balance is about contrasting our correct worldview, without everyone else's incorrect worldview. Hence, it's extremely intellectually dishonest from the get-go.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-10 3:36:20 PM

Guys, I used to have a healthy disrespect for people of faith. Though I never called myself athiest, I certainly didn't buy into creation by a conscious deity. After years of pounding my head against the wall, I finally realized that faith has a very real place in the human existence. How else could so many people stay so well organized? If people weren't hard-wired to accept a higher power, how were abot a billion of them convinced to bow down to Mecca five times a day? I've seen them do it in hotel rooms, after taking the time to figure out which way east was.

I've gone through a change over the last few years. I still buy into evolution theory, just like you guys, but I draw the line at feeling more intelligent than people who cling to their faith. Unless that faith has formed into something destructive, as radical Islam seems to have done, It's actually a positive influence.

I believe Einstein was asked if he trusted a scientist who believed in God, and he replied he wouldn't trust one who didn't. I might not take it that far, but I've developed a healthy disrespect for people who preach athiest beliefs.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-10 4:42:32 PM

Einstein said no such thing. Einstein's supposed religious views have been warped by religious people for years.

Insofar as Einstein believed in a god, he believed in Spinoza's god. That, god is an abstract concept. Not a "creator". Not a "personal god". But is, rather, the sum all of physical reality. Which is a form of atheism by any definition.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-10 5:07:28 PM

After years of pounding my head against the wall

Years of blunt force trauma can and do have consequences.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-09-10 6:20:23 PM

Looking at the majority of comments, it sadly remains that many who use the term libertarian are the same as others who wish to control others. If you don't want to watch whatever channel or station, then don't, but leave others the freedom of choice. It matters not one bit what your personal opinion or views are, and the same goes for your comments on "religious" people. I don't care if a person is religious or an atheist as long as neither seeks to impose their views on others.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-09-10 8:53:35 PM

I was especially amused when Mallick tried to re-write the history of her hateful hit piece on Sarah Palin.

She's a victim! She's such a victim! Boo hoo hoo!

Posted by: Patrick Ross | 2010-09-10 9:23:40 PM

Paul: Colbert is genuinely funny. He manages not to come off as much like a condescending jackass like Stewart.

Re: I could say "Fox News isn't balanced, because it doesn't invite spoke people from Islamic Jihad on to give their side of the debate on suicide bombing"

That sounds like it's supposed to be a joke, but I seem to recall the CBC not reporting on an alleged machete attack, because it would be unbalanced as they couldn't contact the attacker.

Posted by: K Stricker | 2010-09-11 12:22:52 AM

I said I want to get rid of the CRTC. I never said I wanted to control anyone. I pointed out Mallick's hypocrisy and simply expressed my opinion that Fox News is not balanced and that what conservatives consider balance is not balance at all.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-11 10:38:38 AM

Fox News rules! Fox is biased on the right? Please I wish! Hannity leans right. So does Beck! Although, I would like to say that Beck (while a little crazy) has 90% of his facts about American history right. Also, I got to give the man credit for getting together with King's niece and organizing the 500,000 person rally in DC. O'Reilly is not conservative. He is more a moderate. He is pro-life but opposes the death penalty. He supports the 2nd amendment and gay adoption. On economic issues, he has gone after Obama's big spending government. Thats not conservative. Polls show that Americans prefer spending and tax cuts over more taxes by about 3 to 1. How is Sheppard Smith, or Greta VanSusterin conservative? Come on, Greta's brother ran for congress as a Democrat in 2006! On Red Eye, Gutfield and Andy Levy tend to lean right but Bill Schultz tends to lean left. Fox works becasue it is the only news service in America that doesn't whore itself to the Democrat Party. If Mike wants to see potential bias, then he should wait until Kelsey Grammar(of Fraser Crane fame) releases his new conservative entertainment network. Thats right! Grammar is talking about a channel that will eventually be a conservative rival to ABC or CBS! Any onbe want to take bets on that one.

Posted by: Jacque | 2010-09-11 3:46:07 PM

The leftist commentators on CBC and similarly biased media outlets make me want to puke. Most of these arrogant pickle pissers love to make outrageous, disgusting and demeaning comments about the character of those with whom they disagree. And they are the first to try to claim the high ground of morality whilst standing on the pile of crap they're trying to sell.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-09-11 5:59:00 PM

Hey Atheists, we have Hawking's "Grand Design" to back us up now so point the bible-thumpers in that direction when they ask for proof of the theory of everything. M-Theory.

Posted by: Jason Koles | 2010-09-12 12:56:40 AM

Jason: Faith.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-09-12 9:30:04 AM

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-09-10 2:43:34 PM

Since the theory of evolution posits that one species transforms into another, that's precisely the reason it remains a theory to this day.

All attempts to bring out ‘missing links' have proven to be hoaxes.

As Winston Churchill once said: There is a limit to knowledge, there is no limit to imagination.

At the end of the day (or in the beginning) what's important is that we exist and how we go about our existence.

