Climate Of Here

Corporate sponsored opposition to the environmentalist  campaign to hype climate change seems to be modeling itself on an eminently forgettable  television show called  "That's Incredible"

It initially enjoyed great ratings, then sank out of sight as the audience noticed its offerings fell into two broad categories : That's Mildly Interesting" and 'That's Not True"

The same cannot  be said for most of  "An Inconvenient Truth"-- it represents a much higher standard of disinformation, but  that's not the focus of last week's  Newsweek's cover story. Reason's Ron Bailey notes that less than 1% of the American Enterprise Institute's  present budget stems from Exxon. But this is itself a red herring- the most egregious focus of the Science Be Damned approach to climate change remains The Conservative Enterprise Institute, which drew  drew more of its funding  from the energy business than AEI.

For years,  willingness to express disbelief in global warming  was a criterion of employment at CEI, whose publications  and position papers actively and actually denied the existence of the Climate Wars by  labeling anthropogenic climate change a myth or hoax.

Now Newsweek business columnist Robert  Samuelson is taking  issue with science writer Sharon Begley's recent cover story :

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."... The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading

Begley  undeniably ignored  the monumentally greater business of generating big budget Eco-TV, politically loaded disaster flicks, and Green sermons on PBS. Green spending and support for this wide ranging  pseudodocumentary  spectrum exceeds  the "denial" lobby a hundred to one. But there is an unsubtle distinction between hype and hoax. Samuelson misses a basic point- there literally cannot be a  scientific climate war  unless and until there are two sides.

Neither AEI of CEI has shown the slightest interest in mastering the subject matter at issue.  If they had, their case would reflect a first-hand acquaintance with a broad spectrum of the primary  scientific literature- climate modelling is nothing if not interdisciplinary.  Instead, they more often deliver an exegesis on the views of such scientific luminaries as  Rush Limbaugh and the Senators to whom he has lent his brain trust. This does nothing to remedy the misrepresentation of science to the public- it merely compounds it.

Comments

[Sharpshooter]

"Neither AEI of CEI has shown the slightest interest in mastering the subject matter at issue. If they had, their case would reflect a first-hand acquaintance with a broad spectrum of the primary scientific literature- climate modelling is nothing if not interdisciplinary. Instead, they more often deliver an exegesis on the views of such scientific luminaries as Rush Limbaugh and the Senators to whom he has lent his brain trust. This does nothing to remedy the misrepresentation of science to the public- it merely compounds it."

Tongue-in-cheek, or foot-in-mouth?

[Health News]

Thank you for introducing me the wonderful information.And .....Totally boring.!