Gore’s False Statements on Media and New Film Attack on AGW Critics
Source: Russell Cook
On 3/9/13 5:11 AM, Marc Morano wrote:
Al Gore Envisions ‘The Future’ : NPR http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173821492/al-gore-envisions-the-future
[Gore] the forces of denial, which are lavishly funded by the large carbon polluters and some ideological groups, have intimidated many in the news media into remaining silent and not speaking out… And yet, in spite of that, with more presidential campaign debates than ever in history, not a single journalist asked a single question that any of the candidates in any of the debates. Russell Cook responds via email:
NPR’s Ira Flatow, of course, fails to challenge Gore on the non-stop coverage of MSM reporting on the certainty of AGW as settled silence. Do remember that resulting from my 2010 AmThinker piece “The Left and Its Talking Points“, I counted the number of times AGW was brought up as a discussion point at the PBS NewsHour, and the count stood at 212 going back to 1996 where only three of those had any usuable mention of skeptic science points. That count of mine is perpetual, I added one more skeptic discussion segment – Anthony Watts in September of last year, but the overall count has soared to 341, and I’ve been a bit negligent in keeping track of their ever-increasing online material at their “Coping with Climate Change” pages that’s less directly related to their on-air AGW discussions.
When Gore claims the ‘denial industry’ silences the MSM, his latest talking point about the presidential debates is at best disingenuous or at worst deliberately misleading. If you ask me, the whole direction of Mitt Romney’s campaign would have drastically changed if he had gone on the offensive and asked about Jim Lehrer’s lack of skeptics on the NewsHour during the first debate, as I speculated in detail here: “Gore’s Climate Reality Project begs Debate Moderator Jim Lehrer: Ask Romney and Obama about Climate Change“. Imagine how deeply Gore would have regretted his push, and consider how lucky he was that nobody asked about AGW at the first debate.
– Russell Cook
Marc Morano wrote:
Bastards – Greedy Lying Bastards http://www.exposethebastards.com/bastards Sent from Maxthon Mobile
Just got through with a first-day screening of “Greedy Lying Bastards”, no more than a dozen people attending the first matinee. I have little doubt better writers than I will point out its breathtaking shortcomings as a last-gasp attempt to silence AGW critics. As an ordinary citizen, I believe I could offer point-by-point disagreements with virtually everything stated in the movie, along with citations of specific bits that were left out, but I will leave that to others.
Some quick observations, though:
- The literal first few seconds show an epic dust storm engulfing the Phoenix metro area – which the filmmaker would be loathe to describe as an occurrence happening every summer as the result of thunderstorm downdrafts.
- The film makes the same error I heard about in an old Soviet propaganda film, in which a portrayal was offered of widespread squalid urban conditions, but keen viewers asked, “What’s up with those nice cars driving across the intersection in the distant background?” In “Greedy Lying Bastards” we see what appears to be crops ruined by drought, yet fields of corn taller than a man is seen in the distance; a suburb supposedly decimated by drought-caused wildfires contains unmistakable distant rain clouds and distant undisturbed houses and landscapes.
- PR man James Hoggan claims sheer repetition of fossil fuel industry-funded talking points is winning the hearts and minds of the public – but I can’t wait to hear the tally for the number of times the word “deny” and its variation are uttered in this film.
- One of the weakest points was the attempt to dispel the idea that Lord Christopher Monckton is not an actual Lord via what I assume was a truncated US House hearing video, in which the full version has Monckton correcting Rep Jay Inslee by saying how he is a hereditary Lord, the same conclusion later arrived at by a UK constitutional lawyer.
- Certainly the weakest point of all was its overall insinuation that any degree of funding by or even casual association with the fossil fuel industry automatically renders skeptics as lying shills…. without any proof whatsoever that they are instructed to lie, or that what they say are lies.
The film begs for a replay of it, but with skeptic rebuttal overlaying it at every opportunity, much like when Rush Limbaugh plays unedited audios of his critics, but yells “stop the tape!” while offering detailed observations on each individual error. I can especially visualize this ‘film-within-a-film’ where it reaches the PR repetition point made by James Hoggan, and then an uninterrupted digital number count of the repetitions of “deny/denier/denialism” word variants appears on screen for the duration.
– Russell Cook