Tend to agree with this. But then, the Newsweek article is so blatantly partisan, it is easy to dismiss.
Venky. On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 10:56:52AM +0530, Gautam John wrote: > Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine' > By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET > > 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 Clinton > administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science > uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public > and Congress." > > 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 University of California, San Diego. Individual > companies and industry associations-representing petroleum, steel, > autos and utilities, for instance-formed lobbying groups with names > like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the > Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters > to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow > doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about > smoking research. > > 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 Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, > if you're in the minority, opts to be with you. "I thought it was > important to make it clear that the science was at an early and > primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much > reason for skepticism," he told Scientific American magazine. "I did > feel a moral obligation." > > [...] > > 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 > University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises > prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a > reporter, is "anything severe." Michaels had written several popular > articles on climate change, including an op-ed in The Washington Post > in 1989 warning of "apocalyptic environmentalism," which he called > "the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism." The coal > industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a > newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed > mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on > coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than > $165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry > funding, asking, "What is this, a hatchet job?") > > As the article moved into the Kyoto period, a key issue was > conveniently ignored: > > Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the "Leipzig > Declaration on Global Climate Change." Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied > Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the > early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and > others, including TV weathermen, said they "cannot subscribe to the > politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes." > Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate > research; they just kibitzed about other people's. Scientific truth is > not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number > of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming > and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the > thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, > was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 > scientists from 130 nations. > > Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the > Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was > taking no chances. > > 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 America didn't ratify this treaty? How > can these authors, as they repeatedly avowed that every skeptical > scientist is obfuscating the truth about global warming, intentionally > omit this crucial vote? > > Yet, that's not all they intentionally omitted: > > The GOP control of Congress for six of Clinton's eight years in > office meant the denial machine had a receptive audience. Although > Republicans such as Sens. John McCain, Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee > spurned the denial camp, and Democrats such as Congressman John > Dingell adamantly oppose greenhouse curbs that might hurt the auto and > other industries, for the most part climate change has been a bitterly > partisan issue. Republicans have also received significantly more > campaign cash from the energy and other industries that dispute > climate science. Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of > denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a > research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. > "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change." > > Okay. So, what happened with regard to climate change legislation > during Clinton's first two years when he had a Democrat Congress? > > No mention. > > And, what climate change legislation was proposed by President Clinton > from 1995 through 2000 that was defeated by the Republican Congress? > > No mention. > > And, the article conveniently ignored that under Clinton, not only > were maximum highway speed limits raised, but fuel efficiency > requirements, known as CAFE standards, didn't go up one tenth of one > mile per gallon in Clinton's two terms. > > 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 Washington feared to tread. "I did a lot of testifying > before state legislatures-in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Alaska-that > thought about taking action," says Singer. "I said that the observed > warming was and would be much, much less than climate models > calculated, and therefore nothing to worry about." > > 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. > > How disgraceful. > > 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, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of > downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas > and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just > last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of > heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, > in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already > doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both > cities and farms is diminishing. It's enough to make you wish that > climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is. > > 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 Japan recognize a > broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases-mostly > from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's > economies-are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the > influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is > less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a > lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of > whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of > disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global > warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt > today. > > 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 Minneapolis > [or Kentucky, or some other site] getting colder?" > > Yet, this was in their concluding paragraph: > > This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and > flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other > cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. > > 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. > > > http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/05/newsweek-disgrace-global-warming-deniers-well-funded-machine
