Joe Romm and Al Gore share one thing in common besides being paid for blogging, writing, and making opinions on climate to scare the dickens out of people: they don’t understand what journalism is supposed to be about. Not only that, Joe shows his own bias and hyprocrisy compared to how he dealt with Climategate emails a year ago:
Joe Romm at Climate Progress 11/21/2009:
Note: No, I’m not thrilled with reprinting part of an illegally stolen e-mail, but this was in Wired and has been confirmed by the author and actually deals with the science.
Joe Romm at Climate Progress 12/15/2010:
Kudos to Media Matters for unearthing this story from the anti-earth folks at Fox News. See also the Politico story, “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”
He seems thrilled to publish such a “stolen email” now, when it suits his cause. And of course, he puts the Fox News email front and center, but you won’t find him doing that for any of the climategate emails, lest he scare the flock.
And here’s what he’s all bent out of shape about, this passage from the Fox News “illegally obtained” email, bold mine.
…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
Gore writes on his blog today:
“Fox News has consistently delivered false and misleading information to its viewers about the climate crisis. The leaked emails now suggest that this bias comes directly from the executives responsible for their news coverage.
Heh, a year ago Gore wouldn’t even read the emails from CRU, and got caught with his foot in his mouth: Al Gore can’t tell time – thinks most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old
Of course, there’s no mention of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, being hauled into court in Britain and found to be “false and misleading”.
There’s also no mention of the CRU emails on Gore’s blog, the entire month of November last year, even after major media outlets such as the New York Times had reported on it. He was sure to wish everyone a “happy Thanksgiving” though. In fact it took Gore a full month, until Dec 18th, 2009 to make any mention of it at all, and then it was only a sideways glance, by reporting on a favorable story (for him) in Politico.
And let’s not forget this story, where Al locks our reporters from his presentation, and is even bold enough to put up a sign to that effect: Gore to press: Stay Out!
It seems to be a pattern with Mr. Gore: Journalists pan Gore secrecy
Neither Al or Joe seem to get what journalism is supposed to be about. Here’s a clue.
The Encyclopedia of American journalism, By Stephen L. Vaughn, page 38, says:
A “core journalistic value”.
As Lachlan Markay at Newsbusters writes:
So Sammon instructed staff to incorporate the most basic tenets of science and journalism – skepticism and political neutrality, respectively – into their reporting on contentious scientific issues with tremendous political implications. And this is a problem?
Only if you are MediaMatters, Joe Romm, or Al Gore.
A friend who is a noted climate journalist would object that there can be “false balance.” One doesn’t invited a member of the Flat Earth Society to a panel discussion of space exploration.
However, given the increasing body of peered reviewed critiques of the current temperature record and of the “hockey stick” paleoclimate, invoking claims of “false balance” seems increasingly untenable. These are not flat earthers, these are published authors.
Re: FOX GATE E-mail
This is the 3rd time I’ve submitted this comment to Climate Progress Dec 15 spot # 36 so where is it??
I now note that Climate Progress has some kind of a block that wont allow me to submit any comments from my E-mail what the hell are the afraid of, it’s a pathetic narrow minded form of censorship, and make me start to wonder what your true intentions are. I’m TOTALLY PEED OFF. And will not support any site that won’t take reasonable comments.
Joe, do you edit out comments that don’t fit in with your views or tweak your nose?
Man up and open up these comment pages!
I’ve never seen removal or editing of comments on skeptic sites unless they are over the top and mine certainly don’t, you should not be afraid of fair criticism.
Re: FOX GATE E-mail
Either the people who read this website can’t read or I’m not getting what the so-called Foxleak is about. I believe the earth is warming, but the comments and story are so out to lunch! By posting this Foxleak email that says nothing positive or negative about the climate, is an act of desperation.
Media matters and Joe have made us look like a bunch of neurotic, historical climate change alarmist idiots, waiting to pounce on FOX for what any rational human being would consider a fair and well balanced e-mail!
The Fox email you posted.
“We should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”
By all means attack FOX for any other news story or leaning but this is fodder for the skeptics making us look like losers and quite rightly so.
