FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
extended from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879033/posts
Posted on 08/11/2007 10:53:27 PM PDT by EPW Comm Team
August 12, 2007
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Posted by Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov 12:39 AM
[Note: For more background on Newsweek's controversial article see August 5, 2007 EPW Blog: "Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism" (LINK)]
Washington DC - Robert J. Samuelson, a contributing editor of Newsweek, slapped down his own Magazine for what he termed a "highly contrived story" about the global warming "denial machine.” Samuelson, writing in the August 20, 2007 issue of Newsweek, explains that the Magazine used "discredited" allegations in last week's issue involving a supposed cash bounty to pay skeptics to dispute global warming science and he chided the Magazine for portraying global warming as a "morality tale." (LINK) Samuelson’s article titled “Greenhouse Simplicities," also characterized the "deniers" cover story as "fundamentally misleading."
Who would have thought that Newsweek would debunk its own embarrassing cover story a week later in the very next issue? This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism. [Note: It previously took Newsweek 31 years to admit its 1970's prediction of dire global cooling was completely wrong. See October 24, 2006 article: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age – (LINK)]
In this week's issue, Samuelson's writes: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as Newsweek did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."
Samuelson also noted, “Newsweek’s ‘denial machine’ [cover story] is a peripheral and highly contrived story."
"Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder," he added.
And despite the best efforts of Newsweek’s propaganda team, Samuelson was not convinced that there was a powerful “denial machine.”
“The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive,” he wrote.
This is a very inconvenient turn of events for the ideologically driven and very sloppy team of writers led by Sharon Begley, Eve Conant and Eleanor Clift. Newsweek's management must have realized that their global warming 'denial' cover story (LINK) was so woeful that they were forced to run a complete rebuttal in the very next issue from one of their very own editors.
One can only imagine the internal discussions at Newsweek over this surprising turn of events. Below is a portion of Samuelson's column, recommended for anyone interested in understanding the mainstream media's utter failure to comprehend the basics of balance, objectivity or fairness in climate reporting.
[Also note: EPW's Blog critique of the 'denier' article titled "Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism,” has been updated with additional information on the funding of skeptics vs. the man-made global warming mega infrastructure. Please see (LINK) for updated blog.]
Excerpts of Samuelson's article in this week's Newsweek
Greenhouse Simplicities (LINK to complete article) By Robert J. Samuelson Newsweek Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it.
If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.
The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb emissions growth.
Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. With present policies, it projected that carbon-dioxide emissions (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.
Even the fantasy would be a stretch. In the United States, it would take massive regulations, higher energy taxes or both. Democracies don't easily adopt painful measures in the present to avert possible future problems. Examples abound. Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, we've been on notice to limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. We've done little. In 1973, imports were 35 percent of U.S. oil use; in 2006, they were 60 percent. For decades we've known of the huge retirement costs of baby boomers. Little has been done.
< >
Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)
The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they've treated global warming ominously. The first NEWSWEEK cover story in 1988 warned the greenhouse effect. danger: more hot summers ahead. A Time cover in 2006 was more alarmist: be worried, be very worried. Nor does public opinion seem much swayed. Although polls can be found to illustrate almost anything, the longest-running survey questions show a remarkable consistency. In 1989, Gallup found 63 percent of Americans worried "a great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming; in 2007, 65 percent did.
What to do about global warming is a quandary. Certainly, more research and development. Advances in underground storage of carbon dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter energy economics. To cut oil imports, I support a higher gasoline tax—$1 to $2 a gallon, introduced gradually—and higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles. These steps would also temper greenhouse-gas emissions. Drilling for more domestic natural gas (a low-emission fuel) would make sense. One test of greenhouse proposals: are they worth doing on other grounds?
But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.
For Samuelson's full article go to: (LINK)
# # #
EPW Inhofe Press Blog Note: A blockbuster U.S. Senate report is set to be released in the Fall 2007 that will feature hundreds of scientists (many current and former UN scientists) who have spoken out recently against Gore, the UN, and the media driven climate “consensus.” Please keep checking this blog for updates.
Related Links:
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"
Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
# # #
Is that a good guess?
Pigs are beginning to fly
“Elenor Clift”
That tells me all I need to know... What a leftist pig of a woman.
I haven’t read a Newsweak magazine in 20 years, mainly because they hire leftist writers like Elenor Clift. The only thing worse than reading her is seeing her on TV, which thankfully hasn’t been evident lately.
