By TIM KILLEEN
Loyal readers will know that I'm a fairly frequent watcher of both Hannity and Glenn Beck. I watch these shows not because I agree with what they say (it's an amazingly rare occasion), but to know what's being told to so many viewers who do- and to be able to say I don't get only one side of the story. Anyone else who watches these programs will also know that the hosts both take every opportunity they can to make global warming out to be a hoax.
A few months back The Sunday Times printed a story about emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that contained words like "trick" and "hide" in regards to global warming. Immediately thereupon, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others used what they dubbed "climategate" as pure and absolute proof that global warming did not exist. I recall one or the other of the FOX hosts (hard to distinguish their words sometimes) saying something to the effect of "Is there any doubt now that global warming is a hoax?"
Well, a panel of scientists at Penn State University has (for the second time) declared that Dr. Michael E. Mann, the climate scientist whose emails were printed by The Times, did not seriously deviate "from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Additionally, The Times has retracted and apologized for a number of misquotes and inaccurate reports it made about the "climategate scandal." So, if evidence of fudging scientific data is proof that global warming is fake, then evidence of fudging journalistic sources should be proof that it's real, right? We'll see.
Having been away most of the week, I wasn't able to keep up with my Hannity-and-Beck-tracking quite as faithfully as usual, so I admit that I'm not sure exactly how they've been covering (if they have at all) the retractions from The Times and the exoneration of Dr. Mann. However, everyone knows from past experience that a lie can linger long after it's been disproved and that retractions are rarely as publicized as juicy false stories. It's likely that those who heard about "climategate" and believed it will either hear about these new revelations and fail to consider them or will simply not hear of them at all. The latter would be a sad happening, but the former would be the worst. When you are finally served a plate of humble pie, the courageous thing to do is simply to eat it.
Loyal readers will know that I'm a fairly frequent watcher of both Hannity and Glenn Beck. I watch these shows not because I agree with what they say (it's an amazingly rare occasion), but to know what's being told to so many viewers who do- and to be able to say I don't get only one side of the story. Anyone else who watches these programs will also know that the hosts both take every opportunity they can to make global warming out to be a hoax.
A few months back The Sunday Times printed a story about emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that contained words like "trick" and "hide" in regards to global warming. Immediately thereupon, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others used what they dubbed "climategate" as pure and absolute proof that global warming did not exist. I recall one or the other of the FOX hosts (hard to distinguish their words sometimes) saying something to the effect of "Is there any doubt now that global warming is a hoax?"
Well, a panel of scientists at Penn State University has (for the second time) declared that Dr. Michael E. Mann, the climate scientist whose emails were printed by The Times, did not seriously deviate "from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Additionally, The Times has retracted and apologized for a number of misquotes and inaccurate reports it made about the "climategate scandal." So, if evidence of fudging scientific data is proof that global warming is fake, then evidence of fudging journalistic sources should be proof that it's real, right? We'll see.
Having been away most of the week, I wasn't able to keep up with my Hannity-and-Beck-tracking quite as faithfully as usual, so I admit that I'm not sure exactly how they've been covering (if they have at all) the retractions from The Times and the exoneration of Dr. Mann. However, everyone knows from past experience that a lie can linger long after it's been disproved and that retractions are rarely as publicized as juicy false stories. It's likely that those who heard about "climategate" and believed it will either hear about these new revelations and fail to consider them or will simply not hear of them at all. The latter would be a sad happening, but the former would be the worst. When you are finally served a plate of humble pie, the courageous thing to do is simply to eat it.
No comments:
Post a Comment