Ok, go and get mad at me I’m only the messenger.
Paddy,
Soros has done a great deal to free former Red (Commie, not GOP) Bloc states from under the thumb of Moscow. He can’t be all that bad.
Glenn Beck honestly pointed out this as a prelude to defaming him. An overthower of governments he called him, as if overthrowing corrupt and illegal puppet regimes is a bad thing. (Can Beck viewers be all that stupid?)
Chip, I don’t think enervated is the word you’re looking for; might be better off with exercised…
At 12:18 PM, Vince Causey had observed that:
This raises the question of how George Soros has structured his inheritance. Corporate entities – such as foundations – are effectively immortal, and Mr. Soros wouldn’t be the first manipulative megalomaniac plutocrat to devise a postmortem scheme to keep on shoving the little people around to suit his perverted power lust long after he is meat for the worms.
Might be nice to see what folks knowledgeable about the financial world perceive of Mr. Soros’ “giving” activities. Anybody got a sniff of such scheming on the part of this arrogant wannabee puppet master (and I’m explicitly trying for the Robert A. Heinlein connotation in usage of the expression)?
—
—
Kevin MacDonald says:
December 16, 2010 at 5:02 am
The planet is warming, that is what all the measurements show (temperature, sea level, ice mass, snow extent, etc.) and it is supported by all the observations (changes to growing seasons, migration patterns, etc.) Anyone who disagrees with that fact is wrong, not objective.”
OK how many times have we been through this. The climate has warmed and cooled many times over the past 4.5 billion years. There is no proof at all that the present minor warming trend is due to humans. So what can we do about it? In fact even Phil Jones admits it hasnt been warming in the past decade so maybe it’s over by now? Go study some science.
Anderlan says:
December 16, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Paddy,
Soros has done a great deal to free former Red (Commie, not GOP) Bloc states from under the thumb of Moscow. He can’t be all that bad.
Glenn Beck honestly pointed out this as a prelude to defaming him. An overthower of governments he called him, as if overthrowing corrupt and illegal puppet regimes is a bad thing. (Can Beck viewers be all that stupid?)
Beck is not that stupid, Anderlan. Put up or shut up.
Anderlan says:
December 16, 2010 at 1:28 pm
“Soros has done a great deal to free former Red (Commie, not GOP) Bloc states from under the thumb of Moscow. He can’t be all that bad.”
Anderlan,
Soros has done a great deal to line his own pockets. That is his sole and soul motivation. He is a many mega-buck ‘Robber Baron’, from the classic mold. If overthrowing a Soviet bloc state regime or breaking the Bank of England can create massive gains in the currencies, commodities or stocks that Soros has invested in, he will pursue it. He has no altruistic motivations, beyond the illusions provided by the necessary stage props of a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Today, he funds a myriad of front groups within the US, manipulating both public opinions, commodity prices, currencies, and economic markets to reap further huge investment gains. There is more than sufficient verified evidence of his interlocking webs of corruption and manipulation to refute your ad hominem allegations of ‘stupidity’. Crying “Wolves!” when you can readily see the hunting pack approaching is the survival duty of every citizen.
Let’s keep it ‘Fair And Balanced’, eh?
Whats up with that, well quite alot actually, but il stick at one point, and it is this, reporting and journal-ism are to different things all together, reporting is based on facts around the globe of concern or otherwise.
Anybody can be a journalist, lol. its a course full of ego and agender-ism
Well I’d be just delirious if Joe Romm, and Al Gore would enlighten the rest of us as to just who it was that “stole” whose e-mails.
As near as I can tell; nobody has been fingered as having done the deed. So just what the hell is Romm raving on about ? Show us the evidence (data) Joe.
John F. Hultquist says:
December 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“Who’s Al Gore?”
he used to be the future… hehehe.
