Three weeks ago, Media Matters reported that Fox host John Stossel is scheduled to keynote an upcoming fundraising luncheon for a "research" organization with heavy ties to the energy industry and whose research and representatives have repeatedly appeared on Fox.
The organization, the Institute for Energy Research (IER), says on the event's website that Stossel will keynote the June 4 luncheon in Houston. IER confirmed to Media Matters today that Stossel will still be speaking at the event. IER said it had arranged Stossel's appearance through a speaker's bureau and had not been in touch with Fox. Last fall, The New York Times reported that "a Fox spokesperson said all speeches given by employees require approval from the network."
In the first quarter of 2010, Newt Gingrich's political committee received $350,000 in donations from a major coal producing company and a major oil and gas drilling company. During the same period, Gingrich repeatedly used his Fox News platform to attack Democratic proposals to implement a cap-and trade system or otherwise price carbon without disclosing those donations.
The conservative media have mounted an all-out attack on climate science in an attempt to discredit efforts to fight man-made global warming. Media Matters for America has debunked prominent myths and falsehoods associated with this smear campaign.
Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens erroneously suggested recent scientific research supports his claim that "global warming is dead." In fact, the scientists themselves have explicitly rejected such a conclusion.
From the April 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
From the April 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Loading the player reg...
Glenn Beck presents himself as an island of common sense in an increasingly senseless world. He says that he works hard to bring his audience an accurate portrayal of our country and its political realities. He claims to be someone who cares deeply about accuracy and facts. "I want to be wrong," he often says, brandishing a red phone (for corrections from the White House, should they arise) and lamenting that his grim views of Obama's initiatives are all too right
For this reason, it is important to consistently point out the relentless regularity with which Beck misleads his audience and engages in abject hypocrisy
On March 30, Greenpeace released a new study documenting how much money foundations operated by fossil-fuel magnates David and Charles Koch have spent to support think tanks and "research" designed to cast doubt on human-made climate change -- specifically, $48.5 million between 1997 and 2008. In recent years, that spending has accelerated, with $24.9 million distributed from 2005 to 2008. By comparison, the report points out that ExxonMobil spent a mere $24 million from 1997 to 2008 in its effort to sow public skepticism and undercut new environmental regulations
As Media Matters has detailed, for years the Koch brothers have been among the most prolific and deep-pocketed funders of the conservative movement. They sit at the top of the largest privately-owned energy company in the nation, Koch Industries, which makes its billions from oil and natural gas
But Beck's viewers have never heard the word "Koch" mentioned on his Fox show -- not once since it began on January 19, 2009. During that same time period, the phrase "special interests" -- a favorite target for Beck during monologues deploring how average Americans are being shut out of the political process -- was mentioned 121 times.
A March 30 FoxNews.com article advanced global warming skeptic Chris Horner's baseless claim that climate scientists' emails show that the U.K.'s Climatic Research Unit's (CRU) temperature data are inaccurate, and that NASA's, "by its own admission," "are in even worse shape." In fact, there is no evidence in any of the emails that show the data from either organization are wrong.
From a March 31 Associated Press article:
The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming -- two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
Climate Progress reports that tropical forest researcher Simon Lewis has filed an "official complaint to the UK's Press Complaints Commission." Lewis alleged that the Sunday Times misleadingly cited him in a January 31 article titled, "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim."
From Lewis' complaint (emphasis from Climate Progress):
Specifically, I consider this article to be materially misleading. I am the scientific expert cited in the article who was asked about the alleged "bogus rainforest claim". In short, there is no "bogus rainforest claim", the claim made by the UN panel was (and is) well-known, mainstream and defensible science, as myself and two other professional world-class rainforest experts (Professor Oliver Phillips and Professor Dan Nepstad) each told Jonathan Leake.
The Sunday Times knew that the UN panel report contained an incorrect reference relating to a sentence about the potential impacts of climate change on the Amazon rainforest, and not an error of science. Yet, the Sunday Times published inaccurate, misleading and distorted information which would lead any reasonable person to assume that the UN report had included information that was not backed by the best scientific information available at the time. Furthermore, they used highly selective reporting to imply, by omission, that a leading expert - myself - concurred with them that the IPCC had published an incorrect scientific claim. This is not the truth, and not what I told the Sunday Times, and therefore I consider the article materially misleading.
