tagged w/ misinformation campaign
-
To those familiar with the science and the IPCC's work, the current media discussion is in large part simply absurd and surreal. Journalists who have never even peeked into the IPCC report are now outraged that one wrong number appears on page 493 of Volume 2. We've met TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports' errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it. They told us frankly that they had no way to make their own judgment; they could only report what they were being told about it. And there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told the "right" story. That explains why some media stories about what is supposedly said in the IPCC reports can easily be falsified simply by opening the report and reading. Unfortunately, as a broad-based volunteer effort with only minimal organizational structure the IPCC is not in a good position to rapidly counter misinformation.
One near-universal meme of the media stories on the Himalaya mistake was that this was "one of the most central predictions of the IPCC" - apparently in order to make the error look more serious than it was. However, this prediction does not appear in any of the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers, nor in the Synthesis Report (which at least partly explains why it went unnoticed for years). None of the media reports that we saw properly explained that Volume 1 (which is where projections of physical climate changes belong) has an extensive and entirely valid discussion of glacier loss.
What apparently has happened is that interested quarters, after the Himalyan glacier story broke, have sifted through the IPCC volumes with a fine-toothed comb, hoping to find more embarrassing errors. They have actually found precious little, but the little they did find was promptly hyped into Seagate, Africagate, Amazongate and so on. This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like "hide the decline") and then hyped into "Climategate".
As lucidly analysed by Tim Holmes, there appear to be a few active leaders of this misinformation parade in the media. Jonathan Leake is carrying the ball on this, but his stories contain multiple errors, misrepresentations and misquotes. There also is a sizeable contingent of me-too journalism that is simply repeating the stories but not taking the time to form a well-founded view on the topics. Typically they report on various "allegations", such as these against the IPCC, similar to reporting that the CRU email hack lead to "allegations of data manipulation". Technically it isn't even wrong that there were such allegations. But isn't it the responsibility of the media to actually investigate whether allegations have any merit before they decide to repeat them?
[...]
Overall then, the IPCC assessment reports reflect the state of scientific knowledge very well. There have been a few isolated errors, and these have been acknowledged and corrected. What is seriously amiss is something else: the public perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm. All of these various "gates" - Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam. It is not up to us as climate scientists to clear up this mess - it is up to the media world itself to put this right again, e.g. by publishing proper analysis pieces like the one of Tim Holmes and by issuing formal corrections of their mistaken reporting. We will follow with great interest whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors.To those familiar with the science and the IPCC's work, the current media... more
-
-
~Recent polls find continued support for public option~
CBS News: 62 percent favor government offering "a government administered health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in an October 5-8 CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 62 percent said they would support the plan.
Ipsos/McClatchy: 53 percent said "public health insurance plan" is necessary to ensure access to health care. In an October 1-5 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 53 percent of respondents said that the statement, "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality healthcare" was "closest to your opinion," rather than the statement that "[a]ccess to quality healthcare for all Americans can be achieved without having to create a public health insurance plan."
Rasmussen Reports: 46 percent favor creation of "government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option." When respondents were asked in an October 2-3 Rasmussen poll whether they would "favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan," 46 percent said they would favor the plan, and 37 percent were opposed.
Quinnipiac University: 61 percent support option of "government health insurance plan." When asked in a September 29-October 5 Quinnipiac University poll, "Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 61 percent said they would support the plan.
Pew Research Center: 55 percent favor "government health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in a September 30-October 4 Pew Research Center poll if they would favor or oppose "[a] government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," 55 percent said they would favor the plan.
~Survey finds majority support for public option among doctor~
Mount Sinai School of Medicine poll: 63 percent favor option of public or private insurance. A survey conducted by Dr. Salomeh Keyhani and Dr. Alex Federman of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that 63 percent of the 2,130 physicians surveyed randomly said they "support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. An additional 10 percent of doctors support an entirely public health system."
~Evidence undermines claim that a public option would be costly~
CBO: Senate bill's public plan does "not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections." In its July 2 preliminary analysis of the Senate HELP Committee's bill, CBO found that, in the words of CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, the public option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."
House, Senate bills require premiums to cover costs of public plan. Both the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP Committee's bill require the public plan to charge premiums sufficient to cover administrative costs as well as the cost of enrollees' benefits.
CBO reportedly found original House public plan saves $110 billion. Congress Daily reported that House leaders "released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer." Congress Daily further reported:
more at link...~Recent polls find continued support for public option~
CBS News: 62 percent favor... more
-
-
Today, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department took its first steps toward cracking down on misinformation disseminated by Medicare providers.
