Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people can't understand what a deficit is, or how tax cuts go 100% to our national debt. They also can't comprehend that rich people use their tax cuts to build US factories in Asia, or to buy themselves new jet airplanes. And those people who can't understand those things will be voting for tax cuts for the rich in 2016.
LOL... so wait, a book jacket that he didn't write contains a mistake, and suddenly he's a 'discredited journalist'. Copywriters for the publishing companies write those, not the writers themselves. They do it to boost their sales, or because they don't understand how the prizes work.
You've also cited a website that uses such objective terms as HA! when they're 'completely destroying' their sources... not so sure they're in a position to criticize the journalistic standards of others.
So yes, he didn't write the series of articles, he only edited them and directed them. Wow, what a controversy!
Guess you can throw out the whole 30-year career then, and he's obviously lying about Lindzen, who himself admits to receiving money from oil companies (but not the amounts reported, as that would damage his credibility), regularly associates himself with PR firms like Heartland, regularly appears on blogs dedicated SOLELY to attacking AGW from any angle they can find, etc.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that some book jackets or website blurbs that Gelbspan didn't even write don't equate to him being 'discredited', and it definitely doesn't mean that what he claims is untrue. Most biographies you can read online state clearly that he edited and directed the pulitzer projects. As for the activism, if I had discovered a cause that inspired me to act, I would definitely do it... he was a journalist before he was an activist, writing highly regarded pieces on the FBI and the USSR.
The article I posted describes a public hearing where Lindzen and the usual group of 'skeptics' testified on behalf of an oil company. This is simply a fact... it was a public event.
So he publicly testified on behalf of coal companies and still can be trusted, but copywriters making a mistake on a journalist's book jacket means the journalist can't be trusted.
Lindzen has been in the pocket of big oil for decades. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he has been paid to say things (I wouldn't rule it out, though), but I would definitely suggest that he is receiving attention/publicity that he otherwise wouldn't have (being so widely discredited and all). Regardless, he is not a reliable resource.
More fail.
How is it that you think it was Gelbspan's copywriters who claimed he won a Pulitzer?
Quote:
"In response to my article, Gelbspan posted on his web site a response, entitled "A Pathetic Attempt At Slander from Stephen Milloy," in which he bizarrely continues to maintain that he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984."
If he is such a great journalist, how come he didn't have any sources to back up the accusation against Lindzen?
Isn't that one of the very basics of good journalism
I know exactly what the theory of AGW is you dolt, I was pointing out that without the alarmism aspect it would have never become a political topic and none of us would be here discussing it.
The hypothesis of AGW can be described as follows:
The increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival.
He admits that he had a role in the team, but again, does not claim to have won the prize personally. On the other hand, the lead writer on the project (who DID win the prize) was so disgusted by the smear campaign that he personally wrote this letter to the Wall Street Journal:
He acknowledges that Gelbspan had an integral role in the project and no one can challenge his involvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
If he is such a great journalist, how come he didn't have any sources to back up the accusation against Lindzen?
Isn't that one of the very basics of good journalism
No, it really isn't. There is absolutely nothing in his previous 20+ years of journalism to suggest he would deliberately lie, and no one has ever objectively challenged his claims. Journalists are held to certain standards but none of them require there being a consensus-- that's your own invention.
" the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival"
What part of that phrase does NOT equal alarmism to you?
What part of your own post makes you think you're talking about alarmism and not 'the hypothesis of AGW' there? Anthropogenic Global Warming = humans are warming up the planet. Did you think that the 'A' stood for alarmist??? That's a dumb mistake too but at least it's better than claiming that AGW must involve scaring people or it's not AGW.
'Alarmism' is the name that skeptics give to anyone who believes that AGW might turn out badly for the planet/our quality of life.
That label as they understand it doesn't demand that someone proclaim the human race is in danger of going extinct, just that they disagree that everything is going to be perfectly fine.
They want to lump everyone together to make it seem like there's a consensus on the effects that mirrors the consensus on the cause-- but the former does not exist. The projected effects are almost universally negative, but the severity of those effects depends on whether or not action is taken, whether or not natural buffers exist, etc.
There is universal agreement on many projections (such as coral dying, food chains collapsing, political instability/war in poorer countries), but the extinction of the human race is an unrealistically severe prediction that most climatologists do not agree with. It would take a massive rise in CO2 combined with human obliviousness or inaction that persisted well into the 22nd century, but even then it would probably just kill MOST life on Earth and not humans, who have the means to shield themselves, provided society did not completely collapse. The industrial world (which is causing most of the warming) can use their air conditioners, superior buildings, technology, etc... to survive. This is already happening in some cities... people are insulated from the effects because A/C is everywhere from cars to homes to public places etc... making it possible to escape the heat. But the homeless are already feeling it.
The denialists throw the alarmist label around so that instead of considering the wide variety of predictions and scenarios that exists, you're only considering the most extreme predictions, many of which are not a consensus... thereby making it easier to dismiss the entire issue.
If you were actually responding to the reality instead of the strawmen and fictions spun by your denialist propaganda sites, you would know this.
Last edited by Spatula City; 11-07-2014 at 12:08 PM..
What part of your own post makes you think you're talking about alarmism and not 'the hypothesis of AGW' there? Anthropogenic Global Warming = humans are warming up the planet. Did you think that the 'A' stood for alarmist??? That's a dumb mistake too but at least it's better than claiming that AGW must involve scaring people or it's not AGW.
'Alarmism' is the name that skeptics give to anyone who believes that AGW might turn out badly for the planet/our quality of life.
That label as they understand it doesn't demand that someone proclaim the human race is in danger of going extinct, just that they disagree that everything is going to be perfectly fine.
They want to lump everyone together to make it seem like there's a consensus on the effects that mirrors the consensus on the cause-- but the former does not exist.
They do this so that instead of considering the wide variety of predictions that exists, you're only considering the most extreme predictions, many of which are not a consensus... thereby making it easier to dismiss the entire issue.
On the other hand, most of the predictions involve damage to ecosystems, animal extinctions, political instability, famines and turmoil in developing countries... while the industrial world (which is causing most of the warming) can use their air conditioners, superior buildings, technology, etc... to survive.
If you were actually responding to the reality instead of the strawmen and fictions spun by your denialist propaganda sites, you would know this.
...and let me guess. You and your ilk define what the reality is right? Give it a rest.
He admits that he had a role in the team, but again, does not claim to have won the prize personally. On the other hand, the lead writer on the project (who DID win the prize) was so disgusted by the smear campaign that he personally wrote this letter to the Wall Street Journal:
He acknowledges that Gelbspan had an integral role in the project and no one can challenge his involvement.
No, it really isn't. There is absolutely nothing in his previous 20+ years of journalism to suggest he would deliberately lie, and no one has ever objectively challenged his claims. Journalists are held to certain standards but none of them require there being a consensus-- that's your own invention.
...and let me guess. You and your ilk define what the reality is right? Give it a rest.
I didn't define these terms I just knew what they were before I started talking about them.
You should try it sometime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
