Yellow journalism helped push the USA into war back in the 1890s. Now, a new yellow journalism has developed using all the tricks of the trade to panic the world into granting tremendous power to an unelected and unaccountable global warming scientocracy, that will “save the planet” via anti human and economy killing policies.
Minor example: Senator Inofe, the global warming skeptic, was in Copenhagen to let the hysterics known that the USA will never pass the cap and trade economy killer. He may or may not be right, but I post this because of the ridiculous and hysterical question posed to him by a so-called “journalist.” From the story:
Surrounded by reporters from around the world, including many who believe global warming is real, Inhofe often looked like a lamb on his way to slaughter. One reporter asked Inhofe “What do you tell the children who have to live in a nightmare world. What should we tell them about your country being a heroin addict on fossil fuel? Answer the question!”
“Most of you are on the far left side, so listen closely. I contend the consensus is not there, and it wasn’t there prior to Climate-gate. Nothing binding will come out of here in my opinion, and if it does it will be rejected by the American people.” Inhofe is the second member of congress to arrive in Copenhagen. Kerry addressed reporters last night and got a standing ovation inside the Bella Convention Center. By contrast, Inhofe was mobbed inside the press center and was not offered a speaking slot.
Here’s the thing: When journalists so emotionally choose sides, they cease to be journalists. Moreover, by giving “their” side a pass on tough questions, they hurt the cause because it doesn’t force advocates to hone their game. That’s why Gore boots it every time he is asked a tough question.
But make no mistake, we are seeing the rise of a new in-the-tank journalism that might think of itself as green, but is actually a vivid yellow.
December 17th, 2009 | 12:25 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Yancey Grantham. Yancey Grantham said: News| Global Warming Hysteria: The New Yellow Journalism: First Things (blog) Yellow journalism helped push the USA… http://bit.ly/4qdlep [...]
December 17th, 2009 | 2:26 pm
I’m having a difficult time with this one.
So, Inhofe is a skeptic, right?
Inhofe, as part of his “proof” against global warming cites a survey of 700 “scientists”. Included in this list is Chris Allen, an ID-creationist TV personality who holds no college degree.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Yikes, not a very good skeptic.
Good skeptics can generate experimental data that withstands scrutiny and is able to disprove a hypothesis.
Further, Inhofe, also an ID-creationist, is wrong. There actually is a “consensus” on global warming. I would consider >95% of climatologists a consensus (I could use Bayesian statistics, but you guys get the point):
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
Why should the media grant any credence or airtime to someone whose judgment, intelligence, sanity, and ability to interpret data are all under serious question?
There are all sorts of crazy “skeptics”.
For example, Philip Johnson, a CSC fellow at the ID-creationist Discovery Institute doesn’t think HIV causes AIDS:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/pjohnson.htm
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
December 17th, 2009 | 2:53 pm
Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Pollution
As you know, scientist and science itself has been slandered with misinformation and ridiculed in advance of the talks. (A favored, repeated, and effective, right wing tactic).
Is Global Warming related to human/ industrial pollution? The atmosphere seems to be an arbitrary subject right now because of the propaganda effort to confuse the linkage between burning of fossil fuels and its effect on the atmosphere.
The real question is- are we going to put pandering ahead of science in addressing and acting upon human/industrial pollution now and in the future?
The best indisputable SCIENCE example that should be a test model and the #1 item on the Copenhagen Agenda would be the toxic plastic waste dump, the size of Texas, 900 miles off of the United States and Canadian West Coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreatPacificGarbatchageP
That is a Big SCIENCE problem with no dedicated U.S SCIENCE and INNOVATION DEPARTMENT to address the issue. The U.S (or Canada) has not even sent out a SCIENCE research vessel to evaluate this ecological disaster; neither country wants to take the responsibility for the industrial/human pollution or even acknowledge its existence.
No Profit-No Action!-No SCIENCE! Will the World Trade Organization and the New Industrial World Order address the issue? Where is their World SCIENCE Department? Advancement in SCIENCE would outmode the use of fossil fuels but the U.S has not funded innovative SCIENCE since 2001.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/inventions
Can the problem be solved with SCIENCE? Probably so, Americans are very ingenious primarily because we were raised with the compliments of Freedom and Democracy and are free thinking individuals. We could probably figure a way to clean up the mess and possibly make a profit doing so.
We can do nothing until we have a funded DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE that is free to address SCIENCE and to develop the advancement of SCIENCE. (Yes, for the sake of humanity; SCIENCE FIRST-PANDERING SECOND.)
December 17th, 2009 | 5:51 pm
David – Inhofe is as much of a sidenote on this issue as Gore is (both wield serious power over policy – one as a senator and one as a lobbyist and former VP – yet neither really understand the science, as Gore demonstrates whenever he opens his mouth on the matter). The idea that science is defined by “consensus” is a joke, and those that would fall back on such an idea while trying to debate the merits of scientific observations or models related to the earth’s climate just demonstrate that they are not interested in understanding the science. Both sides of the AGW issue are guilty of this. Indeed, the scientists that cling to this notion for comfort when discussing/debating these issues are the worst offenders because they should know better.
Most journalists who work for main stream media outlets covering the environment often fail to show a real interest in the science; they are more interested in defending “the consensus” or interviewing policy figures. Thus, it is not surprising that the void left by these journalists in the wake of the leaked UEA-CRU files (emails, code, and data) has been effectively filled by the blogosphere. Most people realize that they are not getting an objective accounting of the issue when “journalists” like the AP’s Seth Borenstein (who’s intimately linked to the UEA-CRU crew) are telling us they have searched high and low through the 1000′s of files and found nothing that would put any of the “science of climate change” in question. This of course is absurd, and speaks to the real point of Wesley’s post.
As for Mr. Baker’s cry for a US :”DOS”: We have a multitude of national “departments of science,” hundreds of which are funded by the taxpayer, and who are “free to address science and to develop the advancement of science” (as long as they can craft grants that the US government finds appealing). Have you ever stepped foot on a university campus? Or looked into the several federally run/funded labs across the country? (DOE alone funds 21 non-university National Laboratories and Technology Centers). Adding another layer of bureaucracy to pursuit of science in this country is not the answer to addressing issues of international pollution (such as your Great Pacific Garbage Patch example).
December 18th, 2009 | 3:52 pm
[...] War, Yellow Journalism on December 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm The blog Secondhand Smoke yesterday likened the global warming debate to “a new yellow journalism,” [...]
December 22nd, 2009 | 2:09 am
[...] Yellow journalism helped push the USA into war back in the 1890s. Now, a new yellow journalism has developed using all the tricks of the trade to panic the world into granting tremendous power to an unelected and unaccountable global warming …Read Original Story: Global Warming Hysteria: The New Yellow Journalism – First Things (blog) [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact