FOX News again covers climate change in its predictably awful, ad hominem, it's-all-about-that-liar-Al-Gore fashion.
The segment begins: "Is the global warming movement based more on mixed messages and intimidation than on facts?"
The implied answer is "yes," as the panel argues for the next four minutes, but the real answer is "no." It's ridiculous how the overwhelming majority of scientific organizations and peer-reviewed journals say that our recent warming trend is mainly driven by emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet you'll never really hear this on FOX News. Naomi Oreskes surveyed the peer-reviewed publications in Science, and found that 0% took the position now suggested by John Stossel and FOX & Friends. If the people at FOX News think otherwise, they should submit their theories for publication. As it stands, global warming contrarians (which is exactly what this panel is filled with) are not researching and publishing their views on this subject. Those who are studying and publishing on the topic are overwhelmingly finding that global warming is mainly driven by anthropogenic gases.
Oh yeah, and pretty much every major scientific organization whose expertise bears on the subject has said the same thing.
Anyway, Stossel starts off the interview:
"My problem is with his movie, and with this religious-like campaign about 'we must all go back to the stone age' because we're evil"
Whoah, there. Nowhere in the movie does he say anything of the sort. This is a pure 100% straw man argument. Furthermore, contrarians like Stossel like to couch the mainstream scientific opinions on this subject in terms of religion rather than science. It happens all the time. Michelle Malkin does it. Sean Hannity does it. Steve Forbes does it. They pretty much all do it in an attempt to hide the ball, and bring the argument down to their level.
Then Stossel talks about "the Vice President's campaign to intimidate scientists who disagree, saying they've been purchased by millions of dollars." But is it really intimidation to point it out when somebody has a real conflict of interest? Furthermore, I watched the Al Gore movie, and he doesn't talk about scientists being bought off by Exxon-Mobil and the like. Instead, he talks about the PR campaign funded by such groups. So it's unclear what Stossel is arguing here. It would certainly be nice if he could give us some examples and illustrations to make his point, rather than just innuendo.
Then the blonde chick chimes in:
"Some scientists have been fired, actually, from universities, I believe, because of their stance - that's a whole 'nother issue"Name one. Or are you just floating out some innuendo and rumors you might have possibly heard from someplace?
This is all from just the first minute of the interview. I won't go through it all right now, but in summary: (1) the panel develops some conspiracy theories to explain that global warming is just a big money conspiracy, (2) they call Al Gore's film "brainwashing propaganda," (3) they suggest that Al Gore needs to give back his Oscar, (4) they suggest that the Nobel/Oscar committees are motivated by anti-Bush/anti-American sentiments, and (5) they reveal that their wives and daughters are smarter than they are.
Part I: FOX repeatedly compares Al Gore to Yasser Arafat.
Part II: FOX uses UK judge as its primary scientific authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment