Friday on the Fox-bots morning progam Fox and Friends, Steve Doocy said that "climatologists" disagree with statements from Al Gore on NPR (about 27 minutes into the discussion) that there is an emerging consensus among climate scientists that although any specific event can't be attributed to global warming we can expect that AGW will contribute to increased frequency of higher intensity storms such as that of Nargis.* So who did they have on to support this claim? William Gray, a meteorologist out of touch with modern climate science, whose beliefs are at odds with the scientific literature and the bulk of expert opinion when it comes to AGW. This is also the same William Gray who has previously stated that "Gore believe[s] in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews," which gives you some indication of the objectivity of Gray as a reliable source on this topic.
But at Fox News, Gray gets presented without challenge as the scientific authority on the matter. This is complete intellectual dishonesty; if Fox wanted to promote the discredited views of Gray it could at least inform the audience that his views are at odds with the bulk of scientific opinion on this matter.
Up is down in Fox News bizarro world.
*Gore's precise statement that set off global warming denialists is that "we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming." By consequences Gore means melting glaciers and ice (and possibly he also meant increasing frequency of high intensity storms), yet the denialists took that to mean Gore stated that Nargis is the fault of global warming even though he pointed out that you can't link individual storms to warming.
Post script: As I was getting ready to publish this post I did a quick search to see if I could get a clip of Doocy and Gray distorting reality, and saw that Wonk Room had caught another level to their dishonesty that I overlooked: that Gore's comments had actually been spliced to make him say something he didn't.
Update: Another liar at Fox reads from the anti-Gore script.
Make Art Dangerous Again
1 hour ago
1 comment:
HG: I think you captured it all with this line (with one edit. :-)
"...complete intellectual dishonesty: (is, not if) Fox..."
They really think it is their "job" to counter the everything that Democrats and liberals say. That is their highest value.
It always gives them their X vs. Y story line. It makes for the controversy that drives TV and "journalmalism".
You can do a thought experiment to prove this. Say for example that someone on the left does a "flip flop" (as they love to call a changing of their mind"
Say you have someone who was for raising taxes. Suppose there is someone on the left who came out and said, "Yes, we need more taxes." and then later turned around and said. "You know what? I was wrong, we don't need more taxes. We need tax RELIEF for the people who are the most productive, the people who create jobs, if we don't help them they will send jobs to other countries! We can raise revenue by cutting wasteful social service jobs."
Now will Fox then suddenly go, "Yeah, this person is finally on the right side. We embrace him. Vote for him!"
No. They will focus on his "flip flop" and "we don't trust his new found wisdom. It is clearly a trick" of the liberals."
This person could be the world's biggest panderer, they could give up all their views just to win the good impression of Fox "News" and their followers. But even then they won't accept them. Because they CAN'T. Because their real goal is just to be the OPPOSITE of what the liberals are. They would even go against conservative principles rather than embracing someone on the left.
Now there could be an exception to this, cough *Joe Lieberman* cough. But since I believe he never was really liberal it isn't like they are embracing a liberal who has changed sides. He was always one of them.
Post a Comment