During the recent health care reform hullabaloo, "Keep Government Out of Medicare" became a rallying call for some and a joke for others. As it became clear that tens of thousands of senior citizens across the country held irrational beliefs about the government's role in their health care, we asked, where is all the misinformation coming from? The answer: Medicare Advantage providers have been deliberately misinforming Medicare recipients about health insurance reform.
Last week, I reported that Las Vegas members of Humana Medicare plans had received a mass mailing from Humana (see the complete mailer and envelope) claiming that Congress and the President are considering proposals to cut "important benefits and services" of Medicare. That mailer actually went out to Humana plan members nationwide. Today, the Health and Human Services's (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sent a letter to Humana demanding that Humana cease "immediately all such mailings to Medicare plan members and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website."
The letter from CMS to Humana says:
CMS has learned that Humana has been contacting enrollees in one or more of its plans and alleging that current health care reform legislation affecting Medicare could hurt "millions of seniors and disabled individuals [who] could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare advantage health plans so valuable." The message makes several other claims about the legislation and how it will be detrimental to enrollees, ultimately urging enrollees to contact their congressional representatives to protest the actions referenced in the letter (see attachment).
According to a source with inside knowledge of the way CMS regulates marketing guidelines, Medicare providers are only allowed to communicate with plan members about the benefits they have now, not about possible changes to benefits. They are also not allowed to use plan-related communications to lobby for policies or legislation.
CMS voiced concern that the Humana mailer is misrepresented as information about plan members' coverage and benefits. CMS contends the mailer "is potentially contrary to federal regulations and guidance for the MA and Part D programs and other federal law, including HIPAA." And CMS instructed Humana "to end immediately all such mailings to Medicare plan members and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website."Today, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department took its first steps toward... more
-
-
At a recent town hall meeting with Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX), the legislator recounted a story of "Brittney," who allegedly thinks that a not-for-profit, public health insurance policy would have somehow killed her baby.
Her child, still in the womb, was suffering from a heart defect and she was forced to search for a doctor after several had turned her down (she eventually found a specialist).
According to the Texas Republican, that means with President Obama's proposed insurance reforms, Brittney's child would have been essentially killed by the government.
"For those of you who say it's not true, don't talk to me, talk to Britney," Olson proclaimed over jeers and applause.
"That's not true," someone said.
Another man pointed out, "The insurance company turned her down, not the government! The private insurance turned her down, not the government!"
Some in the audience turned their heads and tried to shush the man.
"My God!" he said. "The doctors ... That's not the government! My God!"
One man replied: "The government is setting up a board to turn her down."
"Oh, there ya go," said the congressman's detractor. "A death panel."
Instead of addressing the rampant misinformation he'd just spread and heard repeated by his audience, Rep. Olson merely concluded, "I want to thank y'all for coming."At a recent town hall meeting with Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX), the legislator... more
-
-
The national Republican Party has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats might use an overhaul of the health care system to deny medical treatment to Republicans.
A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government could check voting registration records, "prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system."
It asks, "Does this possibility concern you?"
Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the question was "inartfully worded."
But she said people should worry because government officials would have access to personal financial and medical data.
"The RNC doesn't try to scare people," said Wright. "We're just trying to get the facts out on health care. And that's what we do every day."
Jon Vogel, executive director of the Democratic House campaign organization, called the GOP letter "shameless fear-mongering."
In a fundraising e-mail of his own seeking to raise $100,000 by Aug. 31, Vogel wrote the Republican accusation was "just a preview of the falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies Republicans will be pushing when Congress returns in September."
The allegation is the latest instance in which some critics of the health care effort have made inflammatory unfounded claims — such as conservatives who claimed the legislation would create "death panels" that they said could lead to euthanizing elderly people.The national Republican Party has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats... more
-
-
About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.
The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.
AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Barack Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.
"We take stands on issues that are contentious, it's part of what we do," Nannis said. "And because we have so many members we'll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership."
The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.
He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.
The membership loss figure was first reported Monday by CBS News.About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's... more
-
-
On Wednesday Rep. Michele Bachmann was part of a star-studded “teletownhall” meeting to discuss health-care reform. The event, billed “Keeping Faith with the Unborn,” was sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion advocacy group. The organization’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, claimed that there were some 350,000 listeners on the line.
Bachmann was joined by North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx, most famous for calling Matthew Shepard’s murder a “hoax,” and former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who made national headlines by refusing to concede after losing her re-election contest November. But even with such veteran political pugilists sharing the phone line, Bachmann managed to distinguish herself during the 90-minute phone call.
The 6th district Republican quoted the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, attacked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for receiving political contributions from a medical doctor who was murdered in May, and called on everyone to get down on their knees and pray that health care reform fails. Bachmann didn’t always make sense, but she undoubtedly scared the living daylights out of anyone on the line.
Bachmann repeated the myth, adopted early by Sarah Palin, that the health-care plans being debated in Congress would set up “death panels” to determine which old folks are entitled to health care. “Thank God that Sarah Palin said that,” she told the callers. “These are true.”
In response to a caller from Minnesota who wanted to know if there was a plan afoot in Washington to require all medical doctors to perform abortions, Bachmann didn’t exactly shoot the suggestion down.
“Unless we explicitly restrict these items, I think we can fully expect that these radical pro-abortion individuals could very likely make those decisions,” she told the caller. “All of us who have labored tirelessly in the pro-life cause for years and years and years, we know what these people are capable of. That’s why they have to be tied down by restrictions explicitly in law.”
She also suggested that it might be some kind of religious destiny that hardy souls such as herself are in Congress at this time.
“We all need to consider that in God’s timing that he may have allowed us, as members of Congress, to be in the position that we’re in just for this specific issue right now,” she said. “Everything that all of us have worked together and labored for over the years, all of it could be undermined with this one bill. President Obama realizes that. The radicals that are on the pro-abortion left, they realize that. They could win it all. And the unborn, and the vulnerable, the disabled and those at the end of life could lose it it all.”
But it was Bachmann’s fervent call to utilize prayer and fasting to beat back health-care reform efforts that was the true highlight of the call.
“That’s really where this battle will be won — on our knees in prayer and fasting,” she told the listeners. “Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act.”On Wednesday Rep. Michele Bachmann was part of a star-studded... more
-
-
They had a good run with "death panels", now they've moved on to "death books". Next will be "death chambers" and soon to follow "super-evil-vampire death doctors". Be afraid... and gullible.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Following several days in which Fox News promoted the smear that an educational booklet on end-of-life decisions used by the Veterans Health Administration is a "death book," Fox News host Megyn Kelly and Fox News contributor Jonah Goldberg used a discussion about the booklet to revive the falsehood that Democratic health care reform legislation would institute "death panels." Kelly also falsely claimed that the booklet encourages veterans to "hurry up and die" and that VHA officials are "required" to refer patients to it.
KELLY: Well, just as the White House says that people's fear about so-called "death panels" is baseless, critics now claim the administration is actually pressuring certain disabled veterans to, quote, "hurry up and die" -- that's the accusation. Asking physicians at the nation's VA hospitals to refer to our nation's veterans to a pamphlet called "Your Life, Your Choices."
Title sounds innocuous enough. However, inside, this booklet asks veterans to decide whether their lives are worth living if they are, for example, in a wheelchair, in a nursing home, or if they have become, quote, "a financial burden to their families."
[...]
GOLDBERG: And I think, you know, the problem here is the defense that [Assistant Veterans Affairs Secretary Tammy] Duckworth offers, saying, "Oh, well, this wasn't put forward by the Obama administration." She's sort of saying this sort of burbled up from the bureaucracy, which no one really disputes. That is not all that helpful. Because one of the points that critics of Obama's plan make is that this -- once you get the structure for it, it'll be on autopilot, and the bureaucracies will naturally tend towards exactly this kind of thing and death panels may, in fact, be not too far off on the horizon because of the very nature of how socialized medicine and rationing works. [America's Newsroom, 8/24/09]They had a good run with "death panels", now they've moved on to... more
-
-
A new study by Gallup shows that large swaths of populations in the South and West -- anywhere from one-in-five to one-in-four individuals -- are currently lacking health insurance coverage.
These same regions also have the largest percentage of populations who believe widely perpetuated mistruths about the Obama agenda, including allegations that the president will set up "death panels" and wants a complete government takeover of the health care system.
According to Gallup, of the 25 states with the greatest percentage of the uninsured, all but three are based in the South or the Midwest.
Compare these findings to those pulled from a recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, which showed that more people in the South and Midwest are prone to believe myths about Obama's health care plan than in other regions of the country.
In the South, 26 percent of the public said they believed the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress requires elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss "end of life" options, including euthanasia. Twenty percent of Westerners said the same thing. In the Northeast and Midwest those numbers were 11 percent and 17 percent respectively.
Meanwhile, 45 percent of Southerners said they thought Obama's health care reform included a government takeover of the entire health care system. Twenty-three percent of Westerners agreed. In the Northeast and Midwest those numbers were 10 percent and 20 percent respectively.
