The New York Times has the latest story on how "fair and balanced" news broadcasting allows crazy arguments equal time to be fair (to the insane apparently). It happened with cigarettes (Oncologist vs. Tobacco Institute guy) ; evolution (Biologist vs. Jesus-Horse guy), Iraq ("Hollywood Celebrity" vs. "Random Kagan"): and now global warming and the very "Bush-Era-Named", Global Climate Coalition.
By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.
George Monbiot, a British environmental activist and writer, said that by promoting doubt, industry had taken advantage of news media norms requiring neutral coverage of issues, just as the tobacco industry once had.
“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”
Yep, just like the tobacco companies before them.
a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
And the GOP for either short-term gain, or just having to follow people like Limbaugh firing up their pinhead base as made global warming an issue of party-identity. If you admit the truth, you have to apologize and shut the fuck up. So "NO" to global warming being addressed at all. Add another item to the Party of "NO".
Republicans the Party of NO to everything, except, ironically Torture which they are four-square behind.
"Yes to Torture, No to Everything Else" -- that's quite a Platform they're building.