Manmade global warming alarmism took a disgraceful turn for the worse this weekend when Newsweek published a lengthy cover-story repeatedly calling skeptics "deniers" that are funded by oil companies and other industries with a vested interest in obfuscating the truth.
In fact, the piece several times suggested that publishing articles skeptical of man’s role in climate change is akin to misleading Americans about the dangers of smoking.
Despicably titled "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine," the article painted a picture of an evil cabal whose goal is to thwart science at the detriment of the environment and the benefit of their wallets.
Worse still, the piece’s many authors painted every skeptical scientific report they referred to as being part of this cabal while including absolutely no historical temperature data to prove that today’s global temperatures are in any way abnormal.
Maybe most disingenuous, there wasn’t one word given to how much money corporations and entities with a vested interest in advancing the alarmism are spending, or who they are. Yet, in the very first paragraph, one of the main participants in this evil cabal was identified (emphasis added throughout):
As [Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California)] left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new [IPCC] report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn’t giving up."
But that was just the beginning:
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the
How utterly disgraceful. So, scientists all around the world who have devoted their lives and their careers to studying and writing about climate and related issues who don’t feel man can or is impacting such are akin to folks who misled the public about the potential dangers of cigarette smoking.
How disgusting. Frankly, these "journalists" should be asked by every skeptical scientist on the planet for an immediate apology.
Sadly, as one won’t likely be forthcoming, these folks were just getting warmed up with their disgraceful accusations:
"As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," says historian Naomi Oreskes of the
Disgusting. But it gets worse as the authors then began to personally attack prominent skeptics:
In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine–think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers-the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler’s
Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They "settled on the ‘science isn’t there’ argument because they didn’t believe they’d be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real," says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the
As the article moved into the
Notice something conspicuously absent? How about the fact that on July 25, 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 on the Byrd-Hagel resolution strongly advising President Clinton to not sign the treaty?
How could such a lengthy article supposedly chronicling the history of this issue totally ignore this key vote in the Senate? Did the authors not want readers to know why
Yet, that’s not all they intentionally omitted:
The GOP control of Congress for six of
Okay. So, what happened with regard to climate change legislation during
And, what climate change legislation was proposed by President Clinton from 1995 through 2000 that was defeated by the Republican Congress?
And, the article conveniently ignored that under
That appears to be a truth too inconvenient for these authors to share:
The reason for the inaction was clear. "The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming," says Sen. John Kerry. "There would be ads challenging the science right around the time we were trying to pass legislation. It was pure, raw pressure combined with false facts." Nor were states stepping where
Yet, no specific legislation was addressed by Newsweek, and no roll call votes reported to inform the reader of who voted for and against such legislation.
As the article moved to a conclusion, the alarmism hit an apex:
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself. This summer,
Shocking and disgraceful. After all, the media with very few exceptions are on Newsweek’s side of this issue, and have been for years. If in its own poll Newsweek identified that less than half of Americans want regulations requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances, doesn’t that mean the public isn’t completely buying the alarmism?
And, regardless of the supposed financing of this cabal, the Newsweek authors didn’t share with their readers how and if media were being swayed by such funds.
For instance, the article had previously referenced polling data:
Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and
So, in Newsweek’s view, this skepticism by such a large percentage of Americans is caused by the "denial machine."
But media are overwhelmingly anthropogenic global warming believers and alarmists. Whether people are watching CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, or reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Time, or Newsweek, they are getting a one-sided view of this issue much like this article in question.
It is one thing to argue that conservative think tanks and oil industry agents are lobbying members of Congress concerning this matter while totally ignoring the folks on the other side of the debate who are doing the exact same thing. However, as skeptical opinions are rarely included in mainstream media reports concerning global warming — and, when they are, they’re completely derided as in this piece — it is totally preposterous to claim that the public’s opinion on this matter is being impacted by the "denial machine."
Sadly, these Newsweek writers didn’t see that obvious hypocrisy.
In the end, there’s so much to be offended by in this piece that one article can’t possibly address all the disingenuity. However, the writers of this detritus should look in the mirror as they’re pointing such accusatory fingers.
After all, they’re right. There is an evil cabal concerning this issue. Unfortunately, the fingers are pointing in the wrong direction, for it is indeed them who are doing everything in their power to obfuscate the truth.
In fact, these folks didn’t even try to present evidence that a problem exists. Instead, they just attacked those who questioned what might be the root cause of the past century’s rise in average global temperatures, and whether man can do anything to reverse such assuming it’s even a real concern.
And this is what passes for journalism at Newsweek today. How sad.
*****Update: Another juicy hypocrisy. In this article, the authors mocked skeptics using current climate events to disprove global warming:
ICE ads asked, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is
Yet, this was in their concluding paragraph:
Hmmm. So, when skeptics point to current climate events as disproving global warming, it’s a tactic of the "denial machine." But, when alarmists do the same thing, it’s just good reporting.
Just another example of the motto of these folks: Do As I Say, Not As I Do!
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and a contributing editor to NewsBusters.