You want to talk about bent reporting… I watched a BBC report last year about how the ice was melting on the antarctic peninsula, after interviewing researchers dressed in moonboots, 3 inch thick parkas and goggles. (because it was so warm, presumably) the reporter, in his final sentence, mentioned that there was a volcano erupting under the ice (Mount Erebus ?), and the researchers were not sure if it had anything to do with the melting… I think I can see the flaw in your research there guys…
Fox readers are misinformed according to the Toronto Star… (Known to many Canadians as The Red Star…
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/908391–watching-fox-news-leaves-viewers-less-informed-study-finds
Watching Fox News leaves viewers less informed and more prone to believing misinformation, according to a study conducted by the WorldPublicOpinion.org at the University of Maryland.
Fox News viewers were more likely to incorrectly believe that the stimulus package had caused job losses (12 points more likely), that the health care law would worsen the deficit (31 points), that most scientists did not agree climate change was occurring (30 points), that the economy was getting worse (26 points) and that it was not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points).
Sure. We believe you. Millions would not though…
Yeah, and did you see how biased those questions were? I could easily cook up a bunch of questions these so-called liberals (i.e., look up “liberal” in the dictionary and apply the exact opposite meaning) would get wrong, correlate it to CNN viewers and claim CNN rots the brain.
The only thing this FOX “study” shows is how bogus the authors are.
evanmjones says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Yeah, and did you see how biased those questions were?
See: Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want
Mr. Minister strikes again!
“Yeah, and did you see how biased those questions were? I could easily cook up a bunch of questions these so-called liberals (i.e., look up “liberal” in the dictionary and apply the exact opposite meaning) would get wrong, correlate it to CNN viewers and claim CNN rots the brain.”
In what sense did the Fox news viewers get those questions wrong? All of their answers seem reasonable to me, with the Obama one being the most debatable. .. just because their answers disagree with left-wing dogma, that doesn’t make them wrong.
(Of course pedantically speaking I’m sure that most scientists do believe that climate change is occurring, since everyone but the most extreme warmist knows that change is what the climate does. But I’m sure most of them read ‘climate change’ as ‘Climate Change’, i.e. human-induced global warming, which is a very different question.)
Jeremy says:
December 16, 2010 at 6:52 am
The world has not warmed in any statistically significant way since around 2000. I’m not wrong, and I’m not biased in saying that. Retract your bias and zip your fly please.
I didn’t say anything about statistical significance, so that’s a straw man fallacy.
Also, it does not follow that, because HADCRUT did not show statistical significance at the 95% confidence level last year, that there is not any statistical significance, so that’s a non sequitur. There was statistical significance at the 87% confidence level at that time and two other records, GIS and UHA, were at the 95% confidence level. HADCRUT has since reached the 95% level itself, so as well as being a straw man and a non sequitur your statement is just flat out false.
Finally, statistical significance since 2000 is a red herring. The climate is too noisy a signal to get any reliable trend data from a single decade in isolation. The last 3 decades have each been warmer than the one preceding it, that is a clear climate pattern and for Sammond, or anyone else, to deny it is, as I said earlier, wrong, not objective.
So, you are wrong. Three logical fallacies and one error in a single sentence. If I were to extrapolate that over your life I might conclude that any attempt finding your own elbow would result in a scatalogical nightmare, but, as I’ve already pointed out, drawing conclusions from too little data is not wise.
Some years before Hansen et. al. began their colossal “man-made global warming fraud, filker Frank Hayes came out with a wonderful parody song titled “There’s a Hole in the Middle of It All” (to the tune of the old children’s favorite “There’s a Hole in the Bottom of the Sea”) which pokes fun at theoreticians trying to leverage “biiiiiillions and biiiiiiillions {suitable Carl Sagan pronunciation here, of course] from the book contract and the TV show with the government funding for looking for the nothing in the void where the Bang caused the hole in the middle of it all.”
Toward the close of that song – purportedly the voice of a theoretician trying to peddle a bowl of soup cooked out of damned thin broth – there’s use of a wonderful phrase commonplace in the sciences:
Some years before Hansen et. al. began their colossal “man-made global warming fraud, filker Frank Hayes came out with a wonderful parody song titled “There’s a Hole in the Middle of It All” (to the tune of the old children’s favorite “There’s a Hole in the Bottom of the Sea”) which pokes fun at theoreticians trying to leverage “biiiiiillions and biiiiiiillions {suitable Carl Sagan pronunciation here, of course] from the book contract and the TV show with the government funding for looking for the nothing in the void where the Bang caused the hole in the middle of it all.”
