Everything I Know Is Wrong

Inhofe criticizes Global Warming scare media.

Senator James Inhofe slammed the mainstream media on the floor of the Senate Monday. He says—and he's right—that they've jumped whole heartedly onto the  global warming alarmist bandwagon, and left objectivity deliberately behind.

It is an inconvenient truth that so far, 2006 has been a year in which major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness and objectivity when it comes to climate change. The global warming alarmists and their friends in the media have attempted to smear scientists who dare question the premise of man-made catastrophic global warming, and as a result some scientists have seen their reputations and research funding dry up.

The media has so relentlessly promoted global warming fears that a British group called the Institute for Public Policy Research – and this from a left leaning group – issued a report in 2006 accusing media outlets of engaging in what they termed “climate porn” in order to attract the public’s attention.

Bob Carter, a Paleoclimate geologist from James Cook University in Australia has described how the media promotes climate fear:

“Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as ‘if’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘probably’, ‘perhaps’, ‘expected’, ‘projected’ or ‘modeled’ - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense,” professor Carter concluded in an op-ed in April of this year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Another example of this relentless hype is the reporting on the seemingly endless number of global warming impact studies which do not even address whether global warming is going to happen. They merely project the impact of potential temperature increases.

The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile Virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards, and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’ has failed to seduce many Americans.

According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.

In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.

Yes -- it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.    

The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.

The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.

Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.

Senator Inhofe, with simple, direct style, destroys all of the most popular "arguments" that the climate change alarmists use to try to convince the public that their pet scare really exists. It's a great speech, read the whole thing.

Into the Lion's Den.

My friend—and blogger extrordinaire—Ed Morrissey took part in a panel discussion at Macalester College last night, the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Macalester is well known in Minnesota as a bastion of far left liberal ideology. The subject of the discussion was the Iraq war. Predictably, three of the four panelists were liberals opposed to the war. They ranged, in their leftism, from a relatively sensible, moderate, and charming former swiftboat veteran, Lou Ellingson, to the off the chart America-loathing of Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, University of St. Thomas Peace and Justice Studies professor (what the heck is a Peace and Justice Studies professor anyway?). The moderator, though not a part of the discussion proper, managed to make it known that he too was opposed to the war in Iraq, and to the Bush administration in general.

The composition of the audience was also predictable. Easily four fifths of the people in attendance were opposed to the war. I have seldom seen more bumper-stickers calling for America to "Say No to War" (a less realistic solution there never was). The alpaca-wearing, asymmetrical haircut sporting, itty-bitty-skinny-glasses crowd were only outnumbered by the geriatric communists, and up-and-coming beret and black t-shirt wearing Che Guevara lovers.

Into this arena our brave Mr. Morrissey walked of his own volition. In his own words:

In a larger sense, this seems the perfect way to honor our loss on 9/11. America is the home of honest and free political debate, and if we want to prevail against fascism secular or religious, we have to retain the courage to speak out even in potentially hostile climates.

Ed, to be sure, had supporters there, too. Family and friends were there, as well as readers of his blog, Captain's Quarters. Even so, because of the nature of the panel and the audience, my brother-in-law and I decided to stick around until the crowd thinned in case Ed needed help. None was needed. The crowd was polite and orderly, as were the panelists.

You may have noticed that I have not yet mentioned the arguments of the panelists. That is because, for the most part, they were boilerplate leftist arguments that you have heard before: confident, yet unfounded statements that the only reason for the war was to procure oil for the U.S. Well, except for the other reason, which was to further our imperial ambitions. Never mind that we haven't gotten any oil, and every single country which we have beaten in armed conflict is still free. It is startling to see in person, someone—several someones—espouse such outrageous insanity with a straight face. To hear people outline their conspiracies theories, accusing Halliburton-Rove-Cheney-Bush of planning the war in Iraq in a cold-blooded rush toward profit. To see the joy on their faces as they said things about their own country that would curdle your blood. It was surreal.

Ed said some things that made sense, but they were completely ignored by the majority of the audience. He had prepared a very good defense of the war as an opening statement (you can read it here, and I encourage you to) but he was not able to deliver it in full because of a five minute time limit imposed by the panel rules. The time limit, though frustrating to all of the panelists, was probably a good idea overall, as it helped limit the tag-team tactics used by two of Ed's opponents. Unfortunately, it also eliminated the only real chance Ed had of saying something that was not in response to a biased question.

I admire Ed for standing up for his beliefs in the face of an intellectually hostile audience. As always, he was a good spokesman for conservatism. By far the most gracious of the panelists, he put a human face on the right wing that even the left must agree was admirable. After it was over a very relieved Ed said to me, "Thanks for coming, I know it was a long way to drive." I laughed and answered, "Oh buddy, this was a lot harder on you than it was on me!"

Oh, yeah: my grand niece, and Ed's "Little Admiral", got in on the action by taking him a question card of her own, like she saw everyone else doing. She wanted to know, "What is your favorite color?"

Update: Ed, too, speaks of the Lion's den.