Skip to main content

The set-up: Why isn't the 60 Minutes gang from CBS News, specifically reporter Scott Pelley, playing the 'fair and balanced' game with the 'controversial' issue of the existence of global warming? The Public Eye, CBS News' viewer representatives, wants an answer to this outrage:

This Sunday, "60 Minutes" aired a piece on global warming. The piece, which featured correspondent Scott Pelley, largely took the existence of global warming as a given. But there are those who claim that global warming - and, specifically, the notion that human's are responsible for it - is a myth. I asked Pelley why the voices of the skeptics were not heard in the piece.

Why indeed? Especially in the overwhelming face of the mighty 'there are those who claim' crowd?

CBS News: The Public Eye

Perhaps because, unlike the 'fair and balanced' reporting of Fox News Network and its pathetic wanna-bes MSNBC and CNN, sometimes there isn't actually a 'controversy' or 'debate' about the issue? Unless, that is, it is a manufactured one to keep something controversial for a political agenda. Pelley cuts right through the nonsense of handwringing and worrying about the wingnuts and gets right to the point.

"There is virtually no disagreement in the scientific community any longer about global warming," he says. "The science that has been done in the last three to five years has been conclusive. We talked to the chairman of the National Academy of Scientists, Ralph Cicerone. Jim Hansen at NASA, who's considered the world's leading expert in climate change. The people in the story, who are well respected in the field. There's just no longer any credible evidence that suggests that, a, the earth is not warming or, b, that greenhouse gasses are not the cause. What you do see in the data again and again and again is this almost lockstep increase between the levels of CO2 and the rise of temperature in the atmosphere. And the climate models that predicted these things happening 15 years ago have proven to be accurate."

Pelley brings up science fiction writer, and Bush partisan, Michael Crichton's anti-global warming efforts as an example of the kind of anti-global warming movement voices he could have turned to. Not to stand in stark contrast to the overwhelming support of actual scientists practicing in the field, but as a means of saying 'look, just because somebody people have heard of disagrees doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about'. Imagine that, just because you have a scientist who says that the world is round, doesn't mean that you have to run out and find a partisan for a conservative thinktank who says 'no, the world is flat'.

"It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere who is not thought of as being eminent in the field and put him on television with these other guys to cast doubt on what they're saying," he continues. "It would be difficult to find a scientist worth his salt in this subject who would suggest this wasn't happening. It would probably be someone whose grant has been funded by someone who finds reducing fossil fuel emissions detrimental to their own interests."

What a refreshing change of pace from, say, Wolf Hume citing somebody from a rightwing astroturf organization, or Brit Wolf putting up a graphic from an editorial printed in the Washington Times and written by an oil industry exec without a second thought.

Usually, what happens is that the cable newsies would have gone out of their way, bent over backwards, to have found somebody from the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, or just a pundit with no background in global warming other than being a card carrying member of the vast rightwing conspiracy to "debate" the issue. Even when there isn't any debate. Because, god forbid, that in the triumphantist O'Reily-Hannity-Coulter era that anybody stand up and say with authority that everything in the world isn't an opinion that is up for debate, sometimes things just are the way they are.

Well, thank goodness for Scott Pelley, and for the broadcast networks news divisions not being completely overrun by fear of the rampaging wingnuts post-Rather. No wonder the wingnuts hate facts as facts and long for facts as opinions and opinions as facts. When you don't play the 'fair and balanced' game, you actually get some unfiltered truth into your existence.

Now, how long will it be before the rightwing echochamber demands that Pelley be fired for his 'obvious liberal bias'... against bullshit? Here is a link to the original 60 minutes story:

Scott Pelley's Global Warming Story

Originally posted to LeftHandedMan on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:31 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not exactly Karl Rove being taken out (4.00)
    ala 'Woodward and Bernstein' over the Plame affair, but hey, it's something to feel good about when a reporter actually stands up and says 'no, we are not going to pretend that something that isn't actually controversial is controversial, and especially not to make sure that a bunch of people with an agenda completely seperate from whatever the actual facts are happy'.  

    It's the little glimpses of what real journalism can be like that makes the cable news networks look like the conventional wisdom pimps to bought and paid for frauds they are.

    The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombusperson

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:55:11 PM PST

    •  We are *so* excited about (4.00)
      what is trivially obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. What a sad state the "fourth estate" is in.

      Come see TV from the reality-based community at

      by MarkInSanFran on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:01:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm reminded of a quote I sometimes (4.00)
        put at the end of my email:
        "[W]e seem to have reached a point in which the president's willingness to concede a few obvious facts is so unusual, it's literally front-page news."

        Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report, 19 Dec 2005

        I reckon we're still at that point...

        -9.25, -7.54

        I have little use for ponies, but much use for beers.

        by Marc in KS on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:25:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I just heard Don Imus call (4.00)
        timmeh russert this generation's Edward R Murrow!!!????!!!

        I almost threw up all over my key board.....

        •  Why? (2.23)
          Russert's a very tough reporter--- he tears into the right people. He may not be living in the "Golden Age of Television," but what's incongruent about the comparison?
          •  I pride myself on "getting" snark (3.78)
            but I'm not getting this.

            Are you freaking serious????

            •  Yes, (1.45)
              I am freaking serious. I try to reach my opinions by weighing facts and making reasoned judgments, not by reading some excerpted transcripts in which he asked some Democrats a few tough questions. Until you come back at me with more than a two-sentence dismissal, I think I'll peg the anti-Russert crowd as a mirror of your comment: knee-jerk crap.
              •  i trust ... (3.62)
                ... that, despite the clocking of your post (to which i respond), that you've either ignored the links shared by Easy B Oven, or you failed in some why to understand the material ...

                here's a googling of Daily Howler on mr. potatohead (347 hits as of now) ... Bob Sommerby's been on the case since 1998 ...

                if you really are sincere in your assertions, you'll do yourself a favor and book some readin' time ...

       ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:01:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hang on (2.00)
                  Because some idiots call him Mr. Potato head he's a bad reporter?

                  Give me a break.  Russert is the best there is in terms of being consistently tough and fair while still getting the marquis guests.  

                  And you idiots are down-modding this guy up there who said as much?  He's not defending Bill O'Reilly, he's defending one of the most centrist and fair reporteres out there.  Sure Russert will sometimes ask a stupid question.  Based on your visceral reactions, you probably either ask a ton of stupid questions or no questions at all.  Imperfections aside, he's still far and away the best of the sunday talk hosts.  Just because someone isn't ALWAYS a rabid, rabid, rabid, rabid, angry, completely fucking crazy partisan doesn't mean they're a bad reporter.  In fact, likely the opposite.

                  •  hey, jerk (4.00)
                    i haven't rated anybody on this thread today ...

                    follow the links before you step up to defend hack Russert ... he's no journalist, but he plays one on TV ... he's an access-hungry political-entertainment sunday a.m. host ...

                    follow the links ... read ... learn

           ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                    by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:41:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  plea to others inclined ... (4.00)
                    ... to troll-rate unfounded:

                    Don't do it. Don't disappear his/her comment. It's the kind of give and take that deserves to be seen (even with "idiots" and "completely fucking crazy partisan") ...

                    does Russert occassionally give a wingnut a rough time? yeah, but hardly what he does to others ... most of the public, though, is under the the same impression that's demonstrated by unfounded: "... centrist and fair ..."

                    let's leave this visible, in the hope that others will be cajoled into doing some research into what some of us have seen all along (as MWO or BartCop regulars, in the days long before DKos) ...

                    again, if you're confused about the point I'm asserting, the best long-term repository for ongoing criticism of DC establishment reporting that's now available is probably at ... god, i still miss MWO

           ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                    by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:33:45 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ok so I went a little overboard (none)
                      With the ad homs because mob mentality at work drives me nuts.  Let me pose a question to the community:

                      Which interviewer of Russert's stature, ratings and pull on TV is any better?

                      I stand by my comment, the fact that he doesn't go off the wall screaming at every single republican (nor every single democrat, mind you), does not make him biased, in fact it makes him measured.  He will ask a few tough questions of anyone he interviews and generally try to follow them up once or twice until he runs out of time and has to move on to the next subject.  That's the best I could ask, honestly, except for once in a while when an issue is really big.  If the politician stone walls 3 times in a row, well there goes 2 minutes of your 10 minute interview, you've gotta move on.

                      What influential interviewer is better than Russert?  I'd say Tom Ashbrook from NPR personally although he is still a cut below in terms of reach, not being on TV and all.  So prove me wrong guys, who's better?

                      Or is the whole world worthy of your ire.

                      •  better interviewers? here's a short list (none)
                        influential? hard job to get ... do they have to be on Sunday morning? suspect we can easily agree that exec. producers severely limit content, and that actual reporter-journalists (rather than pundits or other politico like timmy and george) are mostly not involved ...

                        in no particular order (and hardly complete):

                        Mike Wallace
                        Ed Bradley
                        Scott Pelley
                        Bob Simon
                        Barbara Walters

                        also, a broader view:
                        Tom Snyder
                        Jon Stewart
                        David Letterman
                        Oprah Winfrey
                        Conan O'Brien

                        but definitely not:
                        Image Hosted by
                        Britt Hume

               ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                        by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:09:59 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  BARBARA WALTERS???? (none)
                          Oprah Winfrey?  Better than Russert?  Jesus fuckin'Christ on a crutch!!!!!

                          I've been watching "Meet the Press" for years.  Russert gives everyone a hard time.  He's well prepared.  He is known as the toughest interview among the DC tribe.  Which is why our dear President will never be seen on "Meet the Press".

                          Imus loves Russert to death, but what do you expect from a radio show host who is more than slightly demented????

                          And, by the way, I am not a troll.  Been here longer than a lot of you.  I just refuse to drink the Kool-Aid now and then.

                          We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

                          by Mary Julia on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:00:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'd refer you ... (none)
                            ... back to's archive. Go to the site and use the embedded search there (powered by Google) to check out just how impartial and tough-on-everybody Russert really has been.

                            I've been here longer than you, Mary Julia ...

                   ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                            by wystler on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:06:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Russert know he's sitting pretty (none)
                    . On his shows there's no debate, no counterpoint, absolutely nothing but him arching a skeptical eyebrow while reading verbatim the guest's words as video- viewable, xeroxed  copy quoting said guest, who is almost always an FOT. Whoever the guest happens to be is invited to agree with Tim that, yes, s/he did indeed say that/or that no, he was misquoted(!) or/taken out of context. No verbal skills required. Analysis unwelcome. Bar is continually being lowered, etc. How can you lose?

                    It may help your chances (of appearance) if you carry around a sentimental bit of schmoozery biography about Tim's dear old dad and his immutable,mush of family values. Or if you're James from Carville or his amazingly engaging honey-voiced wife in arms, Mary.

                    Good post, LHM. It all helps. More and more so in this meaningless abyss (can an abyss have significance?) Anyway, you are open-handed, and there's no DHM here that I can see. Grim Tim regards himself as first respondent to any Deep Hidden Meaning: it makes him feel worthwhile. He doesn't deserve to feel worthwhile because he isn't.

                  •  nom de plume (none)
                    unfounded, a/k/a timmeh russert
              •  You all have no idea how (3.25)
                you expose yourselves.  I'd tell you, but then it wouldn't be as much fun laughing at how you expose yourselves.

                Hint:  key phrases

              •  It's more than quotes (4.00)
                While it's not the WWE event that Fox News is, Meet The Press under Russert does consistently fix the game for the GOP.  Let's match up two partisan GOP pundits with two working reporters for a left-right debate!  Really fair.

                BTW, for those calling Pete a troll, I checked his diary and he's not.  He's just, IMHO, wrong on this one.

                •  I'm noticing this alot (none)
                  commenters who say trollish things on a given topic but apparently aren't trolls in the larger sense - I guess it's the downside of the big tent.  I'm not for complete orthodoxy but there was a time when it seemed there was at least a basic belief set that fit the average Kossian. I find that it is less and less so, and the upshot is waste of time threads with people having to educate hardheaded apostates.

                  "History is the study of the unthinkable becoming the inevitable" - me

                  •  I've got no prob with education (none)
                    Thank goodness people who aren't political/news junkies like us stop by here so we CAN educate them!  Of such are elections won.
                  •  I don't see that at all (none)
                    And it would appear from our respective UIDs that I've been around longer than you have.  There were always flame wars and disagreements.  There was always ratings abuse, too, but this is worse than it ever was before that I've seen.


                    -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

                    by SlackerInc on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:49:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  It's better to ask the dissenter to give (none)
                  examples of why he thinks Russert is deserving of being compared with Edward R. Murrow. <choke>

                  I could give ten examples to the contrary. Whoever gives the most examples, wins.

                  This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

                  by Agathena on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:10:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I have watched Tim Russert for years (4.00)
                and I began to notice a pattern when he interviews.  He asks a tough question of someone, usually in the administration, and then allows the interviewed to talk for quite a while (essentailly free air time) and spin the answer in anyway the interviewed  wants it.  After the 5-8 minute explanation, Tim doesn't do any follow ups, some of which are obvious to me, as a viewer. The followups should be the challenges, as if an opposing or at least a speculative view were present.  It doesn't happen.  If you took any communications stuff in college you could see that. That's what I think is wrong with him.

                Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

                by hairspray on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:08:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  left unsaid (4.00)
                  ... and, when interviewing a Dem, he hits hard with follow-ups, and often resorts to interrupting the guest ...

                  almost always unspoken directly are the source for his material ...

                  remember, the producers book guests before the week is out, and prep time can be arranged any damned way they can manage ... tim has no qualms about phoning the white house for information to cross-examine dems ...

                  little phraseologic tricks - "some Dems claim" - often turn up too (but check the transcripts for "some Republicans claim" ... go ahead)

         ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                  by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:39:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, (3.20)
                  and I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Tim Russert, but my point was that he's not an avowed, partisan shill for the far right. He's a respectable journalist, and he's reasonably tough on both sides. I said that, and

                  I took issue with somebody dismissing me with two sentences and no explanation, and I get 13 "1" ratings and a zero.

                  I think it's wrong, I think it's unfair, and I think it's extremely harmful to reasoned discourse.

                  •  Those troll ratings are despicable (4.00)
                    I have seen my fair share of ratings abuse, but this is by far the worst.  Absolutely disgusting.  As it happens, I agree with you about Russert.  It's never even occurred to me to consider him a right winger.  The guy cut his teeth working with Sen. Moynihan and Gov. Cuomo, for chrissakes!  It takes serious tunnel vision to see him as an enemy because he levels tough questions at Democrats--hello, he does the same to Republicans, that's his M.O.  Apparently, Russert would have to be a mirror image of Sean Hannity to get some people's respect.

                    But really, it's not that relevant whether you (and I) are right or wrong about Russert.  Even if someone were to disagree strenuously, troll rating you over it is beyond the pale.  

                    I'm just appalled.

                    -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

                    by SlackerInc on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:53:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ever seen potatohead interview george ??? (4.00)
                      potatohead rips the democrats, and then lobs softballs at george

                      journalists with integrity do not make their bias so blatantly obvious

                      punkinhead is a repuglican hack, no doubt about it

                      •  No (none)
                        I don't listen to Shrub talk--if his voice comes on NPR when I'm not close enough to the radio to turn it off, I quickly stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly.  It's a bit odd, I'll admit, but it is definitely an aid to my psychological health.

                        In any event, we could certainly debate the issue of whether Russert is a "repuglican hack", but my deeper point here is that it would be completely wrong for you to trollrate me because I disagree with you, just as it would be wrong for me to do the same to you.  Regardless of what you believe about Russert, do you see my point here?

                        Now, as for the Russert issue itself: was he working deep cover when he worked for Cuomo, or has he had some kind of conversion since then?  And why didn't he corroborate Libby's testimony?

                        Furthermore: I Googled "Meet the Press" just now.  As it happened, the first transcript that came up was this one, an interview with Cheney just before the Iraq invasion.  Can you look at this and tell me how in the world this is the interview of a "repuglican hack"?  I don't see it at all.


                        -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

                        by SlackerInc on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:25:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  why didn't he EXPOSE Libby (none)
                          And why didn't he corroborate Libby's testimony?

                          here's a better question:

                          why doesn't potatohead begin every report he gives regarding the Plame leak with a disclaimer about his own involvement ???

                          ever heard potatohead mention the fact that HE is a WITNESS in this case ???

                          ever heard Andrea (the greenspanner) Mitchel admit that SHE IS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE ???

                          so punkinhead worked for Cuomo. Tweety worked for Tip O'Niel and Carter before he turned into a repuglican hack

                          here are the facts of the case in a nutshell

                          Libby and Rove released a statement in October of 2003, claiming that they had nothing to do with the Plame crime

                          at least 6 reporters, including tweety and the greenspanner, KNEW AT THE TIME THAT ROVE AND LIBBY WERE LYING

                          only one of those reporters has come forward and admitted that he knew at the time that Rove and Libby were lying. potatohead knows who those reporters are, and he has knowingly allowed those reporters to falsify their knowledge on his forum

                          potatohead's involvement in the Plame case isn't a major event, but his lack of disclosure IS a major event

                          defending punkinhead on the grounds of journalistic integrity is a trollish arguement, period

                          •  Uhhh.... (none)
                            You asked, "ever heard potatohead mention the fact that HE is a WITNESS in this case ???"

                            Yep, more than once (I also regularly watch his other eponymous programme).

                            I notice you didn't have a comment on the Cheney interview...


                            -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

                            by SlackerInc on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:46:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Timmeh Don' Play Dat (none)
                          MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

                          VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

                          Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

                          Now, I can't say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don't want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there's no doubt about the outcome. There's no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there's no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he's developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

                          What an opportunity for a follow-up to bring the focus back to the original question: "... do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

                          So your boy Russert, claws bared, clamped down by returning to the question about the resolve of the American public in a protracted occupation in which our troops are viewed as conqueror-occupiers, yes? Er, not exactly ...

                          Anybody who followed noted that there was no follow-up in the entire hour. It might as well have been scripted.

                          Contrast this with Russert's interview with Howard Dean a few months later ...

                 ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                          by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:16:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  As I recall... (none)
                            few members of the media were even raising the kind of caveats Russert did at the time, much less directing them at the veep.  I'd say the question you excerpted here was fairly prescient given when it was asked.

                            Was there followup?  Maybe not as much as you'd prefer, but there were lots of tough questions.  And since we all know Cheney doesn't do press conferences, that's as much of a glove as anyone ever lays on him.

                            As for Howard Dean: I'm not a fan of his, so I'm probably not best qualified to comment on that issue.


                            -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

                            by SlackerInc on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:39:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll pass on the follow-up, friend (none)
                            likely to be non-constructive, anyway ...

                   ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                            by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:20:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  He may not be a right wing hack.. (4.00)
                      but he certainly is no Edward R Murrow.

                      Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

                      by slatsg on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:26:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (4.00)
                    He's a respectable journalist ...

                    I'd posit, then, that respect is conferred to easily ...

           ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                    by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:55:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You actually agreed with a comaparison of (none)
                    Russert with Murrow.  

                    1.  that's just shocking and indefensible. you might as well have compared Bush to George Washington.  Even if we granted that Russert isn't so bad (and I do not grant that in the least) the comparison shows a lack of understanding of what a giant of journalism Murrow was.  

                    Russert is not even a trained journalist.  He's an attorney who became a political insider and parleyed that into a journalists job.  But I believe that an examination of his questioning shows that he rarely comports himself as a journalist, either in the "digging for the truth" or "speaking truth to power" mode, as much as he acts as an insider merely going through the motions of examining the horse race and giving his guests a chance to get out their message, much like a post-game interview where the questioning is more of the "you threw a curve ball there?" type; and

                    2. you proceeded to defend it.  Attitude is what gets you 1s.  

                    "History is the study of the unthinkable becoming the inevitable." - me

                  •  Whoever gave me (none)
                    a rating of "zero" on my comment above doesn't deserve the privelege of giving zeros.
                  •  Is not. "respectable journalist," (none)
                    He is the host of a political tv talk-show.

                    This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

                    by Agathena on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:17:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree with your opinion of Russert (none)
                    but I gave you a 4 to offset the undeserved 0 rating.

                    Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

                    by slatsg on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:07:19 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  me too. (4.00)
                      Down rating for disagreeing...hmmm. Its apparent that PP needs to do some more background on Russert. Until just a year ago, I was fooled by Russert also. But he didn't deserve a zero for expressing his opinion.

                      "Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them"

                      by Esjaydee on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:34:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  FWIW (4.00)
                  Tim Russert is not, technically speaking, a journalist. He has a law degree, and he worked for Mario Cuomo and Patrick Moynihan years ago, became familiar with the workings of D.C., and moved into broadcasting, joining NBC in the early 1990s.  He has moderated political debates, and perhaps his MTP style has more to do with that than ANY investigative journalism he might claim. He is an entertainer, not a journalist. Of course, Wikipedia calls him a journalist, but that's because of his job, not because of his training.

                  I'm inclined to say that the structure of MTP, who talks, who gets followup questions, who lets the right get away with murder (in my view, anyway) has to do with Russert, the producers of his show, and the sponsors of his show. Probably about a third each.

                  The most offensive thing he does, in my book, is to, for instance, pop into The Today Show as NBC's voice of authority to tell Katie Couric that she did a great job in calling Howard Dean out on the Dems' involvement in the Abramoff scandal. He makes it appear as if his professionalism rises above all else while at the same time he lies through his teeth about how corrupt both sides have been in that matter. He agrees that Abramoff gave no money directly to Dems, but then he throws that other smear at them, saying that Abramoff's clients were directed by him to give money to Democrats, etc. He has not faced the question that the entire traditional media have not faced: Is there any evidence of bribery or quid pro quo in the campaign contributions that Indian Tribes gave to Democrats? None of them will ask that question, a basic journalism followup. No, he is not a journalist. He is definitely repeating Republican talking points, and he knows it.

                  Appearing to be objective may work for him, though. Some people commenting here can't see the difference between being objective and appearing to be objective. I think that may be at the root of the argument going on here.

                  "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

                  by martyc35 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:09:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  All we need is to watch his interview (none)
                  with Bush in the Oval Office. It would be excruciating but it would provide plenty of evidence that Russert can never be compared with Edward R. Murrow.

                  When Bush sez "Ah'm a War President." Russert could have followed up,

                  "No sir, there was no declaration of war. You launched pre-emtive attacks against two small nations."

                  as if...

                  This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

                  by Agathena on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:14:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  (just curious, progressive pete) (none)
                though i know it may seem overly self-conscious, i've gotta ask: why did you see fit to smacking my comment here with a "1" (unproductive)? please explain ...  

       ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                by wystler on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:53:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Go read (4.00)

            "I'll tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn " -Jim Morrison

            by Easy B Oven on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:47:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So? (none)
              A bunch of unrelated excerpts where he could've been tougher on a republican or less tough on a democrat?  You ever have a discussion with someone and then think of what you should have said afterwards?

