Some folks donโt get that itโs a two-way conversation now โ and some folks, Al Gore among them, donโt want a two-way conversation:
Last Saturday, one of the nationโs leading climate alarmists โ a government employee with a history of attacking people that donโt agree with his views on anthropogenic global warming โ wrote rather disparagingly about a somewhat satirical NewsBusters piece.
Despite claiming he typically doesnโt comment on things โwritten about climate change in the more excitable parts of [sic] web,โ NASAโs Gavin Schmidt took time out of his busy Saturday schedule to respond to something he described as โprobably the most boneheaded article that I have seen in ages.โ
Was this an effort by one of the founding members of RealClimate โ the worldโs leading website specializing in climate change hysteria โ to correct errors he felt existed in my article? Or, was this a predictable attack on a popular conservative blog that not only regularly exposes the one-sided nature of media reports about global warming, but also frequently brings attention to studies that go counter to RealClimateโs, and maybe more importantly, Schmidtโs views?
After all, to climate alarmists like Schmidt, media shouldnโt be reporting the realist (nee โskepticalโ) side of this issue as was made perfectly clear by Nobel Laureate Al Gore during an interview with NBCโs Meredith Vieira during the November 5, 2007, installment of the โTodayโ show:
[P]art of the challenge the news media has had in covering this [global warming] story is the old habit of taking the โon the one hand, on the other handโ approach. There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. But when youโre reporting on a story like the one youโre covering today, where you have people all around the world, you donโt take, you donโt search out, for someone who still believes the earth is flat and give them equal time.
As an example of how conservative views get misrepresented, and an example of how to respond, the whole thing is worth reading.






Comments