I suspect that the Sunday Times may claim that it did not state in the main body of the article that the statement in the UN report was scientifically correct or not, and that the article was about the IPCC making a mistake. Yet, according to the Editor's code this is immaterial: "Stories that are technically accurate can still be misleading or distorted leaving the reader with a false impression. Sometimes the problem is more because of what they don't say than what they do, and that -whether intentional or not -can breach the Code."
The Sunday Times contention that the IPCC had made a mistake in the reporting of scientifically credible statements was then widely re-reported, in part because the Sunday Times used my expertise to lend credibility to the assertion, due in part to the concealment of my views that the statement in question was fully in line with scientific knowledge at the time the IPCC report was written.
Following publication, I posted a very short comment on the Sunday Times website, below the article, on the afternoon of Sunday 31 January, stating that I was the expert cited in Jonathan Leake's article, that the article was misleading, as there was no 'bogus rainforest claim', and posted a link to the BBC whom I also gave an interview with, to which I gave broadly similar information as to the Sunday Times, but was accurately reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8488395.stm, reproduced as Appendix 4). My posted comment was deleted from the Sunday Times website.
I also wrote a letter to the Sunday Times, emailed on Tuesday 2 February, to explain the distortion and errors in the article, for publication the following Sunday, copying in the lead author of the article, Jonathan Leake, which was neither acknowledged, nor published (see
Appendix 2 for a copy of the letter).
The deletion of my comment on the website, and failure to publish my letter would appear to be in breach of point 1) Accuracy, ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
As I have tried to correct the record in the Sunday Times, and the Sunday Times has not cooperated, and would like the public record to be correct in this matter, (reluctantly) I ask that the PCC fully investigate the case, and the Commission then make a ruling. I hope that in the course of the investigation the Sunday Times will adhere to the highest standards of accuracy, openness and clarity in their submissions to the PCC, as the article, and accompanying editorial related to the article ('Bad science needs good scrutiny') are themselves about the importance of taking the utmost care in reporting science.
I detail the misleading claims in the article in a series of sections below.
The right-wing media's tendency to believe anything that bolsters their worldview is well-documented. Last October, for example, they rushed to trumpet a blogger's entirely unsourced claim that President Obama attacked the Founders and the Constitution in his college thesis, only to end up looking extremely foolish once it became clear that the initial blog post that started the firestorm was tagged "Satire."
So you'll probably guess where I'm going when I mention that several right-wing news sources -- including Fox News -- today jumped on an EcoEnquirer.com report that "Famed global warming activist James Schneider and a journalist friend were both found frozen to death on Saturday, about 90 miles from South Pole Station."
Yup, EcoEnquirer.com is a satire site currently fronting "Breaking News" about the successful 2027 Bali global warming conference. Other EcoEnquirer.com stories include "U.S.-Canada Border Conflict Continues" and "EPA to Mandate Reductions in Emissions from Volcanoes."
The wall of shame is below the fold:
Sarah Palin, the former half-term Governor of Alaska, has inked a deal with Discovery Communications' The Learning Channel (TLC) for her very own reality show - one that will apparently spotlight the natural wonders of her beautiful home state.
Perhaps all of the irony is lost on Palin and the folks at TLC.
I find it hilarious that Palin, who couldn't complete a full term as Alaska Governor, will be headlining a reality show produced by Mark Burnett, the creator of CBS's Survivor?
The entire concept is just as funny, perhaps unintentionally. Palin, a contributor for the climate science denying Fox News Channel, someone with an appalling record when it comes to nature and the environment in her own right... hosting a show like this? It's almost too much.
What's next for TLC? A spin-off of NBC's The Marriage Ref hosted by Tiger Woods? Jon & Kate get back together in a touching reunion show live from a Tea Party protest?
As for Palin, her record on the environment speaks for itself and it doesn't have much that's nice to say.
From the March 11 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 1 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn and Rose:
Loading the player reg...