              On some republican blog somewhere they're having the same conversation in reverse, kabitzing about the "liberal media"

          •  Last I heard, (4.00)
            Edward R. Murrow didn't wear campaign buttons when he covered political conventions.....

            congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

            by bartman on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:44:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Stuffed Dates for a Stuffed Shirt (4.00)
            Perfect for Watching a softball game.

            Take Medjool dates, and remove the pit. Replace the pit with a half of a walnut. Reseal the date, (it glues itself together). Flatten the package a little bit.

            Heat up a pan to medium-low, and put in a little extra virgin olive oil. Arrange the dates in the pan, and cook them for about 2 minutes, and then flip them. They should get toasty on either side.

            Sprinkle them with good sea salt (Maldon Salt from England works best), and then enjoy them while they're hot.

            You could even make these using a cast iron pan on topof a BBQ grill at the softball game.

            File under Vegan.

          •  Just last Sunday (none)
            Russert gave an example of why he is no Edward R. Murrow. [I choke on the words, having just seen "Good Night and Good Luck]

            But the segment began with Tim basically giving Mary the first third to lay out her side of the story. It was bad enough to just have an administration mouthpiece on to regurgitate talking points, but why not allow -- in old Meet the Press fashion -- the journalists to question her? Maybe Mary demanded some solo time, but, if so, it didn't serve her boss well. Huffington Post

            This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

            by Agathena on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:05:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Russert is not tough (none)
            he has a certain style that would serve us all well if he
            WERE tough, but then the pols wouldn't appear on his show.  He sets it up to do the tough part, then just doesn't.

            Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

            by StrayCat on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:04:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Edward R Murrow? (4.00)
          Maybe he meant this generation's Edward R. Rooney.

          Check out my lte archive at and feel free to use my ideas for your own lte's.

          by DemDachshund on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:32:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That 'State' Is (4.00)
        that it's the corporate private property of Republicans.

        A circumstance that, along with the nature of the realtime mass media, is fundamentally unanticipated by our system.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:14:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, it's not 'obvious' (none)
        I believe that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming but the conclusion is not 'obvious'.  

        Does your personal experience confirm that recent high temperatures aren't simply a cyclical feature of the climate, happening every 500 years?

        Are you not sure that temperatures aren't rising because of increased radiation from the sun?  From increased geothermal activity?  

        I agree with your conclusion but it is demeaning of science to believe that scientific theories have to be 'obvious': it was once 'obvious', for instance, that evolution occurred when animals stregthened an organ through increased use and then passed that trait to their offspring.

        Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

        by Preston on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:48:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, what research institute do you work on? (none)
          "Are you not sure that temperatures aren't rising because of increased radiation from the sun?  From increased geothermal activity?"

          Do you really, honestly think that these {and other possible causes} have already been hypothesized?

          What's your science degree in?

          "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

          by shpilk on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:24:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lord... (none)
            Do you understand my point?  The poster is making the assertion that cause and effect are obvious in the case of global warming.  They aren't; they are the result of the scientific process that proposes an explanation for a phenomenon then tests that explanation.

            To claim that the results of science are 'obvious' actually undermines the authority of science.  Science very often comes to conclusions that are opposed to what our own eyes tell us.
            Should I disbelieve the theory of global warming because I froze my ass off going to work this morning?  That is the logical conclusion of this line of thinking.

            BTW- what's with the ad hominem attacks?  Your antipathy to dissent suggests you might be a bit more 'authoritarian' than your political compass score suggests.

            Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

            by Preston on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:58:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  george Bernard Shaw said: (none)
        Americans cannot tell the difference between a bicycle accident and a train wreck.
    •  great diary (4.00)
      I wrote about the global warming story earlier in the week, and one thing I have noticed lately is that 60 Minutes has been pretty solid.

      Recommended (your diary, not mine).

      •  Ross Gelbspan's web site (none)
        has a great collection of all the disinformation campaigns on GW. He has been an outspoken critic of government and corporate attempts to deny that warming is happening.

        Elsewhere: Lou Dobbs, CNN, had Dr. Hansen of NASA on as a guest yesterday, and he defended him and his science. The tide may be turning, at last.

        I don't usually watch Dobbs, but yesterday was great. He says that representatives of UAE were in town and refused to talk to CNN unless they got rid of Lou Dobbs. He responded by inviting them to come on his show and explain why they want the ports.

        "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

        by martyc35 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:28:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fossil fuel funding (none)
      Follow the money.  

      Fossil fuel companies fund think tanks that obediently produce papers showing that global warming has nothing to do with human input because the globe was once very hot before there were humans, that CO2 is tiny in the spectrum of atmospheric gases, etc.  These people have been quoted by the GOP and Fox as if they were scientists.  They once worked for oil companies.

      What these so-called experts do is take a study and quote selectively from it to build their case. Unfortunately this method is used by extremists on both sides of environmental issues.  What is significant is that you have the National Academy of Sciences evaluating the data and saying that human contribution to global warming is significant.

      I don't know if Fox gets a lot of ads from fossil fuel companies because I don't watch it.  

      Anyway, thanks for this diary.  I saw the 60 Minutes piece on global warming but didn't know about the attacks.  I am glad Scott P. pushed back.

      We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. -Albert Einstein

      by Plan9 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:57:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking truth to obfuscation (4.00)
    Repeatedly.  Eventually, it succeeds.  Takes a heck of a long time in the face of such vast amounts of manufactured FUD, of course.

    Nice story.

    •  I was just so damned happy to see this (4.00)
      it made my whole day.

      If someone had told me when I was a lot younger that things would get so bad with the media that a journalist actually having the guts to do his or her job without fear or regrets or handwringing after the fact would have made me feel so hopeful about the future, I would have been shocked.

      The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombusperson

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:05:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Talk about lowered standards (4.00)
        "People are doing their jobs, let's PAR-TAY!"

        Sigh.  Of course this shouldn't come as a shock since we have been reduced to debating what should be undebateable.*  (Torture, "extraordinary rendition", presidential infalliability, etc.)

        *-I have no idea if that's a word but it is now because I SAY SO, DAMMIT.

        "They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards."--Creighton W. Abrams

        by Raybin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:19:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I know (4.00)
          -but I would say, in my own defense, that this is the great era of lowered expectations... they actually managed to get a shooting victim who had a heart attack from the shot lodged in his body to go on camera and apologise to the reckless idiot who shot him and veteran news people seriously discussed this as if it weren't coo-coo bin nuts considering who was the victim and victimizer in that ordeal.

          That, for me, defines what the news has become in this time perfectly.

          /The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombudsperson/

          by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:26:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually We've Been Reduced to Debating (4.00)
          nothing whatsoever except within tiny groups out of mainstream view.

          Our national information infrastructure prohibits distribution to the general public of both complex messages and meaningful discussion of any subject at a level above early grade school level.

          That's why we have to agonize for months ahead of time to create infantile 5-10-word slogans that will suggest an emotional impression of the policies we intend to use to govern the most powerful and advanced society in history.

          Somebody's got to recognize that the whole relationship of the American system to information is fundamentally insane.

          And campaign reform would be only a drop in the bucket. Outside of campaigns there'd still be no mechanism or venue for any meaningful societal discourse, and none of the peoples' Constitutional rights apply where the information-age world does most of its business.

          The system needs fundamental change to bring it into the 21st century.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:26:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  two needed additions (4.00)
            You're right on.  The two areas that need to be addressed in addition to campaign reform are

            Education reform


            Media reform.

            And all the dysfunction you are referring to are at the heart of a functioning democracy.

            Is it just me, or does Scott McClellan fail the Turing Test on a regular basis?

            by evil twin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:02:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ain't it the truth.... (none)
      •  "Pathetically grateful" (none)
        ...are the words that come to mind, to describe my reaction.

        Our troops won the war. Bush lost the peace.

        by snazzzybird on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:15:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  sooner or later (4.00)
    Some of these guys just have had enough. All this "fair and balanced" bs really irks me when they know the other side is without merit. They do it about miners deaths, Katrina, war, healthcare, child mortality, etc. How is there anyway to be fair and balanced about the reason a child died ? Blame the victim ? Katrina defence = blame the poor. Richard Dreyfuss gave a great talk at the Press CLub last week some of you may really enjoy. I know I did. In the Q & A at the end, he was asked what he thought about how Hollywood has portraited the Media, his answer was " More Heroic than you deserve ".

    -8.63 -7.28 When Bush is in your face, may the wind be at your back.

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:13:42 AM PST

    •  I agree with you (4.00)
      It was just a question of when, and waiting for when is just killing me. It's been like most cable news and newspaper reporters and news editors just live on bullshit instead of food and water for so long that I get shocked by how much of this that the simmering good ones can take.

      Scott Pelley is a good one. Obviously, he wouldn't last on cable news a week as a reporter or anchor.

      I was so close to putting my foot through the televsion when the cable news media started to go for the 'ha ha.. hunting accident' defense followed by rightwing pundit after pundit being allowed to go on CNN and MSNBC unrebutted and say, for example, that the guy Cheney shot was basically to blame for being stupid enough to... get shot by a reckless vice president with a shotgun.

      That meme was completely killed by the man having his heart attack, otherwise it might have become the conventional wisdom with the cable news industries aid.

      The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombusperson

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:19:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the Dreyfuss link (none)
        I'll check it out.

        The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombusperson

        by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:20:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good for Scott Pelley! (4.00)
        .......who knows, maybe he had just watched "Good Night and Good Luck" for a second time and got an infusion of courage.

            And as noted, he wouldn't last a week in cable TV. Let's hope he doesn't get placed on a "watch" list somewhere. (Say, when's the impeachment hearings scheduled for the Pennsylvania judge who had the effrontery to call Intelligent Design a fraud)?

        "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain"

        by Ed Tracey on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:46:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a good point (4.00)
          This story hasn't been widely commented on apparently, the only rightwing hate-o-sphere blurb on Scott Pelley that I could find was a thread on FreeRepublic about a Bush interview by Pelley that was basically a 'by the books' deal and that basically gave them nothing to bitch about.

          I think that might be about to change.

          /The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombudsperson/

          by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:50:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Saw the Dreyfuss speech (4.00)
      well I saw part of it.  It was strange to see him speaking so seriously.  But he was deadly serious and he was very effective.  Worth catching it.

      I used to hate the weekend programming at C-SPAN, but because just about everything else is so bad, I started to watch more of it - just kind of kept the channel on in the background, as I do during the week.  And I've caught some very valuable things on the weekends lately.  There's a really broad spectrum of programming.

      On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

      by joanneleon on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:22:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fair and balanced (4.00)
    2+2=4. Bring on the opposition (who will consist of C++ programmers who have overloaded the + operator).

    The earth is an ellipsoid! Bring on the opposition. It can include both sphere advocates and flat earthers.

    Bush had a strange "lump" on his back in that debate. Bring on the opposition. (who will claim that it was a back pimple popping in slow motion)

    Michael Huffington is gay. Bring on the opposition (who produces Arianna as evidence of his straightness).

    I am a pretzel. Bring on the opposition (who will claim that I'm an overglorified churro).

    The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt vote Republican." Bring on the opposition (who will argue that the bible said "Thou shalt vote Democrat" until the Democrats decided it was important to let people of African descent vote, at which point God amended the bible)

  •  Man, reporters are just on fire tonight (4.00)
    From tomorrow's Denis Hamill of the New York Daily News:

    Where Have You Gone, Woodstein?

    A lot of the gasbag hosts on TV started in government as politicians or political flacks, spinning bull stories to real reporters, and then decided to move up into "journalism," lobbing softball questions on Sunday mornings or on daily cable "news" shows to friends whose weddings, bar mitzvahs and christenings they will attend the next night.

    This is not news. This is not the work of reporters like Woodward and Bernstein. The guys delivering the so-called news on TV gab shows these days are the same guys Woodward and Bernstein investigated. Today they are considered "reporters." John Dean is now considered a journalist. As is former Nixon flack Pat Buchanan, and Watergate burglar Gordon Liddy. George Stephanopoulos carried Bill Clinton's water before becoming his Gypo Nolan. Joe Scarborough is a recovering congressman. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert made their journalism bones reporting to Tip O'Neill and Pat Moynihan.

    Just beautiful.

    The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombusperson

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:33:36 AM PST

    •  Maybe there is hope afterall (none)
      if reporters can still get pissed off, sit down, and bang out a grouse or a rant for a column.

      The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombusperson

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:36:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I also watched the 60 Minutes (none)
        piece on global warming, and thought "this is going to piss someone off." I am so glad more seemingly "true" reporters are accepting the task of presenting FACT sans BS.

        "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

        by Skid on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:22:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reporters read their emails (4.00)
      Hard to ignore the deluge of outrage over this and many other recent Bushco failures.

      Katrina opened the door for journalists to do their job again.  They saw it was "ok" to actually question the bullshit.

      Thank you John Kerry.

      by diplomatic on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:14:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  John Dean is on our side (4.00)
      He was a whistleblower during Watergate.  He doesn't represent himself as a 'reporter', but has written some great stuff for Read his most recent column here.

      I certainly agree with the gist of Hamill's piece.  I just don't think it's fair to lump Dean in with these other hacks... - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

      by chuckvw on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:03:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Get your sharp sticks right here! (4.00)
    Sharp sticks all around.

    Step right up.

  •  CBS News Biography for Scott Pelley (4.00)

    Correspondent, 60 Minutes

    Scott Pelley was named a correspondent for 60 Minutes II in June 1999.

    Prior to that, he had been CBS News' chief White House correspondent since August 1997. During that time, he covered the investigation of President Clinton, breaking many original stories in the process. Pelley also reported on a wide array of domestic and foreign stories from the White House, including Clinton Administration trips to South America, Africa, China and Europe.

    Pelley had been a correspondent based in Dallas since 1990, having joined CBS News a year earlier as a reporter in New York. He covered many of the biggest domestic stories, including the Oklahoma City bombing and the trial of Timothy McVeigh, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Los Angeles Northridge earthquake, the Branch Davidian raid near Waco, Texas, Hurricanes Andrew and Hugo, and the space program's shuttle missions. Pelley also served as a political correspondent assigned to the 1992 presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.

    In addition to his domestic reporting, Pelley has covered the news from many hot spots around the globe. In 1990, Pelley was assigned for a year to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, during the Persian Gulf conflict. He covered Baghdad and later broadcast live reports during Iraqi missile attacks on Saudi Arabia. Pelley joined the troops of the 18th Airborne Corps for combat coverage of the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of Kuwait.

    He received a 1996 Emmy Award for his work on the TWA Flight 800 disaster and a 1994 Emmy for his reporting on the Branch Davidian conflict. Pelley was honored with the Society of Professional Journalists Excellence in Journalism Award for his reports on a midair jumbo jet collision outside Delhi, India.

    Before joining CBS News, he was a producer/reporter for WFAA-TV Dallas (1982-89)for KXAS-TV Dallas (1978-81), and for KSEL-TV Lubbock, Texas (1975-78). Pelley began his journalism career at age 15 as a copy boy at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal newspaper.

    He was born July 28, 1957 in San Antonio, Texas. Pelley attended journalism school at Texas Tech University. He and his wife, Jane Boone Pelley, have a son and a daughter.

    Is is amazing to me that, with this biography, people like Wolf Blitzer and Brit Hume have full time jobs at all. If I were a cable news hotshot, getting somebody like this at say, CNN, to give my network credibility it hasn't had in years would be my first priority. Even if I had to offer him the moon, and let Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer finally make the big jump to Fox News third-stringers that they have both been anxiously holding out for.

    /The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombudsperson/

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:05:53 AM PST

    •  I'm guessing ... (4.00)
      Is is amazing to me that, with this biography, people like Wolf Blitzer and Brit Hume have full time jobs at all.

      I'm guessing that real journalists are harder to "manage", if you know what I mean.

      Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

      by Bearpaw on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:21:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heh (none)
      If I were a cable news hotshot, getting somebody like this at say, CNN, to give my network credibility it hasn't had in years would be my first priority.

      Sure, provided that BASF, ConocoPhillips and GlaxoSmithKline would let you. Which is highly doubtful.

      -5.88, -6.00 When the ELGIs are defeated, the GWAT is over. -- Richard Clarke

      by Porfiry on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:22:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good to see (4.00)
    That's what journalism used to be...


    Thank you John Kerry.

    by diplomatic on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:06:22 AM PST

  •  I have been trying to find a feeback email (4.00)
    addy for Scott Pelley, just to say thank you for keeping the news about global warming free of the cable news nonsense that just exists to muddy the waters instead of opening eyes.

    If anybody spies it first, please post it, because I haven't stumbled over it yet.

    I think it would be a great idea to generate some kind of wave of good feedback, and I'd hate to send off a wave of replies to some CBS News general feedback line if there is an address for Pelley, or at lease 60 minutes, somewhere.

    /The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombudsperson/

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:10:56 AM PST

    •  Okay, here is a feedback address for 60 Minutes (4.00)

      I don't see an addy for feedback to individual reporters, so what the hey.

      I appreciate everybody who took the time to read and take notice of this bit of good journalism and Pelley's standing up to 'there are those who claim'. We could use a lot more of this everyday.

      All that I ask is that if you checked out the 60 minutes report on global warming and Pelley's standing up for facts not opinions, please join me in dropping him a 'thank you for a job well done'.  

      I think he deserves it, and we need so much more.

      /The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombudsperson/

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:20:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Better to contact 60 Minutes anyway (4.00)
        Good for Pelley and good for ...well, everyone...that TPTB see appreciation for actual journalism.
      •  I am so pleased to see you on the rec list (4.00)
        Bravo!  Congratulations on the great work!
      •  Here's the letter I just sent (4.00)
        I want to say thank you for Scott Pelley's excellent report on global warming Sunday night. My background is in journalism, and it is so refreshing to see a reporter actually report the truth about science, rather than confuse science with the White House's policy agenda. Sometimes, "fair and balanced" is simply propaganda, especially with an issue like this when the reputable scientific community is in agreement.

        Kudos to both CBS News and Mr. Pelley for proving there is still some integrity left in the traditional news media! Keep up the excellent work!

  •  This Is Actually Understating Things (4.00)
    In point of fact, there has been precisely ZERO publication of "global warming sceptics" in the peer reviewedd literature.

    Back in December, 2004, Naomi Oreskes, an historian of science I later interviewed who did her PhD on a real scientific controversy (so she knows what the real McCoy looks like), published a study in Science magazine, "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." In it, she tested the hypothesis that the widespread scientific concensus expressed by various scientific bodies might be drowning out legitimate contradictory views.  She wrote:

    That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    That's right, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus.  That's none, as in zip, zero, zeppo, nada.
    •  Let me ask you this (4.00)

      why isn't Michael Chrichton, who basically has become famous as the 'big name global warming skeptic', more of a target of derision by the real scientific community?

      I mean, I realize that he is a medical doctor as well as a writer, but is there something about this man that makes people wary of cutting the legs out from under him... or is he seen as so much of a joke that people in the know don't even bother to address him?

      Because right now he is the leading voice of the 'global warming isn't real, or if it is real, its exaggerated by liberal whacko pseudo-scientists' movement and I think he needs to be taken completely down by the people who actually know.

      /The Washington Post takes the gold for most dishonorable partisan hack as an ombudsperson/

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:43:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would say (4.00)
        That anyone who takes him seriously as a 'leading voice' probably isn't worth debating.  I mean, he writes fiction books about dinosaurs - anyone who considers him an expert on global warming is probably a couple bricks shy of a load (which is, of course, why he's meeting with Bush...)

        Basically, I think the main thing that needs to happen is that any time Crichton gets involved in this subject, he needs to be regularly and repeatedly referred to as 'fiction novel writer Michael Crichton'.  The complete silliness of having a novelist speak on scientific topics needs to be played up - that alone will damage the movement.

        •  anyone who read his books (4.00)
          would know he isn't worth debating. The science in his texts is completely Bursar. I mean, the Andromeda Strain? An alien bit of DNA comes to Earth and, apparently organic itself, has the ability to decompose other organic items? Whatever. And Jurassic Park? A good parable about the inability of people to control nature and the future, but he was obviously thinking about the marketing potential there. And his writing skill itself? Entertaining. For a ten year old. Which is how old I was when I read Sphere and everything else. It was NOT as good as Guardians of the Galaxy, the Sandman, or ALF.

          Oddly, these days I read no comic books, mostly nonfiction, and Joanna Russ.

          But seriously - he has no knowledge or experience. He's a Dr. yes, but his degrees are in anthro and physical anthro. One of his biggest arguments - an entire speech, as a matter of fact - has been "We shouldn't speculate" about the results of Presidential decisions, oh no, we should sit here and wait for Whatever to Just Happen, the way Chaos Breaks Out in history textbooks, because Bad Shit Doesn't Have a Cause, Right?

          I don't hate often, but...

          /there are no rules except discovery /the only tradition is invention. -rachel pollack

          by joseph rainmound on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:07:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is incorrect (4.00)
            Crichton sold his soul a long time ago, yes, but he has great writing skills.

            Read the The Great Train Robbery and tell me he doesn't.  Once can't, 'cause he is a great writer.

            A great writer with a soul and a mind completely lost.  A real shame.

            •  Crichton's soul found (none)
              The Petroleum folks love Crichton so much they gave him an award.--

              Nature never breaks her own laws. --da Vinci

              by lale on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:22:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  yes but (4.00)
              great entertainment / great writing. I am sometimes entertained by this guy on the street who dances with a mannequin. would not call him a great dancer.

              /there are no rules except discovery /the only tradition is invention. -rachel pollack

              by joseph rainmound on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:24:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't disagree.... (none)
                But I would only state that criticisms of writing really only have weight with me when they're made by real writers themselves.

                Not a great writer?  I see.  Please show me the great work from your own hand to show us all how it's done.

                It's unfair, yes; great recognized work doesn't have to come from one's own hand.  It's just that most of the people sneering at the writing couldn't write their way out a wet paper bag.  I've written fiction and those who haven't even tried have no clue as how incredibly difficult it is.  There's something wrong there.

                •  Sorry to contribute to thread hijacking, but... (4.00)
                  I do not believe there is a relationship between having an ability to thoughtfully critique fiction, and the ability to write anything other than the critique itself. A critique is a critique, a work of fiction, a work of fiction. Do I assume that Roger Ebert's opinion of movies is worthless because he cannot act, direct, or edit, and when he wrote a script it was Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

                  Or -- relevant to this board -- do we not have the right to complain about the job Bush is doing as president just because we have never been president and don't know how hard it is?

                  I don't have to be a better novelist than Michael Crichton* to say that, while I enjoyed The Terminal Man and Jurassic Park a great deal as simple and entertaining fables about technological hubris, the Jurassic Park sequel was so badly written, and such a cynical marketing ploy, that it left a sour taste in my mouth such that I haven't read anything by him since -- until excerpts in reviews of State of Fear.

                  The Crichton book is very strange as a personal/cultural phenomenon. His career up until this point has been (more or less) rewriting Frankenstein. Man thinks he controls nature. Nature gives man thrilling smackdown, and man goes away humbled. State of Fear seems to be telling the opposite story -- Man thinks he controls nature, and is correct, other man provides thrilling but unsuccessful smackdown, and man goes away triumphant.

                  Why the change? It has a nasty Dennis Miller flavor about it. I think the Republicans have access to brain slugs.

                  *Although I like to think that I am a better novelist than Michael Crichton, and look forward to the day when the publishing industry allows that to be put to the test in a public forum.

                  •  :) (a smiley isn't sufficient subject, so: this) (4.00)
                    Thanks for the defense. I agree with you about the neo-gothic architecture which seems to permeate his novels. However, in Andromeda Strain and Sphere the "nature" element was alien - not natural - wasn't it? Not intelligent, of course, but it seemed to me to be more about the power Man has over the Other, and a denial of the autonomy of that other.

                    As for my credentials - I also agree with you about the ability to thoughtfully critique fiction, but I'm also a writer in addition to my day job (aren't we all?)

                    /there are no rules except discovery /the only tradition is invention. -rachel pollack

                    by joseph rainmound on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:42:45 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  had the heart-warming pleasure last year of (4.00)
            sharing a freight elevator with Crichton.  He was really tall and looked sad.  I kept headlining in my head "science fiction writer debating elevator is going up!"  It was a hot autumn day in NYC...
            Agree with you joseph, as sf goes his yarns are way slight.  The movie version of Andromeda Strain though is still one of my faves.

            +halfway between Beware and Crime+

            by alt hitman on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:00:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  A 4 for the Pratchett reference (4.00)
            My parents usually watch 60 Minutes, and I really hope my father saw this show.  He's logical about most things, but global warming just shuts his brain right down.  
          •  Actually... (none)
            his other degree is in medicine, and it's from Harvard.

            Explains a few things, doesn't it? Granted, that doesn't make him a world renowned climatologist, but it does accord him a certain respect.

            Then again, George Bush is a Harvard MBA, so I'm not sure what that means...

          •  The science in his texts is completely Bursar (none)
            I consider your literary opinions valid on the use of this line alone. I've read Jurassic Park, found the plot good, the writing marginal and the science bad. Haven't checked out his other books, don't plan too (there's too many talented writers to read first).
        •  Disagree on "fiction writer" strategy. (4.00)
          Writing fiction shouldn't preclude anyone from being able to form an educated opinion by reading the expert literature.  The problem with Crichton is that he has not done so, and that there aren't any accepted studies that agree with him.  It's not his writing fiction that's the problem--Arundhati Roy comes to mind. If we say Crichton is just a writer of fiction, then Al Franken is just a satirist.  Michael Moore is just a filmmaker.  Gee, that sounds familiar doesn't it?

          A better answer is to say that he hasn't used any reliable studies or evidence to form his opinion, and he is not qualified to conduct any studies himself.  Decades of research pointing in one direction can NOT be balanced by one guy saying "Nah, I don't think so".  

          •  I dunno... (4.00)
            Crichton's job is to invent falsehoods and present them as plausibly as possible - this plays directly to his credibility as a critic of a theory with a considerable body of supporting evidence and little against.  He is (at best) a tyro in the field, trying to score points against the world experts - he simply doesn't have the credentials required to venture an opinion with any authority, though he may have the materiel to act as a reporter of others'.

            Franken is a satirist and also a highly politically active talk show host and writer for a decade. Moore is a documentary filmmaker - he has the opportunity to bias his reporting, but not make things up out of whole cloth.

            Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Henrik Ibsen

            by mik on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:09:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good points but... (none)
              What you're saying is that he's a lying propogandist, dressing it up in his fiction, and then commenting on it as if it were real evidence.  Sure, I agree.  That is a much different argument than "Crichton--he's just a writer!" to a dittohead who then retorts "And Al Franken was that lameass on SNL!"

              Your arguments defend Moore and Franken by proving my point.  The validity of any presentation of information or opinion needs to be supported by the record.  When the wingnut cites Crichton, the answer is that he is confusing his fiction for fact--because he is wrong, not a writer.

              •  hmm> (none)
                whose comments are you reading?

                I didn't say he was a lying propogandist. I simply said he had no experience or background knowledge to back up his claims regarding global warming.

                I'm not aware of any fiction written by Crichton in which he deals with global warming - haven't read it. Which doesn't affect my claim that his writing is crap, if entertaining crap (and who amongst us hasn't watched in fascination, wondering if something is yelling for help as it slides down the porcelain hole?)

                /there are no rules except discovery /the only tradition is invention. -rachel pollack

                by joseph rainmound on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:45:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Eh? (none)
                No - I'm saying that Crichton claims to be "only a writer (of fiction)", and that a claim of being a fiction writer only makes you an authority about creativity and communication.  His only work is fiction, and so any discussion of the accuracy of his conjectures must be found outside his writings.

                Moore claims to document true events - while one might find his conclusions and methods disagreeable, his films cannot possibly be false in the same way that Crichton's books are.

                Franken is not merely a comic - it is simply a false to label him that way.  He is an interviewer of movers and shakers and a professional political pundit.  Like Moore, you can disagree with his conclusions and analysis, but you cannot claim that the people he interviews didn't say what they did.

                My point is that professions can lend credibility to people's positions - all three people need to be entertaining to maintain their success.  Franken and Moore also need to tell true stories. Crichton, on the other hand, has no need or interest in truth to be successful.

                Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Henrik Ibsen

                by mik on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:04:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Good fiction writiers, (none)
              of whom Crichton is not one, do a lot of research, and include verifiable information, and then tweak it a bit to make the fiction part.

              Crichton has written some commercially successful scifi stuff. He is not a very good writer, and he's a lousy and lazy researcher.

              The degree to which you resist injustice is the degree to which you are free. -- Utah Phillips

              by Mnemosyne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:35:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  don't put words in my hands (none)
            I didn't say we should debate him as a fiction writer. I said his fiction was bad writing. If you read my comment again, you'll see I was attacking his scientific knowledge, most of which seems based on the fact that he has a Ph.D in physical anthropology, which is hardly a standing point from which to jump into climate change. Has he written any well-received papers on the subject (received by scientific peers)?

            I'm surprised that last isn't always the first question. When we look for great baseball players we don't look for people who aren't on the field.

            /there are no rules except discovery /the only tradition is invention. -rachel pollack

            by joseph rainmound on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:31:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The Scientific Concensus (4.00)
    Straight from the scientists.

    The data is crushing the Exxon-funded pollution lobby.

  •  60 isn't alone (4.00)
    Here's how NOW on PBS introduced it's update on global warming last week:

    BRANCACCIO: Now on to the politics of denial. It's about what most grown ups can see as the biggest environmental story of our era.

    On the one hand there's hard scientific data that 2005 was the hottest year on record and that human activity is contributing to global warming. On the other hand...well, there may be no other hand.

    Since we last brought you this story, climate scientists who sound the alarm continue to be muzzled.

    •  Yeah, but (4.00)
      MY PBS station [WETA in Washington DC] buries NOW at 9 pm on Friday nights and offers no re-runs.

      It's only old fart "members of the choir" like me who see it.

      •  WCVE, Richmond's PBS station (4.00)
        Also buries NOW in the same time slot.

        Fortunately here in Richmond we have a community radio station, a Low-Power FM (LPFM) which airs news and talk from 8 am to 5 pm and really cool music from local DJs the rest of the time.

        Right now at 10:09 am WRIR 97.3 ( is playing Smart City, one of the more milquetoast programs we have.

        Noon to 1 pm weekdays is our locally produced show block.

        At the risk of becoming a Johnny One-Note, support LPFM, support alternative media, help it to grow, help it become mainstream, participate in it if you can.

        The rise of Daily Kos is a perfect example of what truthtellers with a little support can do.

      •  You can get NOW via Podcast (none)
        and TiVo works great for shows in this time slot.   I don't think it is just your station.   PBS must have some recommended national schedule, because I believe NOW is on at 9 PM on Fridays pretty much across the country.

        Look up, not down, Look out, not in, Look forward, not back, And lend a hand. -Edward Everett Hale

        by deadinthewater on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:14:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, (none)
          How much does TiVo cost? Should people have to use TiVo to get the truth?

          I know you get the news you pay for, but I wonder about having to buy TiVo in order to see a certain show.

          Of course, my girlfriend and I would have problems making any time slot more than a couple of times in a row -- I've told her I'd like to go without TV, actually...

          •  fyi (none)
            Tivo reports back what you have chosen to watch. Just another lil big brother is watching thingy.

            -8.63 -7.28 When Bush is in your face, may the wind be at your back.

            by OneCrankyDom on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:41:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Big Brother (none)
              Does Tivo report back to its parent company?

              Do you think there might be an effort by the FCC at some point to ban all media that doesn't have a reporting mechanism attached to it, like broadcast radio and network TV?

              It's occured to me that the rise of satellite radio might soon clear the broadcast spectrum for noncommercial operations. If our LPFM in Richmond is any indication, such a development might be a threat to certain powers that be.

        •  You can also watch it on the web (none)
          NOW streams its broadcasts:

    •  If only the News Hour took this approach (none)
      I just emailed them the CBS news story (linked to in the diary) and said how disappointed I had been in their so-called "fair and balanced" coverage of this  issue, as well as others where there is no real controversy.  Their email is
  •  It's nice (none)
    to see actual journalism being done once in a while.

    60 Minutes is, and always has been, cool.

    Long live 60 Minutes.

    •  I'd have to disagree with this (none)
      CBS took a dive when this country needed it the most, the CBS killian Memos.
      First they came out with "important news"
      Then they apologized.
      Then they took a dive. They walked away from the most important story of 2004--Bush's militray record--just abndoned it, run off it by a pack of bloggers, the most cowatrdly betrayal of a story (and their own people!) in journalistsic history.
      The right profited from their complete failure and cowardice by gettuing the story shut down completely based on their fuckups
      I used to watch 60 minutes and CBS but no more. Theyre part of the MSM noise machine


      by exlrrp on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:17:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I remember correctly, (none)
        On Sept. 9, 2004, they were originally going to air a story on just why we invaded Iraq in the first place and at least asking, if not telling, whether those reasons were legitimate. Had that story run it would have been a much more compelling argument against Mr. Bush based on policy rather than a rehashed four-year old, though true, story.

        The Boston Globe broke the story of Bush's military service record in May 2000. Democrats and Americans had their chance to examine and evaluate it in the 2000 elections and lost the chance.

        Clearly Pelley has done a better job on a real issue here than Rather and Mapes did on a warmed-over, four year-old story about something that Bush did 30 years ago and had little to say on current policies or lack thereof surrounding the war on terrorism.

        If you want real stories to get out, support Low-Power FM (LPFM) or other progressive and alternative media interested in telling the truth.

        (-8.88, -8.00) -- in Richmond VA!

      •  This is... (4.00)
        the kind of silliness I see on dKos all the time.

        60 Minutes has been on the air for decades, turning out first-rate journalism, doing investigation after investigation, and in terms of quality blowing away 99% of what passes for journalism on television.

        They backed down on one story--granted, an important one--and now I don't watch it anymore, it's just part of the MSM noise machine... Waaaa.

        You gotta give a couple breaks to a program with the record of 60 minutes.

        •  60 Minutes backed down more than once (none)
          Remember the movie "The Insider?" They backed down on airing a piece about big tobacco under the threat of a lawsuit. They've gone soft on interviews and stories, too - lots of celebrity personality profiles and "ordinary folks who make a difference." The news divisions went under the thumb of the accountants at the big corporations which now own our networks a long time ago. This was a rather daring piece because it stepped out of line with the Bush administration, but it's exactly in line with what the rest of the world thinks about global warming.

          For more on this, watch the profoundly prophetic movie "Network."

