[asa] Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' per Newsweek Editor

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 11:24:36 EDT

Two items for your reading pleasure. ~ Janice
:) "Hell hath frozen over - Newsweek debunks itself"
PS: Here's a bonus in case you missed it (proof
that "climate change" is "man
made") http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[1]
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1880150/posts>1998
was Colder than 1934...in 2002? (GISS Data
Falsehood Before the Recent Scandal? FR EXCLUSIVE)
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1880150//^http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/>Web
Archive and GISS ^ | 08/12/2007 | Ultra Sonic 007
Posted on 08/12/2007 1:38:32 PM EDT by Ultra Sonic 007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1880150/posts [refresh browser]

I've done some digging into the recent scandal
over how GISS has quietly changed its data to
reflect the fact that 1998 is no longer the warmest year on American record.

However, thanks to the resources of the Wayback
Machine of WebArchive, I've discovered that the
1998 data has not been quite so high for a while.

<http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/>This
is the Wayback Machine archive of GISS's data
page, home to the climate data that's been the
subject of the recent controversy.

[snip]

One comment:

GISS and James Hansen have REWRITTEN the data 5 different times now.

The Hadley Centre in the UK (the other big
organization tracking global temperatures) has
adjusted the data 7 times already. Phil Jones
(the main guy at the Hadley Centre who kicked off
the 1st of these adjustments in 1990) claims to have lost the original data.

So, you can’t trust these two organizations or
anything they have produced. They are warming
alarmists through and through and the charts you
see of global warming over the past century (0.8C
of increase) is made up of 0.7C of “adjustments”
and 0.1C of raw data
increase.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1880150/posts?page=42#42>42
posted on 08/12/2007

My comments are here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1880150/posts?page=53#53
& here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1880150/posts?page=55#55

[2
a]
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880337/posts>Newsweek
Editor Calls Global Warming Cover Story ‘Fundamentally Misleading’
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880337//^http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/12/newsweek-editor-calls-global-warming-deniers-story-fundamentally-misl>NewsBusters
^ | August 12, 2007 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on 08/13/2007 12:58:04 AM EDT by CedarDave
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880337/posts

It appears hell hath frozen over, for a Newsweek
contributing editor published an article Saturday
extraordinarily critical of his magazine's cover
story last week about "global-warming deniers"
being funded by oil companies in an organized scam to thwart science.

In fact, Robert J. Samuelson accurately noted how
"self-righteous indignation can undermine good
journalism," and that this disgraceful article
was "an object lesson of how viewing the world as
‘good guys vs. bad guys' can lead to a vast
oversimplification of a messy story."

Fortunately, Samuelson was just getting warmed up:

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

NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and
highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for
example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay
academics to criticize global-warming science.
Actually, this accusation was long ago
discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. ...

The alleged cabal's influence does not seem
impressive. The mainstream media have generally
been unsympathetic; they've treated global
warming ominously. The first NEWSWEEK cover story
in 1988 warned the greenhouse effect. danger:
more hot summers ahead. A Time cover in 2006 was
more alarmist: be worried, be very worried. Nor
does public opinion seem much swayed. Although
polls can be found to illustrate almost anything,
the longest-running survey questions show a remarkable consistency....

Shocking. But, Samuelson wasn't finished:

But the overriding reality seems almost
un-American: we simply don't have a solution for
this problem. As we debate it, journalists should
resist the temptation to portray global warming
as a morality tale-as NEWSWEEK did-in which
anyone who questions its gravity or proposed
solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or
an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

Bravo, Robert! Bravo!

(Excerpt) Read more at above link.

[2 b] Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming
'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Newsweek Debunks Itself

[Note: For more background on Newsweek's
controversial article see August 5, 2007 EPW
Blog: "Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed
Violates Basic Standards of Journalism"
(<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7>LINK)]

Washington DC - Robert J. Samuelson, a
contributing editor of Newsweek, slapped down his
own Magazine for what he termed a "highly
contrived story" about the global warming "denial
machine.” Samuelson, writing in the August 20,
2007 issue of Newsweek, explains that the
Magazine used "discredited" allegations in last
week's issue involving a supposed cash bounty to
pay skeptics to dispute global warming science
and he chided the Magazine for portraying global
warming as a "morality tale."
(<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/>LINK)
Samuelson’s article titled “Greenhouse
Simplicities," also characterized the "deniers"
cover story as "fundamentally misleading."

"Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can
undermine good journalism. Last week's Newsweek
cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder," Samuelson wrote.

