Long Past Time To Boycott Newsweek
It ain’t about the news at Newsweek anymore. Hasn’t been for a long time. The editorial staff is dedicated to shaping U.S. policy by shaping the public opinion that politicians have to listen to. It is a self-annointed propaganda arm of the American Left and it’s premier political arm, the Democrat Party.
And note how Newsweek skirts the real issues with regard to Global Warming: is it caused by man, and are the predictions for it’s effects and the proposed solutions correct? Instead, they try to pretend that the primary challenge to the Left’s Global Warming agenda is the question of whether or not it exists, in order to make any arguments against that agenda seem absurd. And note the Orwellian smear term “Denier” applied to anyone who questions the Leftist GW agenda. It’s the contemporary ideological version of the yellow star armband for Jews in Hitler’s Berlin. As Robert Kennedy, Jr. said, those who even choose to investigate Global Warming for themselves, instead of merely accepting the Left’s pronouncements about it, let alone disagree with the Left about it, are “Traitors, and they need to be treated like traitors.” Last time I checked, that was execution. And he knows that. And that’s what he meant. That’s how nutty these assclowns are, not only about Global Warming, but about any issue which can be used to undercut the Right American’s agenda.
From The American Spectator:
By Paul Chesser
Published 8/9/2007 12:08:04 AM
Now even the partisan-resistant public must acknowledge what conservatives have known for a long time: that Newsweek is driven by a leftist agenda, even if they won’t acknowledge it themselves.
That can’t be illustrated more clearly than by the magazine’s cover story this week, titled “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine.” Science writer Sharon Begley writes proudly and passionately in what she obviously thinks is an eye-opening expose’ about the conspiring entities who “deny the science of climate change.” Her Woodward and Bernstein-like prose tracks money passages from big energy producers to intellectual skeptics, who exist to undermine what she says is the consensus view: that human-induced worldwide warming is a threat to the planet’s existence. Begley bemoans the results of a new Newsweek poll that “finds the influence of the denial machine remains strong,” with respondents split about human influence on the greenhouse effect. She blames the “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks [disclosure: that’s me!] and industry” for creating “a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”
In other words, those of you still with reservations have been duped. What else could be the explanation, since Begley claims rock-solid resources that uncontrovertibly nailed down the left’s climate change dogma?
One proof she characterized as “the verdict.” It came from “a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries” that said, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” What was the report? Who were the scientists? I have no idea — apparently all that matters are the number of experts (probably no larger than the amount of scientists working at a large state university), the number of countries (all friends of the U.S., right?), and the word “unequivocal.” And what do you think were the philosophical leanings of “governments, academia, green groups and (unidentified) businesses?” Consensus indeed.
Upping the ante, Begley also cited the most recent update from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which “was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations” and attributed at least part of global warming to human causes. Again, strength in numbers, but what has the IPCC really said? If you haven’t read it yourself you don’t really know, because Begley doesn’t dig into it.
The truth is, read any legitimate scientific study on climate — including IPCC’s — that suggests human influence is the dominant cause for global warming, and you will discover dozens of qualifiers like “could,” “possibly,” “potentially,” and “may.” For all the certainty and consensus that global warming fear-mongers assert, those sound a lot like weasel words.
When taking that into consideration, you realize that both camps are in the “maybe” category on climate change. It’s just a matter of degrees (there’s a fortunate pun). But the consensus claimers are all too happy to let the allegation “they deny the science of global warming” to stand alone, making the undiscerning believe that global warming skeptics reject the clear evidence that the earth is warming. Both sides generally agree that the planet has increased in temperature by one degree in the past 100 years; the so-called “deniers” simply question the cause and whether there is a need for the costly remedies that the green groups want.
But Newsweek ignores that uncomplicated nuance. Instead Begley and her reporter helpers (including that paragon of objectivity, Eleanor Clift) largely avoid any substantive discussion over the scientific views both sides hold in the debate, and instead snipe at those who doubt Newsweek’s panic agenda. Their opponents consist of industry and associations “representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities,” who “sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research.” The contrarian curmudgeons’ scientists, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen and Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels, are dismissed as obstinate folks who don’t do their own climate research but instead “kibitzed about other people’s” (like most in the climate change caution camp). The intellect and credentials of the doubters are irrelevant in Newsweek’s eyes.
