Home » Global Warming, Science » Keeping “Big Environment” Honest

Keeping “Big Environment” Honest

“Big Environment,” “Big Government,” “Big Business,” “Big Science” — all involve huge sums of money, leave a money trail, and require independent watchdogs to ask the tough questions. We noted the upcoming documentary NOT EVIL JUST WRONG here at UD last week. Here’s the latest (it made the top of Drudge):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to Keeping “Big Environment” Honest

  1. Check out this follow-up in the WSJ:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj

    Al Gore’s First (and Probably Last) Q&A
    A Nobel Prize winner takes a few questions.
    By JOHN FUND
    Before President Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize, the real signal that the Norwegian Nobel committee had become politicized was its 2007 prize to Al Gore, largely for his global warming film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    For a public figure, Mr. Gore has been strangely reluctant to answer questions or debate the more controversial parts of his work. But over the weekend, he deigned to take a few questions during a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin.

    Irish documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer was in the line. A former Financial Times journalist, his new film, “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” is a direct refutation of Mr. Gore’s thesis and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world’s poor. When his turn came, Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore about a court case in Britain in which a parent had objected to “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown to British schoolchildren because it was largely propaganda, not science.

    Mr. Gore swatted away the question by claiming the judge had found in favor of his film. He also briefly addressed one of the objections to his film by scoffing at claims that polar bears weren’t an endangered species. Mr. McAleer tried to follow up by pointing out that polar bear populations were increasing, but his microphone was quickly cut off. Organizers insisted that several other people were waiting with questions and they had to move on.

    In fact, Mr. Gore didn’t answer Mr. McAleer’s question and was wrong on the facts. The British court found that An Inconvenient Truth “is a political film” riddled with scientific errors. The judge also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by “guidance” pointing out its errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film “substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”

    As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.

    Mr. McAleer, whose film premiers this weekend, says he’s more disappointed in the environmental journalists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the former vice president. Mr. Gore is simply doing what any propagandist with a weak case would do — avoiding serious debate or exchange. To quote the late William F. Buckley, “There is a reason that baloney rejects the grinder.”

  2. As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.

    Could you provide links? I need this information to debate the AGW believers.

  3. I do apologise but I just couldn’t resist after this popped up on my personalized BBC home page:

    “The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.”

    ST AUGUSTINE (354-430)

  4. critter:

    For a good brief on the subject:

    NCPA Brief Polar Bears

    and

    NCPA Brief Polar Bears Addendum

  5. I think the reported did well in that video. I’m very happy this mde it out into the general public. I hope it get’s the well deserved exposure.

    Al Gore is such a politician and spinster. With no exhaggeration, I think he could be literally diagnosed as a psychopath. His thrills being the advancement of an ideaology in exchange for wealth and power. With his nobel prize and Obama’s…you have to wonder if there really is a secret network of elitest running the show.

    Anyway.

    Gore’s body language as he was “searching his mind” for one of the nine errors in his movie (that was acocrding to him discussed so thoroughly – yeah right) came off as so juvenille. Then he brings up probably the most dull error – polar bears. Then asks the reporter, without supporitng evidence, “Are polar bears in danger?” … What the?!?!?! That one question is so loaded it’s ot funny. Even if polar bears were in danger, it does not support anthropic global warming. It assumes the reporter knows the status of polar bears (which he did by the way). And it had a very strong impression that if you were to say, “No, polar bears are not in danger.” then you would be some kind of criminal. Gore failed to coax the reporter into this… the way the reporter responded was classic. “Polar bear numbers are increasing.”..Gore’s response to that answer, (still paraphraing) “So, you think polar bear aren’t in danger?”…reporter..”The number are increasing”…What is Gore looking for? The fact of increasing numbers is self evident. Gore seems to be either dim or disingenuous.

    How do you fight and stop this madness?

  6. Phelim McAleer was right to press the question. And not just because Mr. Gore had not answered it, but because it is a journalist’s job to question politicians. Instead, far too often, as McAleer pointed, journalists have become the sycophantic cheerleaders of whatever agenda the pols want to push. That is not what our founders envisioned the role of a free press to be.

    Unfortunately, we’ve reached a point here in the US where news is entertainment and journalistic objectivity has given way to journalistic advocacy. Jguy asks “how do we stop this madness?” I wish I knew.

    The outcome from this is that when pols like Mr. Gore have an agenda which, in the end, will require the government (read: taxpayers) to spend billions of dollars to correct or eliminate a perceived problem, no one is there to ask “are we basing our decisions are good, factual data?” Its a sorry state of affairs. The journalists who cornered Mr. McAleer in the hall after the briefing should have also been on their feet demanding Mr. Gore to answer the question instead of going after McAleer. The message couldn’t be clearer: toe the party line or you will be shut up! How does that line up with freedom of the press?

Leave a Reply