Toward the close of that song – purportedly the voice of a theoretician trying to peddle a bowl of soup cooked out of damned thin broth – there’s use of a wonderful phrase commonplace in the sciences:
.
Okay. Now, let’s fast-forward to consideration of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud and the comment posted by Kevin MacDonald at 5:19 AM on 17 December (after first with glorious idiocy declaring that “I didn’t say anything about statistical significance, so that’s a straw man fallacy“:
.
.
Okay. Now, what we have in the “Cargo Cult Science” of the AGW fraudsters is a frenetic prediction that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human combustion of petrochemicals has a puissant effect upon atmospheric heat trapping, and thereby significantly causes the planet earth to heat up.
So significant is this effect – according to the squawking, squealing, “Gimme Bucketloads of Government Money or We’re All Gonna Die!” charlatans posing as climatologists – that unless emergency steps are taken to curtail carbon dioxide emissions by punishing shivering householders with horrendous “carbon taxes” so that the poorest folk in the northern hemisphere wake each winter morning to find their toothbrushes frozen solid, “We’re All Gonna Die!” because of horrible “climate disruption.”
Jeez, all this insistence upon “significance” and yet we get from one of these Chicken Little types an attempted snerk about “statistical significance” being so negligible that bringing up an inconvenient truth about lack of statistically significant warming over the course of the most recent decade is nothing more than the logical fallacy of the straw man argument.
How that should be, of course, this commentator doesn’t really explain in any valid sense, does he?
Here’s how it works. The AGW hacks and blunderers proposed the hypothesis that as man-made atmospheric emissions of CO2 have been sustained since the beginning of the First Industrial Revolution, the global temperatures have risen. Not as high as during pre-industrial climate optima like the Roman Warm and the Medieval Warm Periods, of course, but there weren’t thermometers around during those eras, nor government grant funding to aggregate temperature datasets, nor computers with which to duplicitously cook up “hockey stick” graphs, and, besides, they didn’t have the warm-and-fuzzy kumbaya social consciousness of good, Gaia-loving people like our Kevin MacDonald, so whatever might have happened all over the planet during times like the Roman Warm and the MWP really doesn’t count, and talking about it is just a “straw man fallacy” and Kevin really doesn’t like it, and so there.
Now, assuming the theory holds (remember that?), the AGW-pushing pork-sucking Confused Wool predicted parlous planetary horrors of all kinds (epidemic insect-borne diseases, swamp-the-Empire-State-Building floods, dinosaur-killing asteroid strikes, all that kinda stuff) because the Earth’s atmosphere is significantly sensitive to the megatons of carbon dioxide released by human activities involving the combustion of fossil fuels and petroleum fractions.
And by any reasonable estimation (and radioisotope analysis of the carbon in atmospheric CO2 bears this out), during the past decades the rate at which anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing is a bunch higher than it had been during the preceding three decades about which Kevin MacDonald whines so noisily.
So assuming the theory holds, there should emphatically not have been any stabilization or decrease in the global temperatures recorded over the past ten years or so. Those temperatures should have gone way to hellangone up, right?
Those temperatures did not go up. There was no statistically significant response – hell, there was no goddam response at all – to whacking great increases in human-caused levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past ten years and more.
That, dear reader, blows the guts right out of the “global climate disruption” gonifs’ great big fraud and leaves folks like our Kevin MacDonald standing there gazing dumbly down at his eviscerated entrails muttering “Straw man…. Gotta be straw man….”
—
Damn, I hate HTML errors. Mr. Watts, would you please delete my 6:45 AM post? Thank you.
Tucci78:
Did you write that rant, or is it a quote from somewhere? If the latter, you failed to give attribution. You don’t want to expose Anthony Watts to threats of copyright violation, do you?
The crux of the matter is temperature records. No matter how persistently or profanely (“hell, there was no goddam response at all“) anyone asserts that the world’s temperature is not rising, the records are there to prove them wrong. Even Fox News commentators will wind up with egg on their faces for clinging to the delusion that gradual warming is not happening.