At the heart of it all, of course, is the deniers’ money. Begley emphasizes repeatedly how big oil and utilities feed the opinions from conservative think tanks. But what about the flow of cash that sustains the nonprofit-driven eco-movement? The dollars pushing global warming paranoia, coming from wealthy foundations like those established by Merck, the Rockefellers and Ted Turner, dwarf the skeptics’ resources. But Begley and Newsweek show prejudice only against certain shades of green — both monetary and ecological.
Begley’s piece should surprise nobody. Anyone who has subscribed to Newsweek in recent years could not help but notice the near-weekly articles promoting the global warming scare agenda, and “what can be done about it.”
This story reflects Newsweek’s newest paranoia: the “skeptics” are finally getting traction on an issue dear to the hearts of the leftist media. Expect the attacks on the “denial machine” to escalate.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
i belive in climate change..i also believe its not made made, nor can be controled by man..mother natures cyclye..things are happening beyond our control, like it or not..how they gonna stop all the big earthquakes that they’ve been talking about for years from happening..im glad the moonbats understand that the punishiment for being a traitor is a firing squad, least thats something we can agree on..I tried to watch an incovenient truth, lasted about 5 minutes..thats all i could take listening to asshole gore
August 9th, 2007 at 4:11 amI’m completely ignoring “climate change”. It’s obviously
August 9th, 2007 at 4:19 amthe latest attempt by the Left to find an issue so mighty
that it can lay low the mountains of the earth -
or at least scare people into accepting some global government
led by the UN.
I think MyPetJawa had a report about how the “ozone layer hole”
is still getting bigger, despite banning the CFC chemicals that
were alleged to have cause it two decades ago. Well that helped
a lot. Currently another theory proposes that it might be down
to increased solar output. Hmmm.
Lefty power grab, pure n simple. Just say no.
They are using the word “deniers” precisely because they so fear any actual debate. Anyone who does not agree is somehow akin to a Holocaust denier. If you do not agree with Leo DiCapitated then you are like a Nazi sympathizer. It is a clever trick, passive aggressive in structure and unscientific to its core. But science is not really what this is about. It’s about anti-Americianism and its addictive aspects among lefties.
Words matter. That is why John Edwards can call the Global War on Terror a “bumper sticker.” He wants to make those words go away, to mock them. That is why Dems refuse to use words like “Muslim” or “jihad” and “jihadis” in any of their debates.
Global warming unites trendoids from around the globe. No, they won’t personally DO anything about it. Al Gore won’t sell one of his four homes, won’t stop flying private jets. He won’t lower his huge electric usage. Leonardo won’t spend less money annually. Teddy Kennedy will not allow a wind powered wind mill plant to be built off the shore of his beach front mansion at Hyannis MA. (He and his family have been fighting this project for years now. It would block their charming views…) The wealthy primitives will tell Joe Schmoe to use less energy, get a smaller, less safe car, use less toilet paper, hang the clothes on a line, wear a sweater in winter and lower the heat….etc, etc etc.
But F you if you think they are going to do any of that crap. Nuh uh! No. Arrianna Huffington will fly her private jet to seminars on Global Warming. Bill Maher will have those new shoes to match his botox injections. Babs will keep her many homes cooled to 60F at all times. They all personally will pursue vast wealth, comfort, luxury, real estate and CONSUME like its 1999. Oh. They will hold a press conference and stand next to a Prius. Wearing five thousand dollar dresses and 500 dollar, John Edwards haircuts.
And then they will go on Charlie Rose and sing the praises of Colombian peasants and their agrarian low impact lives. And between outbursts of anti-industrialism and anti-capitalism they will pimp their new movies, books or jewelry.
By their very own actions, these primping popinjays are the greatest global warming “deniers”. If they believed their own words, they’d actually do something about this crap. Al Gore argues that the US should adhere to Kyoto even if no one else will. Why? To show leadership.
But will Al Gore show any leadership and sell oh, just one of his four homes?
Not a friggin chance. He LIKES having four homes! It’s much more comfortable and pleasant for him to have those.
Me, I like the word “skeptic”. There appears to be plenty of evidence that the earth is warming. That it is caused by humans is not at all clear. Nor is it clear that warmth is a bad thing. Temperature has never been static in the universe’s history. It never will be. Up and down it goes.