Yes. A very good guess.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
What’s a “Contributing Editor” and has he been fired yet?
Marking your references.
And therein lies a major problem. We have become so EXPECTANT that science and technology can do ANYTHING that we push for stupid laws to REQUIRE new scientific discoveries that might not even be possible. Not only do we REQUIRE these impossible innovations, we PUNISH industries for not being able to achieve the impossible.
In the "old days", innovation happened on it's own. The motive was profit, not avoiding punitive action. If something is possible and there is a market, someone will figure it out. All these government laws do is create noise to promote a politician.
It would be beautiful for man made GW to be completely debunked with the middle swing voters actually "getting it" before the '08 elections. Can you imagine the carnage on the left and the left leaning RINO's who are trying to walk the tight rope?
Don’t be fooled. This guy erects some very flimsy strawman arguments for the skeptics, mostly centering around “we can’t do anything about the problem right now.” He still thinks that there is a problem. All he’s doing is providing cover for his global warming buddies at Newsweak so they don’t completely lose their credibility. I’d have preferred that he didn’t write this article and instead Newsweak was ridiculed and damaged because of its lies.
BUMP!
BUMP! again!
Does each and every GW thread have to include a complete index to everything?
Large scale propaganda or education (which side is which depends on which side you stand ;) seems invariably to be driven by power and money.
I appreciate that we now have a secondary economy of experts, politicians, research departments, media and other such, feeding off the flow of money supporting the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.
But I am unsure of the primary source of that money. My best guess is that it is ultimately the major powers of the world, Russia, Islam and China that are alligned against the United States, using this and other perversions of the environmental movements to weaken the economic engine of Western Civilization.
I am even less sure of the source of the money or power behind the recent counter forces, such as Senator Inhofe's work on the U.S.Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, or the contrary articles in the New York Times, or the strange about-face by Newsweek.
I don't even have a good theory for the real source of power and money behind this recent counter action.
Any theories?
“we can’t do anything about the problem right now.”
Yes, we can - replacing all US fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants will cut US CO2 emissions in half. That would suffice, if done on a global level, in pretty much blunting any serious claimed threat from CO2
The global warming ‘deniers’ are much more right that the AGW alarmists - the media has been consistently overstating the hyperbolic politicized science to such an extent that reality is far removed from the AlGore view of things.
“From RealClimate - “2001-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century)”
So recent 5 year temps in the US have been a mere 0.03C greater than in the 1930s, and the warmest US year on record is now 1934. Further, these changes call into question the data collection and massaging of data.
Anyone who questions the shoddy science is attacked by witchhunters like the “Union of Concerned Scientists”, a leftwing partisan advocacy group. They will yell “the science is settled” when real science is *never* settled (Samuelson’s main point).
reality on AGW is not on the alarmists side. They’ve made claims that greenland’s ice sheet will melt based on CO2 output when 2 problematic facts rear:
1) Even 5C higher temps in the past still have greenlands ice sheet intact
2) The estimates by the IPCC require an incredible output of CO2 in order to yield the projected doubling of CO2 - almost 8 times the CO2 output by man in the 20th century has to be output in the 21st century to create the doubling impact. And while we do that, the large CO2 ‘sinks’, the plants that love CO2 and the oceans that absorb it, will be sucking it in.
3) The sensiitivies of temp on CO2 are certainly overestimated. CO2 rise has some influence, along with other factors, on climate. That influence is not nearly as extreme as the AGW alarmists would have you believe, and there is sound science behind feeling calm about the matter. It is known that CO2 influence on climate is attenuated, so that each doubling of CO2 has the same or less impact as the previous doubling. So far, the measured global temp increase has been 0.6C, in an era when CO2 went up by 30%. CO2 could go up 60% to 611ppm and temps would rise no more than 1.2C. Yet the models are fiddled with in order to create enlarged positive feedbacks, which have neither been observed nor which have solid foundation. For example cloud cover is a big unknown.
Thus, we are left with: GLOBAL WARMING VIA CO2 EMISSIONS IS A NOT-VERY-SERIOUS VERY LONG-RANGE PROBLEM THAT ACTUALLY IS VERY EASILY SOLVABLE THROUGH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY (NUCLEAR POWER).
Thanks for listing all the articles that “Dr.” Heidi Cullen is way too stupid to read, LOL!
seems a good idea to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.