Global Warming a "hoax" -- was this in your paper today?

[beachmom]

I opened my local paper today, and in the top left corner were excerpts from this WP article about a skeptical scientist on global warming:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html

Is this a bit of a hit piece against Al Gore's movie? This guy has been around forever, and is not funded that I know of by fossil fuel companies, but why do they run this article now? The weekend Gore's movie comes out.

This guy is part of a "tiny minority" of scientists but he gets a front page article? I'm perplexed. That and the hit piece on Harry Reid (legally taking free boxing tickets for which he voted against them afterwards), and I'm wondering if my paper isn't just press release central for the RNC. Haditha was, meanwhile, relegated inside the paper as usual. It NEVER was on the front page.

[Mass]

1. Another "fair and balanced" article by the media.

Global climate change is in the news, so they figure they have to give a prominent place to those who disagree, whether they are 1% of the scientific community of 60 % does not matter.

It is the same premise that they use to justify the space and time they give to O'Neal.

In addition, their corporate customers are probably very happy to see this article in a prominent position.

[beachmom]

2. Just found this on Think Progress -- Yikes

I will say first that the excerpt in my paper did NOT contain this quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/28/comparing-gore-to-hitler/

Leading Climate Skeptic Compares Gore to Hitler
Last week, Sterling Burnett – a senior fellow at the Exxon-backed National Center for Policy Analysis – compared Al Gore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

In this weekend’s Washington Post magazine, meteorologist Bill Gray – one of the most prominent climate skeptics – directly compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler:

Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.

It’s telling that so many of the attacks on Al Gore and his movie are ad hominem, not substantive. There really is no credible scientific rebuttal to An Inconvenient Truth, so people are forced to attack the messenger.



Damn -- I feel manipulated that this piece was on the front page of my paper. This is just totally out of control.

[Mass]

3. This is not an attack on Gore, it is an attack on people who fight against

global warming.

The industrial community does not want to hear anything about regulations, so they thrash anybody that is going to speak out in the media.

A few months ago, the same thing happened to Kerry when he started talking about a report that was predicting that New York and Boston would be under sea level in 50 years. The RW media jumped on that so quickly that it was obvious this was something they were not ready to hear.

So no surprise they are all after Gore on that.

[beachmom]

4. Yes, you're right. Currently Gore has been the poster child for

global warming because of the buzz of his new film. But when one gets to the bottom of it, it's an attack on hard working scientists. Time magazine and 60 Minutes elected to not quote skeptics because it would literally be the equivalent of quoting "The world is flat" scientists. But this stupid article was on the FRONT PAGE of my newspaper, whereas Haditha gets buried. I know I'm going to come across as naive, but every time this happens, I think -- no, this is not how America works. It just can't be -- somebody made a mistake. But I know there are people pushing levers behind closed doors, manipulating the public into believing lie after lie after lie.

[Mass]

5. Apparently, they are still after Kerry for his proposals concerning

alternative energies.

The Washington Post article is the "good journalism" article on the subject and unfortunately, this article is the freeper type article, but both go in the same direction: attack somebody who is doing something on this issue. Interesting to see that the bulk of this article is about Kerry's proposals on environment. (sorry for the source, BTW).

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/160/5079/2006-05-30.asp?wid=160&nid=5079

[beachmom]

6. I think I'm going to have to fumigate myself now

Yeah, it's all just hideous, isn't it.

[ray of light]

7. check out this disinformation.

http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?auth=187&page=1&mode=allwords

Brought to you by Caruba who is connected with exon secrets.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1042

and another 'unusual' site called anxietycenter.com that is wierdly promoting axiety. Read it.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/

Lot of wierd connections with a lot of hate speech against environmentalists.

[zann725]

8. I saw the movie yesterday (sold-out) in HUGH theatre..3 shows sold-out

in a row. In the movie, Gore impressively, logically, visually shows at one point how WH Environmentalist took a page-long memo containing SPECIFIC scientific data regarding rapide "Global Warming," and edited it with "red pencil"...down to just ONE sentence vaguely stating ambivalence in the "Facts."

Why am I not surprised your paper put front page, doubt as to Gore, and his Global Warming movie EXACTLY at the time of its National opening...to hopefully diffuse its Truth, and sold-out exposure, and diminish its standing ovations and praise at Cannes.

Such childish front-page pebble-throwing makes me laugh. Ignore it for what it is...and laugh.

And refer the movie to EVERYONE you know NOW!

[beachmom]

9. For us, sure, we can laugh because we know better

But a LOT of people think that if it's in the newspaper, that it's somehow true both in facts and context. Heck, that was me before I discovered the blogosphere. Now readers in my area, who take the time to read the paper of record for this part of Virginia, are going to be manipulated and boondoggled. And that is just sad . . .

I really want to see the film; thanks for the info!!