Who would have thought that Newsweek would debunk
its own embarrassing cover story a week later in
the very next issue? This kind of reversal does
not happen very often in journalism. [Note: It
previously took Newsweek 31 years to admit its
1970's prediction of dire global cooling was
completely wrong. See October 24, 2006 article:
Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek
Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming
Ice Age –
(<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=616FD8F4-3292-44B9-BAE4-422E8C8E2DF9>LINK)]

In this week's issue, Samuelson's writes: "As we
debate it, journalists should resist the
temptation to portray global warming as a
morality tale­as Newsweek did­in which anyone who
questions its gravity or proposed solutions may
be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry
stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

Samuelson also noted, “Newsweek’s ‘denial
machine’ [cover story] is a peripheral and highly contrived story."

And despite the best efforts of Newsweek’s
propaganda team, Samuelson was not convinced that
there was a powerful “denial machine.”

“The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive,” he wrote.

This is a very inconvenient turn of events for
the ideologically driven and very sloppy team of
writers led by Sharon Begley, Eve Conant and
Eleanor Clift. Newsweek's management must have
realized that their global warming 'denial' cover
story
(<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7>LINK)
was so woeful that they were forced to run a
complete rebuttal in the very next issue from one of their very own editors.

One can only imagine the internal discussions at
Newsweek over this surprising turn of events.
Below is a portion of Samuelson's column,
recommended for anyone interested in
understanding the mainstream media's utter
failure to comprehend the basics of balance,
objectivity or fairness in climate reporting.

[Also note: EPW's Blog critique of the 'denier'
article titled "Newsweek's Climate Editorial
Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism,”
has been updated with additional information on
the funding of skeptics vs. the man-made global
warming mega infrastructure. Please see
(<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7>LINK)
for updated blog. A blockbuster U.SSenate report
is set to be released in the Fall 2007 that will
feature hundreds of scientists (many current and
former UN scientists) who have spoken out
recently against Gore, the UN, and the media
driven climate “consensus.” Please keep checking
this blog for updates.
(<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12>LINK)
]

Excerpts of Samuelson's article in this week's Newsweek

Greenhouse Simplicities
(<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/>LINK
to complete article)
By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek

Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - 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
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/>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." This "denial
machine" has obstructed action against global
warming and is still "running at full throttle."
The story's thrust: discredit the "denial
machine," and the country can start the serious
business of fighting global warming. The story
was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable
is this: we lack the technology to get from here
to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger
wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At
best, we might curb emissions growth.

Consider a 2006 study from the International
Energy Agency. With present policies, it
projected that carbon-dioxide emissions (a main
greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050;
developing countries would account for almost 70
percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated
an aggressive, global program to cut emissions
based on the best available technologies: more
solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars,
appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under
this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050
would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.

Even the fantasy would be a stretch. In the
United States, it would take massive regulations,
higher energy taxes or both. Democracies don't
easily adopt painful measures in the present to
avert possible future problems. Examples abound.
Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, we've been on
notice to limit dependence on insecure foreign
oil. We've done little. In 1973, imports were 35
percent of U.S. oil use; in 2006, they were 60
percent. For decades we've known of the huge
retirement costs of baby boomers. Little has been done.

< >

Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK's
"denial machine" is a peripheral and highly
contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example,
that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay
academics to criticize global-warming science.
Actually, this accusation was long ago
discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it
respectability. (The company says it knew nothing
of the global-warming grant, which involved
issues of climate modeling. And its 2006
contribution to the think tank, the American
Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)

The alleged cabal's influence does not seem
impressive. The mainstream media have generally
been unsympathetic; they've treated global
warming ominously. The first NEWSWEEK cover story
in 1988 warned the greenhouse effect. danger:
more hot summers ahead. A Time cover in 2006 was
more alarmist: be worried, be very worried. Nor
does public opinion seem much swayed. Although
polls can be found to illustrate almost anything,
the longest-running survey questions show a
remarkable consistency. In 1989, Gallup found 63
percent of Americans worried "a great deal" or a
"fair amount" about global warming; in 2007, 65 percent did.

What to do about global warming is a quandary.
Certainly, more research and development.
Advances in underground storage of carbon
dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid
cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter
energy economics. To cut oil imports, I support a
higher gasoline tax­$1 to $2 a gallon, introduced
gradually­and higher fuel-economy standards for
vehicles. These steps would also temper
greenhouse-gas emissions. Drilling for more
domestic natural gas (a low-emission fuel) would
make sense. One test of greenhouse proposals: are
they worth doing on other grounds?

But the overriding reality seems almost
un-American: we simply don't have a solution for
this problem. As we debate it, journalists should
resist the temptation to portray global warming
as a morality tale­as NEWSWEEK did­in which
anyone who questions its gravity or proposed
solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or
an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

For Samuelson's full article go to:
(<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/>LINK)

Posted by Marc Morano -
<mailto:Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov>Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov 12:39 AM

Related
Links:
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=58659aa0-802a-23ad-49d7-3d18075e69c3&Issue_id>http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=58659aa0-802a-23ad-49d7-3d18075e69c3&Issue_id=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 13 11:27:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 11:27:59 EDT