As for the rest of it: We know that CO2 in the atmosphere partially blocks Earth’s heat from escaping into space. We know that there is roughly 40 percent more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 200 years ago. From carbon isotope ratios, we know that extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels. We know strengthening sunlight is not the cause. We know it’s not volcanoes. Therefore, human activities are causing the warming.
It’s worthwhile arguing over how bad the effects of climate change will be, and what should be done about the problem. But arguing that there is no warming, hence no problem, is nothing but a waste of time.
“Jeez, all this insistence upon “significance” and yet we get from one of these Chicken Little types an attempted snerk about “statistical significance” being so negligible that bringing up an inconvenient truth about lack of statistically significant warming over the course of the most recent decade is nothing more than the logical fallacy of the straw man argument.”
You’re not big on comprehension are you? This specific point is a red herring, not a straw man. The straw man was the introduction of significance in the first place, it was not a postition I was defending because it is not germane to this posting.
“So assuming the theory holds, there should emphatically not have been any stabilization or decrease in the global temperatures recorded over the past ten years or so. Those temperatures should have gone way to hellangone up, right?”
Not neccesarily, as I already stated the climate signal is too noisy to get any reliable indication of trend from a single decade. You’re basically just repeating the same red herring I’ve already addressed, only you were much more long winded and wearisome getting to the point.
“That, dear reader, blows the guts right out of the “global climate disruption” gonifs’”
Herein lies the problem with employing logical fallacies; faulty conclusions.
Kevin MacDonald says:
“Herein lies the problem with employing logical fallacies; faulty conclusions.”
So your conclusion is that ‘global climate disruption’ is a fact?
.
Chris Winter,
Enough with the threats about copyrights, unless you have some credible evidence. Do you?
And as far as the climate warming, the climate warms and cools. We’re at the tail end of emerging from the LIA. Sure, more CO2 has a slight effect on temperature, but the effect is beneficial. Crops can be grown at higher latitudes. Other than that, it’s a non-event.
Michael Mann, of the debunked Hokey Stick chart [which attempted to erase the LIA] tried to scare people with his discredited chart. But the fact is that the temperature rise has been anything but scary.
Warmth is good. More CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. And $6 billion every year being shoveled into climate “studies” is a strong motive to exaggerate the scare.
Smokey says:
December 17, 2010 at 9:03 am
So your conclusion is that ‘global climate disruption’ is a fact?
No, my conclusion is that Bill Sammon is wrong to tell his staff that they cannot assert warming as a fact. Everything else I wrotw was just pointing out where people had failed to address that conclusion.
At 8:09 AM on 17 December, Chris Winter had addressed me thus:
.
.
Tsk. Of course I wrote it, schmucklet. Made that stupid “in the comments box” HTML error, too. You’re not familiar with my previous posts on this site, are you? Well, that’s your loss, not mine.
The key temperature records (NASA GISS, HadCRUT, etc.) have – of course – been taken under the control of the global warming fraudsters over the past thirty years or so (regard the wonderful Climategate Timeline aggregated earlier this year as well as the Mosher Timeline), enabling them to cherry-pick surface temperature station records (making the records drawn from stations maintained at higher altitudes and latitudes magically “disappear” from consideration while emphasizing the readings taken from thermometers “sited next to a lamp” in locations sustaining urban heat island [UHI] effects).
Indeed, the greatest part of what triggered that marvelous FOIA2009.zip archive release on 17 November 2009 was the criminal refusal of Prof. Jone and the rest of the taxpayer-funded thugs at the Climatic Research Unit to release under the U.K. Freedom of Information Act (among other things) the surface temperature datasets they had aggregated under the aegis of publicly-funded research programs.
Most of that FOIA2009.zip release consisted of data files and source code for those duplicitous “hockey stick graph” computer models. The aggregated and wonderfully incriminating e-mails (conspiracy to destroy evidence of fraud and peculation is in itself a crime, y’know) are only a small portion of FOIA2009.zip.
