FOX Alert: O'Reilly Factor Producer Asks DeSmogBlog to Provide Best Arguments Against Global Warming

Wed, 2014-02-19 11:54Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

FOX Alert: O'Reilly Factor Producer Asks DeSmogBlog to Provide Best Arguments Against Global Warming

Look out, folks. Bill O'Reilly is about to talk about global warming again on the O'Reilly Factor.

Of course, he's already reached his conclusion that “Nobody can control the climate but God.”  It's just that he doesn't have any data to back up his anti-science position. 

So he has one of his producers on the hunt today, apparently scrambling last minute, looking for “the very best arguments” to support climate change denial. Here's the email DeSmogBlog received this morning:   

I feel for O'Reilly's producers, honestly. It must be tough to face this “very tight deadline” problem when asked to provide factual support for a baseless, ideologically-motivated assumption.

Good luck, Robert and friends. It's a difficult job making stuff up so your boss can maintain his politically driven network's ignorance about climate science.  

Who knows, maybe he'll surprise us this time. Stay tuned. 

Previous Comments

Hilarious - but maybe you'd better redact the email address and phone number as Tamino did.

The ideology runs deep when they feel the need to keep lying. The good news is they've realised that the old lies they've been spouting, aren't good-enough anymore.

Only agree to participate if and only if dialog and all correspondence is in Latin. O'Reilly thinks of himself as the world's foremost Roman Catholic, so get all big “C” catholic on him. Here's an interesting website from Fordham (his alma mater I believe) on the correspondences between Galileo and many of the church hierarchy and royalty during the time of his incarceration.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp

Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
 
Here's the money quote at the end in bold. The “church” ended up accepting this as its position and does to this day regarding all things nature and science. In other words, “not our thing.”
 
From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that, since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: “That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes.”
 
[x]

Despite what you may have heard about the death of the coal industry, Peabody Energy is ramping up mining activities and going on the offensive, pushing “clean coal” on the world’s poor with a disingenuous but aggressive PR campaign. And for good reason: Peabody has got to sell the coal from...

read more