Since the question of ‘how did we get here' is somewhat irrelevant (even the Old Testament only gives it cursory mention within the context of the entire Scriptures), that's why I pay little heed to it.

All I need to know is that I'm alive and my pursuit for inner peace (what's really important) has been somewhat successful.

As for the topic at thread, it's a good thing to have an alternate viewpoint, whether it be in the media or in an intelligent discussion that leads to an eventual best practise.

In other words, I am a defender of traditional values, since those seem to have worked much better than, say, theories of evolution.

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-13 1:30:24 PM

Those species you mentioned are the missing links. And WTF does 'traditional values' mean aside from anything you want it to?

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-09-13 5:16:20 PM

Since the theory of evolution posits that one species transforms into another, that's precisely the reason it remains a theory to this day

Darwinian natural selection posits no such thing.

It posits that through the process of natural selection, speciation occurs as a long, drawn out process.

The "missing link" paradox is not a paradox to natural selection, because, natural selection does not require a dog to sprout wings and turn into a bird.

This is the typical bullshit spewed by someone who doesn't even understand what Darwinian evolution is.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-13 5:16:52 PM

The evidence for speciation is vast, compelling and conclusive. Nothing in the fossil record contradicts Darwinian evolution.

The argument that we cannot fill every, single, gap, between humanity and ape is meaningless. We are able to track a thousands of fossils that clearly show the speciation process between primates from lemurs, and up to humans.

The "missing link" bullshit is nothing more than an example of "moving the goalpost" in logic.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-13 5:19:25 PM

I'm actually wrong in my wording: we don't have to link humans to apes, because we are apes. We're part of the ape family. In the same way that both Shitzus and German Shepherds are in the canine family.

Humans are apes. And only idiots clinging to ancient, discredited and silly ancient notions would dare to say otherwise in the face of the confluence of evidence for the statement.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-13 5:24:02 PM

"She then uses her negative personal experiences with Fox News to demonstrate why the new station being introduced by Quebcor is such a horrifying idea."

And I have negative personal experiences with Mallick, Tor Star, CBC, etc. and yes, they are a horrifying and "rancid" idea.

"I'm actually wrong in my wording: we don't have to link humans to apes, because we are apes. "

Wrong again. We evolved from a common ancestors that split off at different points in the past. That is, we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees that branched at a different point than our split with the common ancestor to gorillas, etc. You get my point.

We are not apes any more than they WERE apes...way back then. They are NOW apes and chimpanzees and orangutans, and we are homo sapiens.

Well, at least some of us. The rest are just homo erectus/habilus with welfare.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-09-13 9:22:16 PM

Mike like others accept the idea of evolution (that is one species changing into a different species) as a tenet of faith just as most religious people do about other topics. The missing links are not to be dismissed as unimportant unless evolution as described and taught in our schools is an article of faith of a religion. Fact is that it remains a theory just as creationism remains a theory. Science has never proved how we got here, so those who think we were planted by UFOs have just as much validity.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-09-13 9:26:08 PM

"Fact is that it remains a theory just as creationism remains a theory. Science has never proved how we got here, so those who think we were planted by UFOs have just as much validity."

I can't argue against your logic. However, I fall back on Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-09-13 9:46:35 PM

Alain, I think his point was that science is strongly on the side of evolution. I agree ith him. I believe that however strong it is though, we will never know enough to know for sure so some amount of faith will always be required. Calling people names and being utterly convinced our position of faith is correct, will not change this.

Personally I am a Christian but also I believe in evolution in some ways. I have more questions about life than answers but am at peace with that.

I would rather be happy and an idiot than angry and right.

Posted by: TM | 2010-09-13 9:51:34 PM

"We are not apes any more than they WERE apes...way back then. They are NOW apes and chimpanzees and orangutans, and we are homo sapiens."

Nope. We're part of the ape family. The ape family is also known scientifically as Hominoidea which includes all primates, up to and including humans.

I'm sorry, but your scientific knowledge is lacking on this subject. Any cursory examination of any modern biological classification literature will uphold my point: "we are apes".

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 3:59:09 AM

"Fact is that it remains a theory just as creationism remains a theory"

Evolution is not just a theory. You don't know what a scientific theory is. And creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Evolution is more proven than the existence of gravity in physics. And no, this is not an exaggeration. The entire fossil record, and genetic drift, and the fact that there is not one, single, contradictory piece of evidence on evolution that has ever been found.

The "missing link" crap is the whole "gap argument' crap that anti-science people use to disprove things. A gap argument goes like this: You have the evidence pieces: A C D E. But if you don't have B then your argument is wrong.

If we used the same standard of evidence that creationists are demanding of science to prove evolution for murder trials: nobody would have ever been convicted of murder in all of history.

How can we have convicted Robert Picton? What about all the undiscovered bodies? They're all missing links to the consummate and complete picture of what he did! The murders are just theories!

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:05:23 AM

Definition of scientific theory: "In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena"

I love how in the 21st century, people like Alain still think "theory" means "guess", despite ostensibly having been through high school science class.

That's what scientists mean when they say theory. Theory does not mean "best guess".

