cnbc1

How badly does cable news network CNBC want to deny the existence of global warming?

For a network with an embarrassing history of fudging the science around climate change, one CNBC booker apears to have made a big mistake.

Responding to the groundbreaking report “Risky Business,” a bipartisan project that compiled the many ways global warming will harm the United States economy over the next cenutry, a CNBC staffer sent an e-mail to a website that she apparently thought was connected to economist and climate contrarian Alan Carlin. In the e-mail, which has been shared with Republic Report, the booker asked Carlin to respond to the report and write an op-ed on “global warming being a hoax.” See below:

Hi there. Given this new report on the cost of climate change, wanted to extend an invitation to Alan Carlin to write an op-ed for CNBC.com. Can be on the new report or just his general thoughts on global warming being a hoaxIf he’s interested, please email me directly

The e-mail was sent to DeSmogBlog, the hard-hitting climate investigative blog, which has a profile on Carlin. To be clear, DeSmogBlog has no relation to Carlin other than reporting on his many misdeeds and his appearance on the Glenn Beck program.

When a tragedy hits, for example a fire or an industrial accident that kills many innocent people, reporters do not generally solicit op-eds for folks to spin the incident as a “hoax.” Why, then, do reporters obsessively seek to promote climate deniers, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and the mounting evidence that the phenomenon will cause havoc on human civilization? Perhaps because fossil fuel interests are among the largest buyers of cable news advertising. In any case, we reached out to the CNBC booker who wrote the e-mail. She would not comment on the solicitation.

Filed under: Media Integrity

Add a comment
  • jumpinjezebel

    Santelli is their greatest polluter – all by himself. He had the political crackpot climate denier on yesterday and Orin Hatch today. How good it is to see two people on the same show that are wrong all the time.

    • Al_Gorelioni

      Obviously, you’re a moron. You feel that we are causing the climate to change, but you know nothing about the climate.

      • Reg Snider

        As tho YOU do!

  • Bob Smetters

    The whole air pollution myth is nothing but an attempt at communists to roadblock capitalism and profits.

  • http://therealrevo.com/ RD Walker

    Science: In the absence of known and unknown countervailing factors, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures. This will have both positive and negative effects on civilization.

    Pseudoscience: The global climate can and should be controlled by concentrating economic power in massive centralized bureaucracies. Anyone who denies that the global climate can or should be controlled by powerful statist entities is anti-science.

    • Eric Scoles

      Practical reality: Known-catastrophic negative effects on civilization should be anticipated and countermanded, if possible.

      Political reality: Entities with the potential to lose revenues or political power over the next several quarters will work very hard to distract people from the fact that their children will be living in a hell-hole….

      • http://therealrevo.com/ RD Walker

        Manifest Reality: There are no ‘known’ catastrophic effects of anthropocentric global warming.

        • Eric Scoles

          It is true that if you choose not to see the cliff coming, then your going over it is not a “known catastrophic event.”

          • ScienceAdvocate

            A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable. –Carl Sagan, an authority on Climate dogma.

        • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

          Their is no ‘known’ fact supported future in anything.

  • GulfPundit

    Climate denier: Someone who insists on adherence to the Scientific Method when evaluating the Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, Global Warming hypothesis.

    • Eric Scoles

      Scientific Method (as defined by Climate Denier): the principle that the probability of a theory being accurate is in inverse ratio to the financial impact it would have on energy industry profit margins.

      • GulfPundit

        Climate fascist: Someone who relies on Red Herrings and non-sequiturs to avoid adherence to the Scientific Method.

        • ScienceAdvocate

          Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. Example: “Man-made climate change is a fact!” President Obama.

          • ScienceAdvocate

            “A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.” — Carl Sagan… Oh, the irony…

          • Eric Scoles

            Yes, the irony of deploying an argument from authority against arguments from authority is pretty…tired.

    • closetothetruth

      scientific method: putting forward a theory with criteria (hopefully replicable by researchers, with data to examine) for assessing the accuracy of the theory.

      science: “we think there is a Higgs Boson because it would explain a lot of other things. if there is, it should show up under X conditions. Hey, under X conditions we have evidence of the Higgs Boson. Therefore the theory is probably correct.”

      Koch-backed climate denial insanity: arguing that the theory of climate change cannot be correct, without regard for the criteria that might be used to assess its correctness.

      point me to a single–a single, and I mean a single one–climate denier who has indicated what evidence would be satisfactory for establishing the theory, or why the evidence used by climate scientists is not sufficient (not that the evidence is “wrong”–the favorite denier move–but that as a matter of method, the criteria would or would not support the thesis). they never will, because that would allow science to proceed, and climate deniers cannot allow science to proceed, because it leads somewhere they don’t want to go.

      the percentage of climate change deniers who also believe no evidence could support the theory of evolution is frighteningly close to 100. or at least say they believe, since many of them are just paid to troll actual clear thinkers and disrupt any attempt to address one of the most serious problems facing humankind today.

      • GulfPundit

        Your hypothesis has been falsified on its own terms more than once. But rather than re-think the claim, warmists move the goalposts in order to negate the rules of scientific inquiry. Moreover, proponents of CAGW have yet to provide one logical proposition that could falsify their claims. That’s also a hallmark of pseudoscience.

        Skeptics don’t have to show climate fascists anything that would establish their claims. It’s your busted hypothesis (not even close to a theory,) so deal with it.

      • Reg Snider

        Well stated!

  • Claudius Denk

    When the people calling their opponents deniers and the people that refuse to debate are the same people, something is very, very wrong.

  • SJ Alexanderson

    Maybe they should take three minutes out of their schedules (if they can afford to), and read the following …

    THE RACE

    It really doesn’t matter
    For Earth exists no more…
    Mankind has left the building
    Through the celestial door.
    It’s gone to meet its’ maker
    In skies beyond the sun,
    Flying through the universe –
    The human race is run.

    We ignored all the warning signs
    And let our “Mother” die…
    But do not shed a tear my child,
    Do not think to cry.
    For though we saw it coming –
    It really was too late
    As greed and global warming
    Had sealed our planets’ fate.

    And now in space there fly some cells
    Journeying afar,
    Seeking out a habitat
    Orbiting a star…
    Where they may fall from skies of blue
    Upon a friendly host
    And maybe through millennia
    Reincarnate our ghost.

    Yet what’s to say that we would ever
    Walk upon that land?
    For if we did develop
    Would we use a gentle hand,
    Or stifle all the goodness
    That our new home could provide?
    Then kill another world again
    With abject homicide.

    Perhaps that’s the conundrum…
    We’ve all been there before,
    We’re universal renegades
    In breach of natures’ law…
    We colonise a planet
    Then strip it of its’ wealth –
    We are the human locust
    Forsaking global health.

    @SJ Alexanderson

Related