Science versus Fiction

Here's a classic example of the perversity that can arise out of “balanced” media coverage of climate change. This Detroit News story purports to give evenhanded coverage to a story about a science teacher who have the temerity to show An Inconvenient Truth in her classroom, only to endure criticism from people who dispute its underlying “philosophy.”

The worst part was the list of additional sources that the News provides. The offer a couple of very serious science sites - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and th Environmental Protection Agency. And they offer a couple of “public service” sites offering honest-to-goodness educational material on climate change. Then they add the “other side:” the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

So, you wind up with legitimate science “balanced” by two groups: one (CEI) which has a climate change position that is so discredited that even Exxon Mobil won't give them money any more; and the other (NRSP) which is led by a phoney climate change “expert” (Tim Ball) who has done almost no research in the field, who barely ever published and who consistently finds it necessary to misrepresent his credentials to get people to take him seriously.

This is not balanced journalism. It's slop.


i.e. he thinks everyone with opposing view must, be definition, be corrupt.

The “who pays your bills” approach is an idiots’ approach. It does not work with the sceptics, who merely counter with the same red herring questions and innuendos. Who pays the environmental organizations’ bills, etc. etc.
    And the sceptics are right in this sense: that in this day of NGO and “civil society” politics, arguments drawn from the heyday of the nation state and liberal parliamentarianism are futile.
    The result of all this argument over funding and sponsorship is a diversive dogfight which serves to distract attention from the reality that the “sceptics’ ” “solution” to climate change, large-scale environmentally disastrous engineering, is proceeding apace, and according to all the circumstantial evidence has probably been in very large scale application for more than a few years now.
    To the extent that this is the case, the climate change awareness movement that ignores this is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
    Suggestions that Timothy Ball is complicit in bribing journalists are not going to shut him up. They will only make him more determined to continue doing what he is doing, Is this the point of these jibes doubtless unthinkingly reproduced by Ian Forrester?
    Nor can the behaviour of journalists be changed by making such unsubstantiated claims.
    I have managed to get Timothy Ball on the defensive
(click HERE) so that he wants me never to contact him or write to him. Does anyone want to learn how to do this or do we keep playing the “who pays your bills” game forever?

I’m thankful that my kids, who were independent thinkers in their teens anyway, were never exposed to brainwashing in the public schools. That used to be a no-no but now we have that smarmy con-artist, Suzuki, making his Calgary pitch to K - 6 students (yes, that’s right, even KINDERGARTEN kids) and shamelessly shaking them down for a “school donation.” No scruples, no shame. Although it pained me to make a donation to Gore’s cause, I went to see “Inconvenient B.S.” because I wanted to see what all the fuss is about. The last movie I saw with any similar content was Elmer Gantry. (Remember that one Richard? If not, think real life - Jimmy Swaggert and the Bakkers.) The only comparable effort that I’ve seen on the side of rationality is “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled”. It’s a bit heavy-handed too, but compared to Gore’s masterpiece, it’s the epitome of even-handed comment. Show the two together, and the youngsters would have something to chew on. That’s what scholarship should be all about, but the last thing that global warmers want is the least dissent from their dogma.

I might have known that my reference to the FoS vdeo wouldn’t make it past your Spam filter. Typical global warmer approach to any questioning of the dogma.

the desmogblog spin machine. Every argument or fact questioning their dogma has to be deleted, changed, and/or smeared.

They don’t allow facts or legitimate arguments appear on their pages. Must be why so many of your comments get through.

THE SKY IS FALLING !THE SKY IS FALLING ! ———————————————-Y2Kyoto - Methane fireballs tear across the sky The benefits of global warming just keep piling up. Not only will rising oceans shorten your drive to the beach and make those Canadian waters warmer, now you’ll get evening entertainment, too. So pull up a chair, open a beer, put on your tinfoil hat and watch those methane fireballs: ———————————————————— +6.4°: Most of life is exterminated Warming seas lead to the possible release of methane hydrates trapped in sub-oceanic sediments: methane fireballs tear across the sky, causing further warming. The oceans lose their oxygen and turn stagnant, releasing poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas and destroying the ozone layer. Deserts extend almost to the Arctic. “Hypercanes” (hurricanes of unimaginable ferocity) circumnavigate the globe, causing flash floods which strip the land of soil. Humanity reduced to a few survivors eking out a living in polar refuges. Most of life on Earth has been snuffed out, as temperatures rise higher than for hundreds of millions of years.

Exactly what point are you trying to make, ZOG? Is this your best example of sound, unemotional argument? If so, I think I’ll stick with the alarmists for a little while longer…

In the 1970’s it was global freezing, and by 2000 we would be out of oil.(oops global predictions were wrong) Today its gore mania, tomorrow the “tooth fairy”.


The myth that won’t die. I should try writing this as a macro on my computer and assign it a shortcut key.

Actually it was called “Global Cooling” and when you have all the facts it turns out there was no consensus on it and the author of the ONE paper that extrapolated from a 30 year trend.

It was the media who picked it up and ran with it because they’re trying to sell magazines and papers.

Here’s everything that can be found about it:

is why schools are allowed to show political propaganda films, such as Gore’s and Moore’s, while disguising them as documentaries?

Maybe because the propagandistic elements are outweighed by the effective communication of many factual elements. Where were you when they were showing, “You can’t be cool without fuel”?

J I K, if these two videos were presented as part of a course curiculum in applied science Gore’s would get at least a B+ where as the one by FOS (assuming it contains the same pseudo-science as on their web page) would get a failing grade.


Are you saying this teacher was actually subjected, and forced to endure criticism?!

Is there no end to the depravity of these brazen, villanous skeptics?? First they deny, and now they even go so far as to criticise!

If that’s not a HATE CRIME, I don’t know what is.