That populations most in need of comprehensive insurance reform are most likely to buy into false criticisms of the president's plan is a fascinating window into the current state of the health care debate. Theoretically, the president should be receiving more support in his efforts to expand coverage from those who currently lack it. The opposite, however, seems to hold true.A new study by Gallup shows that large swaths of populations in the South and West --... more
-
-
Other results from the same poll:
37% of Republicans think that the reform will REQUIRE elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss "end of life" options including euthanasia - 32% not sure.
When asked to choose if the reform was a government take over of the entire health care system OR the government will provide a non-profit health insurance option to compete with private firms, 60% of Republicans called it a take over - 23% not sure.
When asked if Medicare was a government program or not, 14% of Republicans said it was not, 10% not sure.
~~~~~~~~~
This is a result of the misinformation coming from conservative media sources. This same polling group found that the vast majority of Republicans ONLY get their info from Fox.
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
~Abraham LincolnOther results from the same poll:
37% of Republicans think that the reform will... more
-
-
In an editorial on July 31, Investor's Business Daily warned of end-of-life counseling in health care reform by saying people like Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance" in such a system.
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
In fact, Professor Hawking lives in England, where he has been treated by their National Health Service. And by his own account, it saved his life.
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
The Hawking reference in the IBD editorial has since been removed, with this correction added: "This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK." They don't acknowledge that the NHS has kept Hawking alive there.In an editorial on July 31, Investor's Business Daily warned of end-of-life... more
-
-
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.
(Continued at Link)The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the... more
-
-
Chique
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
As lobbyist-run groups encourage conservative activists to “rattle” members of Congress at local town hall events, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), the president of the freshman Democratic class has revealed that “at least one freshman Democrat” has already been “physically assaulted at a local event.” Connolly warned that conservative groups had taken things to a “dangerous level“:
“When you look at the fervor of some of these people who are all being whipped up by the right-wing talking heads on Fox, to me, you’re crossing a line,’ Connolly said. ‘They’re inciting people to riot with just total distortions of facts. They think we’re going to euthanize Grandma and the government is going to take over.”
Recent events have given congressman good reason to be “fearful for their safety.” Last week, a protester hung an effigy of freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) outside his district office, and after a June 22 town hall meeting was disrupted by an “unruly mob” of tea party activists, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) had to be escorted to his car by police. ThinkProgress contacted Connolly’s office regarding the identity of the congressman who was physically assaulted, but we have not yet received a response.As lobbyist-run groups encourage conservative activists to “rattle”... more
-
-
Despite its obvious benefits for our health and for the environment, organic food continues to be denigrated by the political and corporate establishment in Britain.
The food industry, in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies, has waged a long, often cynical campaign to convince the public that mass-produced, chemically-assisted and intensively-farmed products are just as good as organic foods, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
The latest assault in this propaganda exercise comes from the Food Standards Agency, the government's so-called independent watchdog, which has just published a report claiming that there is no nutritional benefit to be gained from eating organic produce.
Debate: Despite its obvious benefits organic food continues to be denigrated by the political and corporate establishment in Britain
Those forces bent on promoting GM crops and industrialised production, would have been delighted by the widespread media coverage of the Agency's report, portraying enthusiasm for organic foods as little more than a fad among neurotic consumers that would pass once the public is given the correct information.
But what is truly misguided is not the increasing popularity of organic goods, but the Food Standards Agency's determination to halt this trend and instead promote genetic modification.
The new report from the FSA highlights this. For all the publicity it has attracted, the document does not contain any new material.
In fact, it is just an analysis of existing research carried out by other bodies. Moreover, the organisation that conducted this second-hand study, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is not renowned as a leading centre in this field.
Indeed, there is far more significant work currently being done on organic foods by several other bodies, some of it funded by the European Union, though the FSA has chosen to ignore it. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the FSA has decided to give such loud backing to this report because it can bend the findings to suit its political, pro-GM, anti-organic agenda.
What is truly misguided is not the increasing popularity of organic goods, but the Food Standards Agency's determination to instead promote genetic modification. Ever since its creation in 2000, the Food Standards Agency has been biased against organic farming. The first chairman, Sir John Krebs, was supportive of the biotechnology lobby and only too keen to promote GM as the future of farming.
In fact, one early review of the FSA's work, by the Labour peer Baroness Brenda Dean, warned there was a risk of the Agency losing its 'objectivity' and 'rigour' in its support for GM crops and its opposition to organic production. The departure of Sir John Krebs has not brought any change in policy, since the Agency is now largely run by plodding bureaucrats all too keen to follow the correct official corporate line.
