Former MSMer Brian Lambert, a man willing to embrace the false mantel of brave dissenter often in the past, becomes the latest jack-booted thug to join the chorus demanding that voices that dare question the supposedly accepted orthodoxy on climate change should now be silenced:
Where I think enough is now enough is on TV weather forecasts, and the op-ed pages of mainstream dailies.
With the notable exception of WCCO Television meteorologist Paul Douglas, who has been outspoken on the dangers of global warming for more than a decade, a reluctance to present the science of climate change seems pervasive among local weathermen.
"I think local television meteorologists, as station scientists, do have an obligation to report on this, to report the state of the science, free of politics or other influence. We're all accountable, and I think we ignore or trivialize this topic at our own peril," Douglas said.
I couldn't agree more. It's time to stop pandering to intentionally ill-informed partisans and steadily advance the public understanding of climate change.
Catch that? You're not merely ignorant, you're "intentionally ill-informed."
Newspapers also must stop playing the balanced-debate game and start ignoring the propaganda of partisan political columnists. Case in point: a syndicated column by Debra Saunders in the Star Tribune several weeks back. Capsule summary: Global warming = liberal BS. Why did they run it? What greater good was served?
Good Lord. Can you imagine if the "greater good" standard was applied to all the columns and editorials that appear in the opinion pages of the Strib? You'd be looking at a lot of white space.
You can encourage a productive debate over the troop surge in Iraq or how best to suppress Iran's nuclear ambitions. But another round of ridiculing concern over global warming?
At what point does an issue acquire both sufficient moral imperative and scientific foundation to make responsible journalists start rejecting counterfeit logic?
I'm not sure what the answer to Lambert's question is. But I sure as hell know that I don't want people like him making the call. The words "sufficient moral imperative" should frighten anyone with a genuine interest in free and open debate. I could probably list a dozen issues that I believe have a much higher "moral imperative" than climate change, but I have a hunch that if I was to suggest that debate should be stifled on any of them, Lambert would be among the first to howl in outrage. Free speech for me, not for thee.
Eric Ringham decides what syndicated copy runs on the Star Tribune's op-ed pages. "We have a little stable of conservatives to draw from," Ringham explained. "We are committed to running one of them every day. If they say something that is factually dishonest, I won't run the column. But mostly what we're talking about here is distortion. I won't run dishonesty. But I will run distortion. [Otherwise you wouldn't have any editorials] Because if I start drawing a line at distortion, pretty soon there is no opinion page."
Hmmm...Imagine there's no Strib opinion page. It's easy if you try. You may say I'm a dreamer...
I asked if he'd run a Holocaust-denial piece.
"No, I would not," he responded. "We've passed that line."
Ringham said the climate-change skeptics' arguments hold no appeal for him, but that the paper hasn't yet passed the line on global warming.
The climate, however, has passed the line. And news leaders, you should too.
The recent emergence of the comparison between those who question whether climate change is caused by humans and deniers of The Holocaust is despicable. The bottom line is that:
The Holocaust = History
Man-made climate change = Theory
For all the talk of "crushing of dissent," "questioning of patriotism," "building a theocracy," "trashing the Constitution," and "creating a climate of fear" in George Bush's Amerika, it's notable that at the end of the day, the only actual efforts to limit debate and free expression are coming from the Left. Imagine that.
UPDATE-- Thankfully, the New York Times did not get Lambert's message:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
No comments:
Post a Comment