  •  I cannot believe I'm typing this... (4.00)
    Fox News actually did piece on global warming, produced by Laurie David and Robert Kennedy, back in November of 2005 which was pretty darn good, all things considered.  Evangelicals are coming out swinging on this issue too.  Crichton and the destructive little group of naysayers, many directly financed by the fossil fuel lobby, are just relishing the attention they're getting.  The shame in it all is that we've lost precious time to actually do something as the window of opportunity is closing fast.  

    See, Truth has a way.  Thanks for this diary!  

    Nature never breaks her own laws. --da Vinci

    by lale on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:14:04 AM PST

  •  facts (none)
    make your brain hurt

    "In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world." -- Russ Feingold

    by hoodoo meat bucket on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:39:35 AM PST

  •  Not So Fast... (none)
    Some of us thought the theory of evolution was "scientific fact", too.


    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:40:04 AM PST

    •  There are some who say.... (4.00)
      that W is proof that we not only evolved from primates, but that we've not even evolved very far from them.

      I do get terribly hacked though when news reports refer to those who acknowledge the reality of evolution as "Darwinists". As though we are some bizarre cult of fanatics.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:20:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, me too (4.00)
        Calling non-creationists "Darwinists" as though we "believe" in Darwinian evolution in some metaphysical way is actually a creationist talking point. So it hacks me off when mainstream media simply regurgitates it. (And this is why I've never liked "Darwin fish" either.)

        They regurgitate a lot of dominionist talking points, actually, including their bizarro-world take on what the Bible means.

  •  Bullshit (none)
    I watched the show and he DID ask about proof that man had anything to do with Global Warming at all.

    With funding from the National Science Foundation, Mayewski has led 35 expeditions collecting deep ice cores from glaciers. The ice captures everything in the air, laying down a record covering half a million years.

    "We can go to any section of the ice core, to tell, basically, what the greenhouse gas levels were; we can tell whether or not it was stormy, what the temperatures were like," Mayewski explains.

    60 Minutes brought Mayewski back to Greenland, where he says his research has proven that the ice and the atmosphere have man's fingerprints all over them.

    Mayewski says we haven't seen a temperature rise to this level going back at least 2,000 years, and arguably several thousand years.

    Later he said:

    "That said, the skeptics have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years. And they've forced us to think more and more about the data that we collect. We can owe the skeptics a vote of thanks for making our science as precise as it is today," says Mayewski.
    •  I can't tell if you're kidding or not (4.00)
      But this:

      "That said, the skeptics have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years. And they've forced us to think more and more about the data that we collect. We can owe the skeptics a vote of thanks for making our science as precise as it is today," says Mayewski.

      States in a few sentences what science is all about.  

      Publish your data and your explanation.  Defend it against attacks and other interpretations.  With the help of your critics, identify holes and weaknesses and formulate additional experiments/investigations to address them.  Compile the new data with the old.  See if your explanation needs adjustment.  Republish.  Rinse. Repeat.

      That's how it works.

      Of course - authoritative scientists have no duty to respond to every off-the-wall, non-scientific criticism they receive.  But if the criticism is well-reasoned, they have to address it or else someone else will.

    •  There are skeptics and there are skeptics (4.00)
      Science does indeed benefit from honest skepticism.  It's an extremely important part of the process.

      People for whom understanding is not as important as power, though, take advantage of that part of the process and take advantage of a general public that doesn't understand the process very well.

      They try to interject vaguely reasonable-sounding "doubts" and exaggerate any already-existing uncertainties in order to discredit entire areas of understanding.  It's dishonest, and a cynical and grossly unethical manipulation of science, the public, and public policy.

      Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

      by Bearpaw on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:41:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the facts have "a liberal agenda" (4.00)
    then logically it follows that fair journalism will have a liberal agenda too.

    Being "fair" does not mean giving equal consideration to different viewpoints (where one is based on shameless lying), it means standing up for the truth no matter what.

    Journalists have failed that test. They are not standing up for the truth but engaging in postmodern "he said she said" relativism.

    In the US today facts indeed have a liberal agenda. Our system is tilted to the right - there are no politicians like the GOP in the rest of the western world. The reason is that GOP would not survive if the media here was less biased and less occupied with "he said she said" nonsense.

    Bush and the Republicans has liead to the American people repeatedly, this is a F-A-C-T and there is no need to balance that fact with more GOP lies.

    Elementary logic seems hard for conservatives to grasp.

    GOP: 17th century values, 21st century marketing.

    by Joe B on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:49:34 AM PST

  •  I think the preponderance of evidence (none)
    Sadly, I am not sufficiently advanced in my knowledge of the issue to refute this seemingly scientific naysay:

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.--Philip K. Dick

    by Randomizer on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:57:10 AM PST

    •  More on OISM (none)

      No Climatologists there.  

      Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.--Philip K. Dick

      by Randomizer on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:03:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Propaganda alert! (4.00)
        None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration

        Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.--Philip K. Dick

        by Randomizer on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:06:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sourcewatch has one minor mistake (none)
        At the bottom there is this notet:

        > The OISM is not related or affiliated in any way with Oregon Health and Science University.

        The mistake isn't whether this fact is true, but that the initials "OISM" were obviously chosen not with OHSU in mind, but with another Oregon educational non-profit: the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI). OMSI is quite well-known in the Portland area, & undoubtlessly in that part of southern Oregon.

        OMSI is remarkably uncontroversial, & generally well-thought-of in the community. (At least mcu better than OHSU.) About the only controversial thing about OMSI that I can think of is there exhibit of how a child is grown in the uterus: it was produced from plaster moulds of aborted fetuses, which IIRC is clearly stated on the notice outside the exhibit room.


  •  Bravo! (none)
    Too bad that accreditation doesn't matter for Republicans... they only believe what their mullahs, I mean preachers, tell them to beleive.

    Why did Jesus overturn the Church money exchange and say to "Destroy This Temple?"

    by a gnostic on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:58:00 AM PST

  •  Motivations (4.00)
    This ought to be an easy one for people to figure out.  

    Who says global warming is fake?  Oil companies and other polluting industries.  Motivation: profits.  Of COURSE they'd say it's fake.  

    Who says it's real?  Scientists.  Motivation: being correct.

    Why would scientists ALL agree on something unless it were substantially correct?  Do they stand to profit if global warming is acknowledged?  No.  Do they stand to gain if oil companies' profits fall?  No.  So what could their vast conspiracy be?  

    You'd think the American public would have the "street smarts" to pluck this one like a peach.

    •  Oh, didn't you know? (4.00)
      Scientists are just angling for more grant money to study global warming.

      At least I've heard that "argument".

      "Help us to save free conscience from the paw -- Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw." --John Milton

      by ohiolibrarian on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:50:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  scientists' motivation (4.00)
      Who says it's real?  Scientists.  Motivation: being correct.

      Like with most people, scientists have multiple motivations.  While being correct is a very important one to most of them, so is procuring funding.  And the funding process can, unfortunately, have a slanting effect on research.  But overall, in the long run, it's simply not possible to indefinitely sustain such a slant.  

      Climate change research is, IMHO, far beyond that point.  There's clearly something happening and human industrial processes are clearly a significant contributing factor.  What remains is to figure out (1) how much of an effect we're having, (2) how and to what extent we can reduce that effect, and (3) what the hell to do about whatever results are too late to prevent.

      Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

      by Bearpaw on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:55:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The funding thing... (none)
        ...might be expected to produce some scientists who say global warming appears not to be real.  The oil companies would be quite happy to fund that.  Yet no scientist is willing to stake his/her reputation on it.  If there were any chance at all that global warming is merely an artifact, scientists would be lining up at the ExxonMobil trough.  But they aren't.
  •  Thank you Scott. (4.00)
    Thanks for standing for the truth and the facts.
  •  Wow. This is timely. (4.00)
    Had an argument with one of my wingnut friends (okay, my only wingnut friend)about global warming. He's got a degree in mechanical engineering from Georgia Tech, so it always makes me crazy when he questions global warming and, yes, evolution. Anyhow, his argument is that the planet is warming because the sun is getting hotter.

    If you google "sun hotter global warming," you do come up with some hits, but all of the article (despite headlines that hint at the opposite) note that no one is saying that increased solar activity is causing climate change.

    All, that is, except for one Heritage Foundation thing that was funded by Exxon/Mobile and Chevron.

    •  But the wingnuts hate the research (4.00)
      I think that it's really reasonably to study how solar radiation fluctuations and even movements of the solar system through different regions of the Milky Way affect the climate here on Earth.

      But my understanding is that the wingnuts have worked with the fossil fuel folks to kill the Hubble telescope and a variety of satellites and research programs that might give us more, unbiased information about climate change.

      If you think about it, this is truly insane. For all we know now, maybe there's some fairly simple high-tech way to get greenhouse gases out of the war without figuring out fusion or building a million nuclear fission power plants. Maybe it will turn out that there are vast petroleum reserves somewhere in my refrigerators. But, if we don't fund the research programs, how do we know?

    •  I just had the same argument (none)
      Did you know that the entire human population is tiptoeing across the surface of the planet?  Not making a peep.  You won't even know we were here when we are gone.  

      It takes a stretchy mind to be a loyal Republican these days.

    •  Only a total moron would make (none)
      an argument that the "planet is warming because the sun is getting hotter." This is laughable on it's face.

      Yet, there have been studies done it; that is how thorough science is {they have been making precise measurements for reasons other than just 'global warming' - like finding out about stellar dynamics, for one}.

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:33:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Have to give these people a lot of credit (4.00)
    The people who have studied and tried to warn the world about global warming have shown that they have the right stuff, they are on the side of the people, and they are to be trusted.  Journalists who make strong statements like Pelley deserve credit too.

    They've been smeared, painted as quacks, alarmists and ecoterrorists for years now.  No doubt they've lost opportunities in their careers and fought off attempts to be discredited.

    Bottom line, they've been bullied.  But they stood firm, stood their ground, despite the personal consequences.  I can't imagine what they've been through.  Well, in some ways I can, actually, and that's why I feel such strong admiration for them, and want to defend and support them.

    These are true heroes.  We should stand strongly behind them.

    On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

    by joanneleon on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:13:47 AM PST

  •  Drudge Report (none)
    a) Personally, I'm still open to hearing arguments that some process will stop global warming, or that something going on with the Sun will offset the changes caused by greenhouse gases. But I think the key issue here is that we don't have to have 100 percent proof that global warming will cause huge disasters to take action on this issue. Even if we believe there's a 5 percent risk that global warming will reshape the coastlines of the world over the next 200 years and cause a modest increase in the number and force of natural disasters, that's an enormous risk that we have to take absolutely seriously.

    b) I think one piece of evidence that normal, non-co-opted swing voters are concerned about global warming is that the Drudge Report focuses on global warming stories even more than Daily Kos folks do. Who knows what Drudge really believes, but he clearly sees that the people who read his site take these issues deadly seriously. They may not want to let tree huggers block a highway project to protect a snail darter, but they don't to see global warming destroy cities like New Orleans and Houston.

  •  NIce diary (4.00)
    It is comforting to know that at least every once in a while someone is going to just get up and speak the truth.

    Spies, Cries, and Lies: Brought to you by the Republican Party

    by Whitney S on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:16:47 AM PST

  •  The Global Warming Story Was Devastating (4.00)
    I saw it when it aired, and it left me very sad.  The most shocking statement to me was the claim that the sea level will rise 3 feet over the next 100 years.  That means big chunks of our country will be underwater even during our lifetimes.  The disturbing point made in the story was that there's not much we can do to stop this, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow.  If you haven't seen it, I urge you to check out the online version.
  •  It's impossible (none)
    to convince some right wingers of what is a good source of information and what is a bad source of information.  They look to people who talk like them, look like them, claim to believe in the same things they do, for their truth. They can trust these people.  Until we can sway them from truthiness and toward objectivity as a principle, they will never learn anything.  Higher education tends to do this, but not always.
  •  I want all these wingnuts... (4.00)
    ... who deny global warming to put their money where their mouth is. If they're so sure global warming is a myth, buy waterfront property in the NO delta, or if they have problems with the "coloreds," in South Florida. And then guarantee that neither they nor their children nor their grandchildren will ever move even when hurricanes, floods, and just plain heat get worse and the ocean starts to erode the foundation of their property.