Yet even in the context of the latest report from the FSA, the spin does not match the reality. For, contrary to all the hype this week, the Agency's own published research shows that organic foods are clearly far better for the consumer even just in nutritional terms.
According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones.
Similarly, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins.
In addition, an in-depth study by Newcastle University, far deeper than the one conducted by the FSA, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods, research the FSA appears to have overlooked.
more at the link.Despite its obvious benefits for our health and for the environment, organic food... more
-
-
A “colorful” chart that also appears to be colorful in the facts department has been blocked from voter’s mailboxes by Democrats, a Capital Hill newspaper reports.
Roll Call reports, “Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate. House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.”
"In their eight-point memo, which was obtained by Roll Call, Democrats identify a litany of areas where they believe the chart is incorrect.
For example, Democrats argue that the chart depicts a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund” that is “simply a recipient of IRS funds, with no outflow. … This is false.”
The chart’s illustration of low-income subsidies is also “misleading and false,” Democrats argue.
….
The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.
Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic. “I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s … downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”
Media Matters created a mock “colorful” chart in response called the “Organizational Chart of Conservative Media’s Misinformation Plan” after documenting how conservative media outlets were spreading it.
“The conservative media’s promotion of the House Republican chart recalls the media attention devoted in 1994 to a misleading chart — distributed by the office of Sen. Arlen Specter — that then-Senate Republican leader Bob Dole claimed illustrated ‘what the health care bureaucracy would look like under’ President Clinton’s health care reform plan,” Media Matters noted.A “colorful” chart that also appears to be colorful in the facts... more
-
-
By now we've all heard about the tea baggers. Apparently, I can call them that.
Everyone knows that they are really just an astroturf (fake grass-roots) movement.
Their contradictions are apparent.
The close relationship with Fox News is overt, contemptible and unsurprising, all at the same time.
But there is something about blatant lying that's different. When you know the facts but say the opposite.
Using the descriptor "Journalist" should open you up to litigation; in the same way calling yourself a doctor does.
By that I mean, if you aren't a doctor and you say you are, you can be sued. If you say your job is the spread the news but instead you knowingly spread false information people should have the right to sue you. It should be that simple.By now we've all heard about the tea baggers. Apparently, I can call them that.... more
-
-
Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971, to protest U.S. nuclear tests taking place there. After leading the group for 15 years he left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy. NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke to Moore about his sparring with the green movement, and why he thinks nuclear power is the energy of the future. Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that.... more
-
-
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.
The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.
The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
" The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions"
Terry Sloan
This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.
Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate... more
-
-
Lawyers for the Alaska Native coastal village of Kivalina, which is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate, filed suit in federal court here Tuesday arguing that 5 oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country's largest coal company were responsible for the village's woes.
The suit is the latest effort to hold companies like BP America, Chevron, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy and the Southern Company responsible for the impact of global warming because they emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases, or, in the case of Peabody, mine and market carbon-laden coal that is burned by others. It accused the companies of creating a public nuisance.
In an unusual move, those five companies and three other defendants -- the Exxon Mobil Corporation, American Electric Power and the Conoco Phillips Company -- are also accused of conspiracy.
"There has been a long campaign by power, coal and oil companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming," the suit says. The campaign, it says, contributed "to the public nuisance of global warming by convincing the public at large and the victims of global warming that the process is not man-made when in fact it is."
Kivalina, an Inupiat village of 400 people on a barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and two rivers, is being buffeted by waves that, in colder times, were blocked by sea ice, the suit says. "The result of the increased storm damage is a massive erosion problem," it says.
"Houses and buildings are in imminent danger of falling into the sea."
The estimated cost of relocating the village is up to $400 million, the suit says.
Some lawyers in the case participated in the long-running litigation against American tobacco companies in the 1990s, and some of the same legal theories echo through the complaint. But the hurdles may be greater than those in the tobacco wars. Global warming is a diffuse worldwide phenomenon; a successful public nuisance case requires that defendants' behavior be directly linked to the harm.
~~~~~~~
I have to give these villagers kudos for the guts to stand up against these giant companies. However, proving culpability will be the true challenge. So the question then is: Should compnaies be held responsible for damages due to climate change which directly links their businesses ( fossil fuels) to the effects?
Also see:
http://www.hagens-berman.com/Kivalina Lawyers for the Alaska Native coastal village of Kivalina, which is being forced to... more
-