But the logic and hypocrisy of elite liberals is more around and around like a merry go round.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:29 amThe more the left preaches about this gloabal warming crap, the better it is for the conservatives who don’t. The entire thing is going to blow up in their faces, and once again Al Gore and his band of idiots will be shown to be who they are–power hungry, money grabbing assholes who have once again lied to the American people about a nothing issue. Stand by for the latest doom and gloom ripoff from the left.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:47 amAs hannity calls them “lear jet liberals”..I think global warming is a global scam..I have tons of trouble believing its such a problem when these assholes are still flying around everywhere in their personal jets just burning up jet fuel..And if it does exist, how Godless and proud of these people to think we can change it or that we caused it
August 9th, 2007 at 7:00 amTom! Excellent rant.
David M , your mention that the ozone layer may be affected by the increase in solar output. I wonder if the increase in solar output has anything to do with global warming? Oh no, it’s cause I have a V8 truck, how silly of me.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:21 amYeah, why don’t they try to ban every volcano on Earth since they spew more CO2 into the atmosphere when they erupt than anything we can put up there. Damn libs. Also today they are running a story on Beauchamp and they threw in this line: “It’s not hard to see why the Standard would be skeptical of Beauchamp’s writings. While the stories are not implausible (certainly American GIs have done more sinister things in Iraq–Abu Ghraib, for one)”. Yeah, because the frat like pranks at Abu Ghraib were so horrible.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:09 amGlobal Warming … The new Cult that wants your money and control over your life.
We have climate change here in NE Ohio … It’s called “seasons”. Sometimes they’re severe … Sometimes they’re mild. Go figure …
August 9th, 2007 at 8:47 amfact: the world is warming
Lie: human beings are contributing to it.
scientists said a supernova 340,000 years ago disrupted 10 to 20% of the ozone layer, causing sun burn in prehistoric man. does anyone here know the radiation and explosive force of a supernova? if it caused mere sunburn, how can we possibly be killing the earth?
Mount pinatubo in the philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the flourocarbons manufactured by factories in history. How long in the history of the world have volcanoes been erupting? Ozone is created by the Sun, particularly ultraviolet sunlight. if the volcanoes and supernovas cant efectively block the sun and cause environmental destruction, how are we going to do so with ordinary factory outputs and emisiions?
al gore has previously called for a global marshall plan at a cost of 100 billion dollars to protect the environment. the money would be raised through: a tax on carbon, a virgin materials tax and higher taxes on fossil fuels. al gore would then turn over authority for administering international environmental agreements to a UN stewardship council(like the security council)
in the early 70’s liberals touted global cooling(remmeber the winter of 76-77?, I do, we had a blizzard in buffalo)” if present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees coller for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees cooler by 2000″ (university of california professor Kenneth E.F. watt told an assembled crowd.) the environmentalist’s were calling for policies to stop the coming Ice age. Now they are calling for the reverse of that since their predictions werent realized.
Global warming legislation is being used to advance the US towards socialism. It is intended to advance an ideology not science.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:00 am1. Whatever happened to Acid Rain?
August 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pm2. Where’s my personal jet pack?
3. Al Who?
Today must be a day for irony. Newsweek is a worthless rag, but on the other hand, the international edition of Newsweek has been more editorially sound lately. There appears to be a big difference between the international edition and the US, from some of the rational articles I’ve seen in the non-US one. For good scientific background on global warming, refer to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8
August 9th, 2007 at 1:42 pmThis I saw on one of those Discovery, Nova type shows. Someone had done core sampling taken from the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. During times of global cooling water levels of the world lower. At the Straits of Gibraltar there’s a rise on the sea floor that turns into something like a dam that as the water levels lower eventually keeps ocean water from getting to the sea thereby maintaing an even level. The sea isn’t fed by the ocean for a time. As global cooling continues the sea gets shallower and shallower. They found in the core samples greater and lesser concentrations of the remains of microscopic sea life. The greater concentrations indicated less water and the creatures had less elbow room, so to speak. More water indicated they had some room to spread it out. In the core samplings they found that there were six indications of this cycle having occurred. Thousands of years for the sea to fill up, thousands of years for it to lower and hundreds of thousands of years for it to have done this six times.
By the way, who’s driving those dam SUVs on Mars that’s causing their polar caps to melt?
About two months ago NASA said the sun is putting out more heat. If the democrats win NASA will be the first to have their heads on the chopping block. Blasphemy, they looked at Mars and saw melting polar caps and took the sun’s temperature and found it’s putting out more heat. Next they’ll be telling us the world’s round. Burn them at the stake.
August 10th, 2007 at 5:31 am[…] posting on this topic: JammieWearingFool / Liberal Values / Villainous Company / Amy Ridenour / Pat Dollard / American Conservative Daily […]
August 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am