    Of course, they are all keyboard commandos who will deny that they ever made such a claim or that "they were just trying to present both sides of the issue," but at least they will begin to be exposed for the hypocrites they are.

  •  amazingly enough (4.00)
    Fox News had a special on global warming not long ago that was really well done. Robert Kennedy Jr. was the main spokesperson. They presented very little in opposition, though they did mention briefly that some still doubted that it was occurring, and the blogs like LGF were all up in arms about it, saying that Fox News had sold out to the libruls.

    I was amazed, to be quite frank, and I even had a wingnut friend call me afterward to say that now that she had seen it on Fox News, she was finally convinced that global warming is really occurring and that it's because of human causes.

    •  I saw that too (none)
      Using Global Warming as an example of how 60 Minutes didn't take "the Fox News route" is probably a bad example.  The special Fox News ran on Global Warming was very well done, and was focused on the science and the impact on the global ecosystem.  They really didn't spend anytime covering the opposition from those who don't believe global warming occurs.  Sounds like on this issue, 60 Minutes actually gave more airtime to the pseudo-science side of things than Fox News did.
  •  Next time the media does a story on ... (none)
    mad cow disease, they should interview a vegetarian who would say, eating all meat is unhealthy, so therefore mad cow isn't a real problem.

    Personally, I think science is bunk. Here's my question: If space is a vacuum, why is space dust falling down onto the Earth? Shouldn't it be going the other way, like dirt into a vacuum cleaner? I've never seen a good explanation for that. Therefore I ignore all science and just read my bible.

    "I'm having trouble with my boy." -- George H. W. Bush, 2004

    by Shiborg on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:15:55 AM PST

    Please forgive if this has already been noted, but I've got chickens to feed and no time to read.  

    The CBS article concludes with this, "but there are still skeptics" paragraph, that signs off, unchallenged, absolutely false statement:

     ....writes Gerrit J. van der Lingen in the National Business Review. "People using these consensus arguments forget that scientific truth is not determined by consensus."

    WRONG!  It's called, "Peer Review" stupid.  That is, as I've been led to understand, the final arbiter of any scientific conclusion.  It means that the scientific community certifies that, to the best of it's capacity to judge, the "scienfic method" has been faithfully adhered to and that the conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented thereof.

    Van der Lingens outrageous statement should not be allowed to stand!

    Of course, in the case of global warming, the final arbiter will be ecological collapse!  Where will those bottom lines be then?

    By all means, write CBS and give them their deserved two cheers.  But don't neglect to maintain the spirit of this post and challenge them all the way to the wall.

    Spit back!

    •  I just can't wait (none)
      until large portions of the world are underwater and the wingers come out and say "nobody could have predicted this.  Nobody saw it coming.  It was just so sudden and so devastating, we didn't have a chance to respond.  And besides, the newspaper headlines I saw said we'd dodged a bullet on Global Warming."

      If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell

      by nilocjin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:46:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OOoopps (none)
        meant that for its own comment.

        If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell

        by nilocjin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:48:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  they're trying to cover it up (none)
        because if they didn't, there would be mass panic, and rich people would lose lots of money. People would be clearing out of Florida in droves. All the million-dollar condos by the waterfront would be worthless. Commerce in the Southeast would come to a screeching halt.

        Better to keep people in the dark about it until it's too late, meanwhile milking them for every last cent possible until no longer milkable.

        I live on the Florida Panhandle and also own two rental houses here, and I'm selling them all (I hope!) and clearing out of here before the next hurricane season. But most people around here don't believe in global warming or that worse hurricane seasons are here to stay, and developing is still under way bigtime.

  •  I just can't wait (4.00)
    until large portions of the world are underwater and the wingers come out and say "nobody could have predicted this.  Nobody saw it coming.  It was just so sudden and so devastating, we didn't have a chance to respond.  And besides, the newspaper headlines I saw said we'd dodged a bullet on Global Warming."

    If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell

    by nilocjin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:48:22 AM PST

  •  Great diary (none)
    I'd recommend just for the "Brit Wolf/Wolf Hume" line (did Brit Blitzer sound just a little too silly?), but there's plenty of nice meat in there with those potatoes.

    "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

    by RubDMC on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:57:23 AM PST

  •  "The Trashman Speweth" (none)
    Typical of the warming 'skeptics' is Steven J. Milloy of and - you peeked! - Fox News Channel. From PRWatch:
    "'Junk science' is faulty scientific data and analysis used to further a special agenda," Milloy's website proclaims. The practitioners of junk science, he says, include environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear activists, animal rights activists, the EPA, Al Gore, people with illnesses, and anyone who dares to question the excesses of our corporate-driven industrial society.

    In addition to disputing the scientific basis for these concerns, Milloy frequently accuses the questioners of tainted motives. The media, he says, uses junk science to advance particular social and political agendas. Trial lawyers use it to "bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts." Social activists use it to achieve social and political change. Government bureaucrats use it to fatten their budgets. Businesses use junk science to trash competitors' products or promote their own. Politicians use it to "curry favor with special interest groups or to be 'politically correct.'" Individual scientists seek fame and fortune. People who are sick, "real or imagined," draw on junk science "to blame others for causing their illness."

    Conversely, "sound science" in Milloy's book seems to be any science that makes it impossible to point the finger of blame--a definition that perfectly suits many of the corporations for which he has worked. For years, Milloy was registered as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a Washington, DC firm whose clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. The clients for whom Milloy was personally registered included Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council. Both Milloy and the EOP Group claim that he no longer works there, but he was still registered as an EOP lobbyist as recently as the summer of 1999.

    In 1997 and 1998, Milloy was also executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a pro-industry coalition created in 1993 to promote "sound science" in policy decision-making. TASSC, which is not currently active, claims more than 400 corporate members representing chemical, agricultural, manufacturing, oil, dairy, timber, paper and mining interests. Supporters include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, the Louisiana Chemical Association, the National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp., and W.R. Grace & Co.

    Milloy also ran the Environmental Policy Analysis Network (EPAN), a right-wing, Washington-based think tank affiliated with the libertarian, anti-regulatory and anti-environmental movements. His website notes his authorship of a paper titled "Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process," which argues that many environmental risks are minuscule and can't be proven.

    Milloy is currently an "adjunct scholar" with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, DC that has received funding from the American Farm Bureau Federation, several large oil companies, big tobacco, pharmaceutical giants, and agricultural chemical and biotechnology manufacturers. The Cato Institute has published two books by Milloy, Science Without Sense and Silencing Science, the latter with co-author Michael Gough, a former fellow Cato adjunct scholar.

    Chris Mooney comments here. Predictably, here's a current item from Milloy's site:
    60 Minutes' Fails to Disclose Background of Climate "Expert" - 60 Minutes failed to disclose the background of its featured global warming expert on last night's segment entitled, "Global Warning!"

    60 Minutes billed Bob Corell as "among the world's top authorities on climate change" since he "led" 300 scientists from eight nations in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment."

    Before going into Corell's undisclosed background, readers ought to know that Corell's Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- purporting to link melting Arctic ice with manmade global warming -- is self-debunking as we pointed out on in November 2004. The real question to ask is "What Arctic Warming?"

    Corell's alarmism is suspect -- but perhaps not the reason that 60 Minutes withheld full disclosure about him.

    First, Corell has been a global warming alarmist since the 1980s when he was at the National Science Foundation. He appears to have made up his mind about global warming way before he led the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment to its junk science-based -- if not pre-determined -- conclusion.

    Corell is an "affiliate" of The Washington Advisory Group, a Washington, DC-based consulting firm that does not list it clients. Washington Advisory Group is owned by LECG Corporation -- a business that provides "objective expert testimony, independent and authoritative studies and strategic advice and consulting to assist complex negotiations, or help inform judges, juries, regulators and legislators." Corell's bio indicates that his work is sponsored, in part, by the Packard Foundation -- a left-leaning charitable foundation that believes manmade greenhouse gases are adversely impacting climate and should be reduced.

    Contrary to the impression that 60 Minutes left with viewers, Corell may not be some unbiased "expert" -- he appears to be one of the leaders of the international movement that wants to cram so-called "sustainable development" and greenhouse gas regulation down our throats regardless of the facts.

    Talk about 'self-debunking' that supposed to be an 'indictment' of Bob Corell? Where's the beef?
    •  No, no, no, no. no, no, no. (none)

      is when people in South Korea make a mash out of kim chee and feed it to the chickens to prevent avian flu. At least if the chickens die, they can say it was kim chee that killed them, not the flu.

      "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

      by martyc35 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:01:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmm (none)
      They're obviously under the impression that being well-informed about the issue and drawing conclusions from readily available facts means 'bias.'  Especially if the guy came from the dirty dirty pinko commie era of Reaganism, where global warming was developed as a theory by the KGB to destabilize the west.  Obviously this guy is an operative for the KGB, anyone can see this.
  •  Contacting CBS re - 60 Minutes G Warming program (none)
    Another group I am a member of, sent this out early in the week-end to alert us to the upcoming  segment on 60 Minutes.  Although not a direct link to Scott Pelley, obviously Robin was involved in the production and would be a good person to email your praise to (edited for space):

    ...My name is Robin Sanders, and I work at CBS News. I wanted to let you know about a story that "60 Minutes" will be airing this Sunday on climate change and global warming. It's an incredibly interesting piece, and we're trying to get the word out beforehand to as many people as possible who might have a particular interest in this subject....The story will be broadcast on CBS stations on at 7:00 ET/PT on Sunday, February 19. Further details will be posted on our website, which you're welcome to link to from your own site.... Please don't hesitate to [contact] me if you have any questions. My e-mail is

    Best,  Robin Sanders, CBS News 60 Minutes


  •  It's becoming utterly absurd (4.00)
    In the face of evidence of a massive earthquake from bystanders: laymen and experts, from news people and photographers, do we want to hear from someone who says there was no earthquake?

    This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

    by Agathena on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:33:49 AM PST

    •  So True, (none)
      I truly would not have been shocked, dismayed yes, but not shocked if Fox had found experts back in Sept. to say Katrina might not have been a hurricane.  I do NOT say this lightly, I take NOTHING lightly about the devastation of lives and communities, but Agathena makes a good point on the absurdity of a required counterpoint.
      Of course I am not 100% correct on the fact that there are those that say Katrina was not, in fact, a hurricane.  Remember all our homeowner insurance companies?  They are refusing to pay based on the flooding Katrina caused even with eyewitness testimony on properties where the wind took a structure before the storm surge swept away what was left.
      So I guess next time there is a tornado here in the Midwest we are screwed, it usually rains at some point in a storm spawning a tornado; guess a land locked farmer better start applying for flood insurance in case it rains after his home, barn and farm equipment blow into the next county and get WET.

      REAL NEWS-"The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Richard Reeves

      by Oke on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:11:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All that is needed is a clause (none)
        following 'hurricane' or 'tornado' stating

        "and all the ensuing damage that arises from such a natural catastrophe for(a reasonable time limit)"

        Something like that, in my humble non-legal, non-insurance opinion.