With those data files in hand, it became possible to confirm longstanding suspicions on the part of honest scientists that the “man-made global warming” snake-oil salesmen had been doctoring the data – I believe they called it “enhancement,” right? – and otherwise frenetically trying to keep their blunders and lies from being revealed.
Which is, of course, why Prof. Jones and the rest of the “Hockey Team” struggled so weaselishly to evade those FOIA requests that they cough up their raw data and reveal the programming code behind their “oh-so-sophisticated-you-can’t-possibly-understand-it” absolute kludge computer models.
Gee. Kinda explains why the hacker-y rascal(s) whom the Norfolk police still haven’t been able to catch named the file FOIA2009.zip, doesn’t it?
But the argument has never been about “ow bad the effects of climate change will be but whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions can to any significant extent cause the climate change which the alarmists have been grunting and squealing about over the past thirty years.
Were that the case – y’know; “Assuming the theory holds… – then the past decade ought to have shown global temperature increases in lockstep with the increases in anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
Which was the point I’d made above. You got that, sonny?
And it didn’t happen.
Ergo the theory didn’t hold, and the policy recommendations predicated upon the AGW fraudsters’ bullpuckey are without validity.
Heck, their later applications for research grants are arguably based upon the deliberate presentation of information they knew to be false, and that’s an honest-to-Black’s-Law-Dictionary definition of theft of value by fraud, isn’t it?
Little though I like Republicans, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli seems to be onto something wonderfully valid here.
—
The cult of AGW (or is it Athropogenic Climate Disruption Change, ACDC) is remarkably like the doctrine of Original Sin.
I wonder how long that religion will last and when the established religions will figure out that it is not in their interests to pander to the AGW/ACDC cult?
At 9:12 AM, Kevin MacDonald had asserted that:
.
Given the deliberate corruption of the various global sea and land surface temperature datasets by mendacious AGW fraudsters over the past thirty years or so “cooking the books,” I Mr. Sammon policy articulation simply makes sense.
One of the reasons why I’m personally so much at risk of breaching the Non-Aggression Pledge and doing something dire to the persons of Dr. Michael Mann and his “Hockey Team” is that I’ve spent a bunch of years working in (and writing on the basis of) clinical scientific research, and I’ve got a really, really good idea of how much damage is done in any field of inquiry when duplicitous scum like Prof. Jones and the rest of that credentialed pack of liars involved in the CRU correspondence exposed by Climategate take control of scientific conferences and publications to establish their poisonously invidious confabulations in lieu of genuine and reliable reflections of factual reality.
These guys have led an entire generation of undergraduates, postgrad students, and post-doc fellows down a blind alley and murdered their careers, not to mention the damage they’ve done to the lay public’s perception of dispassionate scientific research. And what they’ve done to the scientific literature in atmospheric physics, meteorology, epidemiology, marine biology and ecology…. Damn.
Those of us working in the profession of medicine have had to hit the “reset” button on a bunch of small but significant issues (if it causes any increase in patient-related morbidity or mortality, Kevin, it’s sure as hell got to be interpreted as “significant” among those of us in the sawbones trade) when we’ve discovered dirty work at the crossroads.
Pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers are particularly (and with the highest levels of publicity) culpable of such conduct. Anybody want to discuss Merck’s suppression of safety data in a key study run on their rofecoxib (Vioxx) product which came to light in 2004?
But doctors have done plenty of stupid and wrongheaded stuff that breaches the principles of evidence-based medicine, much of the time for pecuniary reasons, sometimes out of sheer bloody-mindedness. We have a saying to the effect that “For any effective and genuinely innovative measure to achieve acceptance in medicine, an entire generation of doctors must die.” Think “Semmelweis effect.”
Hm. Come to think of it, the Semmelweis effect – described by Grant et. al. in Obstetrics & Gynecology some years ago as the automatic dismissal or rejection of scientific information “without thought, inspection or experiment” – is the prime fault of AGW True Believers like our Kevin, who blank out contrary information in order to cling to their frantic delusions of man-made climate catastrophe.
Hell, no wonder a physician should easily perceive this persistent fatal failing among the warmist bloody fools. It’s something we know to be prevalent in our own profession, and against which we are educated from our first-year course on History of Medicine.
—