Good podcast, but…
Good podcast, but the central analogy depends on a false premise, in my view. It was reasonable to believe that there was a coverup in the Sandusky case, given the media reporting and people being fired and convicted in court. However, a careful examination of the evidence suggests that there was no cover up—because there was nothing to cover up. Sandusky is entirely innocent, and the school officials acted appropriately (in the Sandusky case—I don’t know about the climate case). You don’t have to accept my opinion, but I recommend at least considering the evidence presented in the Podcast series “With the Benefit of Hindsight” before accepting the official story. This problem with the defense’s position does not really helps Mann’s case very much, since it was reasonable to believe there was a coverup, but it does make the whole situation a bit awkward.
Kurtis Hagen via Apple Podcasts · United States of America · 01/19/24
More reviews of Climate Change on Trial
This story intersects with another interesting story presently playing out at Harvard. And other Ivy Leagues. Who would have thought this type corruption has permeated our higher education system.
Mugat vs Pygmie via Apple Podcasts · United States of America · 01/24/24
A lot of work has gone into this podcast with actors, playing the parts of Mark Steyn, Judge and various councils. Already there is skulduggery and humour and we are only at day two. One of the ironies of the case is that it begins whilst in a big freeze. At the heart of the case is the...Read full review »
peter de leeds via Apple Podcasts · Great Britain · 01/19/24
I appreciate the commentators filling in but I could use a whole lot more of the actors reading the transcripts. Those reading the transcripts are talented and are the reason for my 5 star review.
BST0 via Apple Podcasts · United States of America · 01/23/24
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.