        This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

        by Agathena on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:50:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  God (4.00)
    I thought the era of "Go find someone who believes something different--even if it's wrong--and we'll put them on" was on us for good. Thank you thank you

    And thank you CBS, for a moment of hope that real reporters and investigators still exist.

    You didn't do it.

    by Earl on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:50:21 AM PST

  •  Starting to grow some guts (4.00)

    These guys are starting to grow some guts.

    BTW, the idea that atmospheric CO2 contributes to warming the earth dates back to some time near 1900. It was generally accepted science when I was in HS and college around 1950. It didn't become "controversial" until it was suggested that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in average temperature.

  •  Dems won't make the environment an issue. (none)
    Kerry sure didn't. He was afraid it would cost him the votes of industrial workers in Ohio and Michigan. Guess what. Industrial workers want their kids to have a clean environment just like suburban soccer moms and red state hunters do.

    Democrat politicians need to grow some balls and stand up for what's right.

    •  Right, sure ... (none)
      How many Kerry stump speeches did you personally hear? How many transcripts have you read of what Kerry said?

      I saw him 3 different times in person. All three times, he had a strong message about pollution and poisoning of our air, water and food.  

      Ya, if you get your news at CNN, you are 100% correct.

      I am really getting sick of these attacks, based upon CNN Headline News coverage.

      "Democrat politicians need to grow some balls and stand up for what's right."????

      No, you need to spend a little more time helping get their message out, rather than doing Karl Rove's job for him.


      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:21:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm biting my tongue. (none)
        I've met Kerry and worked for him a week down in Florida at my expense prior to the election. I have lot of respect for him. He ran a crummy campaign.

        I tried to respond to you by email in more graphic detail.Your profile has a phoney addy. Consider yourself fortunate.

  •  Beautiful! (none)
    I loved that frickin' report. I've watched 60 Minutes for 30 years or basically defines the genre of long form journalism. They're not always right or out front, but they're usually close. They make me think, get nauseous or both. They rock.

    BTW I love O'Reilly's latest jihad! He compares media critic Neal Gabler to a rabid dog. Really!

  •  A reminder .. (none)
    US and oil lobby oust climate change scientist

    Julian Borger in Washington
    Saturday April 20, 2002
    The Guardian

    The head of the international scientific panel on climate change, which has called for urgent action to curb global warming, was deposed yesterday after a campaign by the Bush administration, Exxon-Mobil and other energy companies to get him replaced.
    At a plenary session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Robert Watson, a British-born US atmospheric scientist who has been its chairman since 1996, was replaced by an Indian railway engineer and environmentalist, R K Pachauri

    I bet George didn't ask Mr Watson to join them for lunch..

  •  Phony scientists (none)
    I'm reminded of Austria's conviction of the bogus historian David Irving for denying that the Holicost happened in WWII.

    I wonder if the standards of "balanced journalism" demand that Irving be given equal time in a documentary about what went on in Auswitz?

    •  Argh (none)
      I despise prefessional Holocaust deniers. Having said that, this amounts to a "hate speech" crime and I detest those laws everywhere. These laws tend to undermine ALL free speech and, granted this case was in Austria, they are one step away from "hate thought" laws where it will be illegal to even THINK prohibited thoughts.

      I predict such laws against having certain thoughts will soon be proposed right here at home and will be accepted by the sheeple with nary a whimper. The neo-sedition crowd will get their foot in the door here. All those new prisons being built by Haliburton will need a full complement of inmates in order to show a profit.

      A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

      by Paper Cup on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:49:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just reminded... (none)
    ... between this story and some sigs, of another quote from 1984:

    "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that is granted, all else follows."

    "A truth is not hard to kill... a lie told well is immortal." - Mark Twain

    by The Damned Yankee on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:19:06 PM PST

  •  pathetically refreshing indeed. (4.00)
    I think it was Krugman who wrote:

    "If Bush came out and announced the Earth is flat, the headlines would read 'SHAPE OF EARTH, OPINIONS DIFFER'".

    "You poor, hollow, blood-painted clowns." - Hunter

    by Roadie on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:48:52 PM PST

  •  We should send letters of support!! (none)
    Please! They need to hear when they do a good job:)
  •  Good catch (4.00)
    I'm sure the Wingnuts will demand equal time for their "global warming is a myth" argument, and make a much bigger stink out of the "leftwing bias" in the story than addressing the issue itself.

    Don't you know, working the refs is all they have.

  •  Michael Crichton (none)
    is NOT a science fiction writer.  As a former member of Science Fiction Writers of America, I find using that term to describe him insulting to the Real Deal: Robert Forward, Vernor Vinge, C.J. Cherryh, Susan Schwartz,de Camp, Asimov, Heinlein, et al.

    Crichton writes issue-oriented best sellers,a nd has more in common ith Dan Brown and Danielle Steel than with any SWFA members.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:56:10 PM PST

  •  sorry here's the full link (none)

    when you get there, just click the link to each week's video

  •  The majority of the press is complicit (none)
    in the dissemination of lies and distortions, by putting forth the canard that "every issue has two sides". Paid by multi-nationals like GE, one of the most eggregious of environmental destroyers, it's little surprise that science is under attack.

    Scientific ethics are secondary to profits.

    Corporatist polluters and societal destroyers, who have everything to lose if science "wins" in the minds of the public, are desperate to co-opt the political process. Science gets in the way of profits. Science puts the brakes on the mass poisoning of people, of our planet, and we are talking about trillions and trillions of dollars here.

    It's a cordinated effort between government, power brokers, religious fundamental lunatics and corporatists, working in close co-operation putsch towards a "common goal": to smash the credibility of science. It is just an extension of the melding of the State and Industry, with the 4th Estate singing back-up vocal to the heavy grunge of the planet-destroyers.

    It is a small, very small safe zone of sanity on the MSM that 60 minutes populates. I have rarely been disappointed by their productions. Ya, they make mistakes. They are human - at least they do not sing liked a caged bird, being feed laced bird seed.

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:15:28 PM PST

Serephin, pontificator, Leslie in CA, Common Sense, Kimberley, Al Rodgers, edverb, Alumbrados, paradox, Hunter, MichaelPH, SlackerInc, Angie in WA State, Doug in SF, stevelu, DeminNewJ, Go Vegetarian, Terri, SteveLCo, JR, RF, cgeiger, Round Midnight, lapin, smithbm, Nathan in MN, lanshark, JoelK in AZ, jimrice, Kelk, Ben P, Rayne, SarahLee, dalemac, alyosha, teacherken, chassler, gogol, AlanF, gustafgrapple, joejoejoe, Hudson, moon in the house of moe, yerioy, sharronmar, Geenius at Wrok, lrhoke, Joan McCarter, ubikkibu, Raybin, tiggers thotful spot, Gooserock, mndan, Unstable Isotope, maynard, saraswati, madmsf, MeanBoneII, fergusonforcongress, stumpy, Reino, wytcld, Winger, Kire, gorlim, JTML, Grand Moff Texan, Lahdee, karlpk, Stoy, Shockwave, Titian, JulieIde, donna in evanston, Xan, rogun, bramish, liz, democat, Ralfast, greatbasin2, Stein, bawbie, Mnemosyne, Dan Hrkman, Ed Tracey, tryptamine, TX Unmuzzled, polecat, HootieMcBoob, figdish, DFWmom, frisco, dash888, ZAPatty, marjo, MatthewBrown, shpilk, Carnacki, Abou Ben Adhem, Matilda, object16, Joe B, MarkInSanFran, mataliandy, exNYinTX, jancw, zeitshabba, Ruth in OR, Cecrops Tangaroa, Vitarai, mbguenth, strengthANDwisdom, sclminc, memberofthejury, Plan9, kissfan, daaawi, RubDMC, lgrooney, eyeswideopen, fabacube, Cho, ellisande, bronte17, EricS, smugbug, Dusty, diplomatic, corndog, baba durag, bonddad, guyute16, Zwackus, nyceve, jem6x, Ti Jean, wvillmike, ScantronPresident, PlaneCrazy, Baldwiny, Loquatrix, HippyWitch, SusanHu, Akapl, quake, miholo, KBnNC, boadicea, themank, mhale85, chuckvw, PBnJ, Glic, ksh01, chicagochamp, scamp, Scoopster, Porfiry, buckhorn okie, cookiebear, mrblifil, vmibran, Transmission, AaronS, luaptifer, roses, muffilator, bobinson, Dana in MN, javelina, peraspera, sgilman, L0kI, yamalicious, bincbom, luku, House, Fe, exconservative, superba, itskevin, maven98, PeteZerria, Boxers, not lois, Spindizzy, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, evansb2, Jesterfox, Iberian, petewsh61, arkdem, FlyLeft, antirove, CocoaLove, celticshel, cwech, wader, nio, Mauimom, SneakySnu, Oke, menodoc, Barbara Morrill, BurnetO, commons3nse, danthrax, sockpuppet, jakyra, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, Stand Strong, NYC Sophia, Miss Jones, DeadB0y, missliberties, bogdanmi, Chicago Lulu, crkrjx, Virago, alivingston, alt hitman, Red State Refugee, duncanidaho, cosette, PaulVA, venice ca, ppr, Black Maned Pensator, DSC on the Plateau, Penny Century, dwahzon, lizah, nika7k, snakelass, dnn, applegal, wecandoit7, HollywoodOz, Randomizer, osf, socal, Timbuk3, Eddie Haskell, Green Tea, 313to212, Thom K in CA, faithnomore, inclusiveheart, dcookie, walkshills, One bite at a time, Exurban Mom, Noisy Democrat, zappini, nycdemocrat, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Dr Seuss, xyz, HK, montanamatt, DarkSyde, bablhous, rickeagle, kd texan, homogenius, AlwaysDemocrat, Renaldo Migaldi, Alex in Osaka, rockmoonwater, Timroff, califdweller, pontechango, Shapeshifter, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, a517dogg, davidkc, leolabeth, vcmvo2, joanneleon, Bluesee, BadgerGirl, ManOnTheBench, Harkov311, pattyp, liberal atheist, Bensch, BluejayRN, jrieth, el dorado gal, lale, LarisaW, baccaruda, seesdifferent, WildRice, Chinton, ignorant bystander, tolerant, Louise526, Heronymous Cowherd, Geronimo, Webster, panicbean, clammyc, Bcre8ve, Mephistopheles, Northstar, station wagon, eightlivesleft, lil bird, juliesie, catleigh, KiaRioGrl79, Snoutboy, boofdah, eru, Mz Kleen, zackmann, IL dac, Morrigan, ncnygirl, freemark, Pam from Calif, Frank Palmer, truebeliever, tutone, concerned, Green1010, EconAtheist, jman, uato carabau, Jontown, skralyx, Kayakbiker, annefrank, Skid, SueDe, illyia, peaceandprogress, Cecile, Synergy, RElland, janew2, el zilcho, Shotput8, Zergle, sodalis, desordre remplir, Shaking the Tree, Cory Bantic, mkrc98, Shiborg, JanL, soyinkafan, george inness, bently, Cletus from Canuckistan, Strawberrybitch, AceDeuceLady, occams hatchet, JosephAZ, BachFan, steve nelson, Keone Michaels, highfive, Mat in IL, Job52, rbphilly, tjiowa, Ellicatt, martyc35, kestrel9000, buhdydharma, Catesby, dougymi, Squirrel2634, Magnifico, poichick, a gnostic, saxcat, dave1021, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, StrayCat, lbrasington, Lashe, Wharton, jmaps, OneCrankyDom, condoleaser, The Wife of Bath, Preston S, myzenthing, Andy30tx, middleagedhousewife, ShubTsaddiq, blitz boy, Southern Son, downrodeo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site