The other inaccurate thing that creationists like to say is: "unless it's a scientific law, it hasn't been proven"

But scientific theories are scientific laws do not mean proven and unproven.

A proven theory does NOT become a scientific law. A scientific law is a mathematical axiom. Such as the inverse-square rule for gravity.

The fact that no matter how many times it's beaten over the heads of creationists, they're unable to absorb these fundamental facts is astounding to me.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:14:04 AM

Anybody who says that "evolution is just,/em> a theory" or a "theory isn't proven unless it becomes a law" is simply showing they have absolutely no worthwhile knowledge on the subject whatsoever. And it's actually pointless to listen to anything they have to say beyond that point: as they've seemingly been incapable of the simple task of opening up a dictionary or encyclopedia to read the definition of scientific theory and scientific law.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:17:11 AM

close tag.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:17:35 AM


How can you equate creationism and evolution? One doesn't have any evidence to back it up, the other has ample.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-14 5:47:51 AM

Oh ... and I missed the UFO comment. Same thing. Evolution theory has tons of evidence to back it up. Your comparison is way off the mark.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-14 5:50:46 AM

Ah yes the Western Standard, gathering place for all Canada'a idiots!

Posted by: John Doucette | 2010-09-14 10:59:46 AM

My point was and remains that all of these are theories, and no matter how much one wants it to be otherwise evolution in the sense that species changed into different species is a theory which remains unproved. Links have never been found proving that apes changed into human beings, so until and unless the links are established evolution, as described, remains a theory. Missing links means that the dots cannot be connected. Does this mean I think the world was created in six days or whatever? Of course not, and personally I place little importance on the matter. I do however object to pseudoscience parading as science and claiming an unproved theory as scientific fact.

But it makes you happy to place your faith in such a theory, please do not let me stop you.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-09-14 12:17:39 PM

Except of course, evolution is a proven theory. There is evidence in the fossil record linking human beings to other primates. Some of those ancestors lived within the last 1000 years: Neanderthals.

Apes didn't turn into humans. Humans are apes.

You also mindunderstabd what evolution is. No two species turn into another. All species today have common ancestors.

Evolution makes no claims that one species turns into another species. But rather they, speciate. Cousins diverge from each other over time and evolve separately.

Creationists don't even understand evolution. They assume that evolution states we came from monkeys or something. Which it doesn't.

Modern monkeys have evolved from earlier primates too, just like humans. All species are constantly evolving. All specifies today are more evolved forms of their ancestors, including all members of the ape family -- including humans.

Only a person who hasn't done any research on the subject would say evolution isn't proven. Evolutionary biology is so proven, in fact, that it plays an intersecting role in genetic research, epidemiolgy, and pharmaceutical research.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:06:18 PM

Then ONLY sources that claim problems with evolution are religious sources. Point me to one, single, credible scientific peer-reviewed paper or source that disputes the veracity of evolution and we'll talk.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:08:31 PM

The article on speciation at Wikipedia explains how evolution works, with my cited examples of evidence from nature for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:14:28 PM

"Apes didn't turn into humans. Humans are apes.."

.......quote: Mike (Darwin) Brock

OK, just checking in on behalf of our New World Order Masters. As you know, Apes are currently seeking the vote and we hope to have this in place by 2012.

There _is life after Marc Emery

Posted by: 419 | 2010-09-14 6:33:52 PM

Creationists don't even understand evolution.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 4:06:18 PM

Michael Behe certainly understands evolution. He holds a PhD in biochemistry from the Univ. of Pennsylvania and did extensive research in the structure of DNA while at the NIH. His disbelief in Darwinism is based on scientific research into the biochemical interaction of complex structures. And your academic accreditation is?

Posted by: The Stig | 2010-09-14 7:41:07 PM

why is it that apes are not interested in evolution if that's where they are going?
& with humans as role models why are not apes making much progress?

Why are there are there no evolution theory missionaries sharing all this message of hope and purpose with the ape community?

Instead of humans performing scientific research on apes, wouldn't it be more evolutionarily effective if apes did scientific research on humans?

why are humans so much physically weaker than apes? in the many many millenias prior to the Industrial revolution when human muscle power performed so many tasks of civilization and savage alike, why didn;t the much stronger apes overtake humans in evolution and zoom past us and take over the choicest parts of the world and send us skinny Sapiens packing? Super strength & a fur coat during the ice age would have been a freaking awesome advantage..

Posted by: 419 | 2010-09-14 8:12:11 PM

The ego will always argue that opinion and viewpoint equal fact, but fact they do not make. Stating that true science has not proved as established fact the concept of evolution as taught in our school system does not make me a "creationist" or anything else. It simply means that my choice is to relay on established fact rather than opinion and viewpoint.

Still all this is off the topic of this post and there is no point in continuing this circular argument. Be thankful that you are allowed to believe anything you wish.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-09-14 8:18:46 PM

Except, of course, Michael Behe's criticisms -- while well known in scientific circles -- have been fully discredited. He is one of tens of thousands of scientists. A single outlier is hardly a smoking gun.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 9:11:53 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.