Columbia Journalism Review was once a publication respected by most who work in media. No more.
Splashed across the front page of the magazine website is this headline:
“Strange bedfellows: Climate change deniers, newspapers partner in a FOIA fight”
The article was written by Alexis Sobel Fitts, an editor at CJR. Note Fitts is not a scientist. She is not a climatologist or even a statistician. She is a freelance writer who self-describes as having “completed a year studying science journalism at the Columbia University School of Journalism as a Robert Woods Johnson Foundation fellow in 2013.”
For starters, the term ‘climate change deniers’ is an outright lie. No one in his or her right mind denies the phenomenon of climate change on this planet because it is a simple matter to prove it. Dinosaurs and numerous other species are extinct. The Grand Canyon is a wondrous natural creation. Tectonic plates shifted in ancient times. And so forth and so on.
The current debate propagandized as climate change masks the debate about whether carbon emissions will yield a rise in temperatures so drastic that havoc will result on the planet. The debate does not take into account known contributors to climate change—overgrazing (particularly in nomadic societies), deforestation (Somalia as well as countries where cocaine production is rampant), diversion of waterways impacting agriculture (see India and China), solar flares, earthquakes, and natural weather events that can sometimes wreak more havoc than they should because of poor conservation management.
There is no such thing as a climate change denier.
The term ‘denier’ is a pejorative, just like any other hate label designed to stifle a dissenting voice.
The use of that label has become so vicious, Dr. Roy Spencer responded to it appropriately:
“They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazis’ extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people ‘global warming Nazis’.”
Dr. Spencer has a Ph.D. in meteorology and a solid background in the subject at hand. He dares to disagree with global warmists about carbon emissions. Fitts (has there ever been a more perfect name for a prog?) would consider Spencer a “denier.”
Making a sordid situation even worse again, Fitts gives credence to secrecy on the part of warmists like Michael Mann, whose controversial hockey stick graph contributed significantly to big hikes in the cost of the energy we use to cook, heat and cool our homes, and other activities.
Mann and his fellow warmists don’t want emails about their research made public. You and I helped pay for that research, but he doesn’t want us to have access to what is essentially taxpayer intellectual property as much as academic property.
If a government project does not involve sensitive national security matters that might jeopardize our safety, that project should be transparent. There can be no debate about that in a free society.
Fitts’ editorial—it is not a news article and should have never been placed on the front page as such because she chose to exploit a political label—falls into the anti-First Amendment sector bent on silencing anyone who disagrees with the status quo. She gives lip service to those who disagree with Mann and his fellow experts’ (they are not all climatologists or even scientists) theories on warming, but the use of the term ‘deniers’ gives this writer’s bias away as clearly as the snout on a pig.
Fitts concludes her piece of work (and it is a real piece of work) with a question put forth by Mann’s attorney:
“Who in a private university is going to want to correspond with a colleague at a public university if they know that their correspondence could be posted on the Web?”
There’s a clear answer to that question.
Only an honest expert would want to do that.
Warmists, funded by billions of taxpayer dollars, have gone in the opposite direction to advance their own agendas and in many cases, their own bank accounts.
Technically, if those who want more debate about the causes of climate change are deniers, those who demand a fascist no-questions-asked approach should indeed be called Nazis although the use of that term makes me as uncomfortable as Fitts’ use of the term deniers.
Meanwhile, concerns about the involvement of organized crime and the green money bubble have surfaced abroad. Fitts and her like-minded ideologues haven’t given much attention to that. Congress should.
Wow, even MSM reporters want to see Michael Mann’s UVA emails now (WattsUpWithThat?)
(Opinion by Kay B. Day/March 20, 2014)