Newsweek Editor discredits GW Report from his own magazine

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Monday, Aug. 13, 2007 11:28 a.m. EDT

Newsweek Editor: Our Warming Story Contrived


A contributing editor at Newsweek magazine, Robert J. Samuelson, has sharply criticized his own publication for what he calls a "highly contrived” cover story about the global warming threat and the "denial machine” that seeks to debunk it.

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Samuelson writes: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale – as Newsweek did – in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge.”

He also writes: "Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week’s Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It’s an object lesson of how viewing the world as ‘good guys vs. bad guys’ can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story.”

Samuelson summarizes the Newsweek cover story this way: "A well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate chance. This ‘denial machine’ has obstructed action against global warming ... The story’s thrust: discredit the ‘denial machine,’ and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming.”

He called the cover article "a peripheral and highly contrived story.” For one thing, it implied that ExxonMobil, through a think tank, funded academics to criticize global warming science. But this charge "was long ago discredited, and Newsweek shouldn’t have lent it respectability,” Samuelson opined.

Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, also slammed the Newsweek cover story, as NewsMax.com reported last week.

Following the publication of Samuelson’s piece, he noted:

"Newsweek’s management must have realized that their global warming ‘denial’ cover story was so woeful that they were forced to run a complete rebuttal in the very next issue from one of their very own editors ... This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism.”

Morano said a Senate report is scheduled to be released in the fall that will feature hundreds of scientists "who have spoken out recently against [Al] Gore, the U.N., and the media-driven climate ‘consensus.’”

 

[Marcus]

"Contributing Editor" is not the same as "Editor". The title is honorary. He's a freelance writer who contributes columns to Newsweek and the Washington Post. In other words, he doesn't speak for the magazine, as your article implies. So this isn't a rebuttal by Newsweek's management , it's simply a rebuttal by one of their writers. Furthermore, Samuelson is a financial writer, not a scientist in any way shape or form. Not that it will make any difference to you, I'm sure.

His full essay can be found here. Yet despite the fact that he's no scientist, look at the last sentence in the first paragraph: "Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it." Something the good folks at NewsMax conveniently left out.

As for the rest of his article, he makes several claims, but doesn't back them up. He claims that the part about Exxon/Mobil paying scientists has been discredited, but uses denials made by Exxon/Mobil itself to back it up. Fact is, Exxon/Mobil has spent millions funding think tanks that dispute GW, and millions more on lobbying congress.

Oh and by the way, here the original Newsweek article that caused such a stir.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

 

[Marcus]

The thing that frustrates me the most about you guys is that you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there is a political agenda behind many of the "skeptics" and the groups behind them, yet you accuse the "alarmists" of some sort of devious plot to destroy civilization and turn over our sovereignty to the United Nations, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Exxon/Mobil is the largest corporation in the WORLD, whose very existence depend on our unending reliance on fossil fuels, but NO WAY would they ever try to manipulate public opinion to their own advantage? Puh-lease.

 

[shagdrum]

The whole global warming movement is a political agenda

There is ample evidence to support this claim (though u won't accept it, I'm sure)

 

[fossten]

The thing that frustrates me the most about you guys is that you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there is a political agenda behind many of the "skeptics" and the groups behind them, yet you accuse the "alarmists" of some sort of devious plot to destroy civilization and turn over our sovereignty to the United Nations, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Exxon/Mobil is the largest corporation in the WORLD, whose very existence depend on our unending reliance on fossil fuels, but NO WAY would they ever try to manipulate public opinion to their own advantage? Puh-lease.

Well, as usual you have things twisted around and back to front. Exxon/Mobil is the enemy? I've got news for you, pal, YOUR existence depends on the success of Exxon/Mobil. If not for them, you wouldn't be able to feed that big fat Lincoln you drive every day. If you really believed what you said, you'd sell that gas guzzler and buy a Prius and start using one square of toilet paper, you brobdingnagian hypocrite.

So why don't you swallow your hypocritical bullcrap and accept reality: Exxon/Mobil provides a service to the world and if it weren't for them, America would cease to be. And that is a fact.

It's amazingly ironic that you would patronize their product and bash them at the same time for trying to protect their own interests. Get off your self righteous, hypocritical soapbox and while you're at it, why don't you examine the money behind the GW hoax and see who's getting rich off carbon credits? I'll give you a hint: His initials are Albert Gore.

What a scintillating display of hypocrisy for you to excoriate Exxon/Mobil for having a vested interest in the GW [non]debate while you IGNORE the clearcut, obvious agenda of those who promote it. Why, how DARE a corporation try to maintain its bottom line! The sheer audacity of an American company to attempt to make a profit and stay in business! You just vote for Hillary and she'll sock it to those evil greedy big oil magnates! Then we'll go back to horse and buggy days when things were MUCH better off, right? And then you just sit back and let ol' big government take care of you from the cradle to the grave, right? After all, we all know that the only thing we should be depending on is big government and the never-to-be-sufficient kerosene!