Why, Glenn Beck, of course.
He's practically an expert on the topic, having covered it a few times before: 5/06, 9/06. One of Glenn's most powerful tools is his likening of environmentalists to the Nazis, aka Godwin's Law or argumentum ad Nazium, which is a favorite pastime of anti-environmentalists. He's such an expert that CNN gives him a full hour to deliver us from evil and give us the real deal.
I mean, why listen to the national academy of sciences from all the G8 nations? What do the combined scientists from the most prestigious associations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States know, anyway? IPCC? BS!
Last night, he had on Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle (UK) and long-time anti-environmental propagandist. I mean, why invite on real climate scientists when instead you can invite a guy whose earlier TV program on the same topic were so spun that the station had to issue an apology to the scientists whose words and work he distorted?
Keep your damned "science", I'll keep thinking from my gut. Just like Glenn and Stephen Colbert taught me to...oh, and those guys in the gas and oil lobbies.
________________
Technorati tags: Environment
I mean, why listen to the national academy of sciences from all the G8 nations? What do the combined scientists from the most prestigious associations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States know, anyway? IPCC? BS!
Last night, he had on Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle (UK) and long-time anti-environmental propagandist. I mean, why invite on real climate scientists when instead you can invite a guy whose earlier TV program on the same topic were so spun that the station had to issue an apology to the scientists whose words and work he distorted?
Comparison of the unedited and edited interview transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with these four contributors had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them, when it originally sought their involvement, as to the format, subject matter and purpose of the programmes. No mention had been made of the critical position the programmes intended to adopt, for example in correspondence.Glenn's obligations of fairness and respect for the truth led him to repeat Easterbrook's canard (scroll down to heading "SEA LEVELS") that Gore lied/distorted the facts when he mentioned a 20 ft. sea rise, since the IPCC report only mentioned 23 inches. Smells like some stinky gas to me.
Wider questions of fairness and inaccuracy were the major concerns of the remaining 147 complainants. The ITC considered that the programmes’ line that green ideologies were, at least in some respects, open to criticism on both scientific and humanitarian grounds, was a legitimate approach. Both programmes included the views of those under attack. Certainly the post-series debate allowed environmentalists a fair opportunity to answer the charges laid at their door. The ITC would not wish to discourage Channel 4 from challenging popular and fashionable orthodoxies – always providing that programme makers meet the obligations of fairness and respect for the truth.
Keep your damned "science", I'll keep thinking from my gut. Just like Glenn and Stephen Colbert taught me to...oh, and those guys in the gas and oil lobbies.
________________
Technorati tags: Environment
