Confidence… thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live

Exposed: Glenn Beck’s Climate of Distortion

But Beck’s depiction of the supposed “difference” between Gore’s statements and the IPCC’s relied on a false comparison. While the IPCC projected a maximum 23-inch sea-level rise before 2100 as a result of rising temperatures, Gore’s statement predicted a 20-foot rise in sea levels if the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets were to melt or collapse at an indefinite point in the future. Indeed, while Beck purported to contrast the two scenarios, “when spread out over a century,” even New York Times science writer William J. Broad — who, as Media Matters noted, also set up this false comparison — acknowledged that Gore cited “no particular time frame,” in which the seas could rise by 20 feet.

Beck’s experts included Marlo Lewis and Chris Horner from an astro-turf outfit financed by the far-Right Competitive Enterprise Institute. Beck uses the typically low standards for what passes for facts on the Right, misquotes Vice-President Gore, assigns nefarious motives to VP Gore yet offers no proof, and Beck’s “slam-dunk”, his ultimate gotcha is from a Canadian right-winger Tim Ball who states emphatically that,

“We now know for certain that the temperature changes before the CO2. And one of the fundamental assumptions that Gore doesn’t understand is that in the theory of global warming due to humans is, as the CO2 goes up, the temperature will go up. Well, the ice-core records show it’s exactly the opposite.”

Mr. Ball is wrong, but Beck didn’t say anything, because what would Beck know about science. Ball gave Beck the pablum he wants to feed everyone else and that is all that matters.
Ball and Beck have decided to cling to a flimsy myth that might sound like solid science to a layman, but it is nothing else but the flying unicorn of the fringe anti-environment crowd,

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is [sic] enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

America needs to send a nice polite e-mail or fax to CNN and ask them why someone who day after day proves that he knows nothing about the environment, international politics, or anything else for that matter has a show that is broadcast to millions of people. Beck POV is not a matter of hearing some reasoned arguments from a knowledgeable political adversary he’s the modern day version of a flat earther who believe the voices of the little faeries that dance around his head. These are the public airwaves, CNN does have an obligation to inform its viewers, to give them the best information available, not to give a nightly soapbox to a nut case. If Beck is what passes for informed punditry then why not a nightly show on how gravity is a hoax we’re all being held down by a beam from the mother ship, or how about a nightly report on how the whole moon landing was a hoax – both of these shows would be just as informative and fact based as anything Beck does.

One obvious aspect of the Fort Dix gang and their arrests was so obvious that I didn’t even think it worth mentioning. Unfortunately Michelle Malkin and the Right can’t see the forests for the trees. The reason that the Dix bunch was caught so easily, besides being incredibly deem bulbs is because of… dare we say it, police work. They were caught and stopped without making up lies about WMD ( the jury is still out on the entrapment aspect) , That law-enforcement approach

Malkin provides a nice, clear example. In previous posts, she has complained about “the limitations of the law enforcement approach to terrorism”, and sneered at Democrats for supposedly adopting “the Clinton law enforcement approach to terrorism” (a sneer repeated here). She also has approvingly cited NRO’s Andrew McCarthy saying that

the law enforcement approach to terrorism, where terrorists get the advantage of our generous due process standards (including discovery about informants), is nuts — we have to tell the bad guys too much

.

If its not all out war killing both the terrorists and their inncent neighbors then what is it good for – that is the Malkin-Bush poistion on fighting terror; as long as Muslims are dying en mass then they’re serious and those that think they’re being both cruel and counter productive are not.
The Bush approach has been to treat terrorism as though it were a phenomenon mostly related to unrest in the Middle East, the product of brown-skinned fanatics for whom the only adequate response is the full force of American military might. This approach largely treats terrorism as though it exists only in conjunction with a handful of states — the “Axis of Evil” — that support it, and containing it means bombing and killing its supporters out of existence.

This was, in essence, the rationale for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Afghanistan, certainly a military response is fully justified, since the state connection to terrorism is clear and unmistakable. In the case of Iraq, however, that connection remains far from clear; though at one time I thought evidence existed to suggest such a connection, it has become painfully clear since that any Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism, particularly al Qaeda, was thin at best.

More to the point, however, is the fact that by making the “War on Terror” primarily a military operation and only secondarily (at best) a matter for law enforcement and intelligence, the Bush administration is focusing on only a rather narrow part of the terrorism spectrum. (Even on those terms, as Matt Yglesias has ably demonstrated, Bush’s execution of the “war on terror” has in fact largely consisted of smoke, mirrors, shock and awe.)

Another example of Republican ideas about free enterprise, they’re as screwy as Glenn Beck’s grasp of climate science, Amid FBI Probes, Senator Drops Controversial Project

Amid expanding FBI probes into public corruption in Alaska, the state’s senior U.S. senator confirmed he is dropping support for a controversial program that is receiving scrutiny by federal investigators and prosecutors.

The decision not to push for millions in funding for the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board “was made months ago, and it has nothing to do with the ongoing investigations in Alaska,” a spokesman for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told ABC News.

Stevens was instrumental in founding the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board in 2003 and has helped secure it more than $100 million in taxpayer funding since then, which the group has passed on to a handful of companies and industry organizations with ties to Stevens.

Digby on the sorry state of some of the press. I stipulate some, because they ain’t all bums, though too many of them are more concerned with money and prestige then the truth, Who Do They Think They Are?

Of course political reporters should go out and interview Americans and write stories about what those Americans have to say about the issues of the day. But those interviews are not any more representative of what “the people” as a whole think than are the liberal blogs or Sally Quinn’s fictitious “small town” or the fans at a NASCAR race. This is especially true when it’s filtered through the phony bourgeois posturings of a bunch of highly paid reporters and insiders who have contrived a self-serving little passion play in which they are regular blue collar guys from Buffalo and corn fed farmers from the Midwest (Real Americans!) who just happen to summer on Nantucket and get invitations to white tie state dinners with the Queen of England.

Small snippet from a long piece that includes some short history on how a large swath of our press corps embraced the Beltway mentality.

“Confidence… thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt