Gore's web crusaders can't handle a dissenting opinion

click for the entire WSJ story

People send me stuff. Below, there’s an email being circulated today by Gore’s activists. They are upset that the Wall Street Journal had the audacity to print a dissenting opinion by Climate Scientist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels. I particularly liked this passage from Dr. Michael’s essay:

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years.

Below, Gore’s people are having a conniption fit, “demanding the WSJ cover the facts about climate science“. Um, they did, just facts you don’t like. Even though most MSM just passed on the Muir-Russell findings without as much as a question, here we have Gore’s followers trying to silence the lone dissenting MSM voice in the USA. I notice they haven’t demanded that the Guardian retract Fred Pearce’s story.

So yes, let’s all send in letters to the Wall Street Journal. You can even use Gore’s own handy online tool to do it (complete with suggested talking points) or you can think for yourself and write a letter the old fashioned way, using your own brain.  To contact the staff of the Journal’s Editorial page, please send an e-mail to wsj.ltrs@wsj.com. Short and to the point letters of 150 words or less get preference. The shorter the better.

It shouldn’t be too hard for WUWT readers to get a few more letters published than those being pushed by Gore’s climateprotect.org  As seen in the traffic plot below, they got a heckuva climategate bump didn’t they? Heh. It makes you realize what a minority they really are if some unfunded nobody like me can kick traffic butt against Gore’s millions:

click for live stats - current world traffic rank for climateprotect is 1,195,694, world traffic rank for WUWT is: 18,159. A lower number means more traffic. In the graph above, a higher number is better

The letter from Gore’s followers is presented in it’s entirety and unaltered below, all boldings are theirs.- Anthony


Climate Protection Action Fund

Friend,

Last week, a third independent investigation exonerated the climate scientists whose emails were hacked last fall — finding the attacks lacked foundation. That’s right: Three full, independent reviews have found no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists — and most importantly, affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change.

So you might think that any reputable media outlet would feel compelled to set the record straight. But you’d be wrong.

In particular, the Wall Street Journal has published more than 30 editorials and op-eds on climate change since November of 2009. All took the stance that climate science was unreliable, dishonest or questionable — or minimally unimportant. And unbelievably, just today, the Journal published another op-ed about the reviews, calling them a “whitewash” by “global warming alarmists.”

Send a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page demanding that they set the record straight on climate change science.

It’s vital that we receive balanced coverage from all of the media, and the Journal‘s actions matter. As Congress works to craft comprehensive policies to address our energy and climate crises, public understanding of this issue is more important than ever before.

A news outlet like the Wall Street Journal relies on its reputation as a balanced, unbiased news source. With your help, we can convince the Journal editorial page to give equal space to the fact that climate scientists have been exonerated and their findings remain affirmed.

Demand that the Wall Street Journal cover the facts about climate science.

Few news outlets in the U.S. are as well regarded and widely read among opinion makers and politicians as the Wall Street Journal. It has a responsibility to its readers and the American public to be fair and accurate on one of the most important issues of our time.

Balanced media coverage today won’t give back the precious time we’ve lost defending scientific facts that should not have been in question. But perhaps it will remind our media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, of their responsibility to the American people.

Thank you,

Maggie L. Fox

President and CEO

Alliance for Climate Protection

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shub Niggurath
July 12, 2010 7:07 pm

Dear Anthony
This is a Media Matters for America ‘initiative’. These groups, which include the ‘Alliance for Climate Protection’, WWF, PennFutures have determined that the media has not done its job during Climategate.
This is how they plan to get back. They managed to squeeze in a few unrelated things in their press release as well.
More details:
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/wwf-media-matters-amazongate/
With regards

July 12, 2010 7:07 pm

No wonder sales of Adult Diapers are through the roof – the alarmists are crapping themselves and desperately trying to hide it.

Evan Jones
Editor
July 12, 2010 7:12 pm

One would think that after all the recent flap, Gore would just slink away. Ah, well, far be it from us to force him to. Besides, he does a better job of of dragging himself through the oil slick than we ever could.
The net effect is that MSNBC poll is now at 38.5% pro and 61.5% con. Given time, these guys are their own worst enemies.

etudiant
July 12, 2010 7:12 pm

Only glitch is that if you follow the link and write to the W$J, you also enroll to receive the e-mailings of the “Alliance for Climate Protection”, whomever they might be.
Is there a more productive way to provide feedback?
[Reply: Email the WSJ direct: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com ~dbs, mod.]

RK
July 12, 2010 7:25 pm

“Climate Protection” is such a non-sense name. Are they trying to protect climate, which is non-sensical, or get protection from climate, which makes them appear to be an umbrella or raincoat advocacy group.

John F. Hultquist
July 12, 2010 7:25 pm

40 word “Thank you” to WSJ sent.

John Q Public
July 12, 2010 7:42 pm

What a laugher. The independent reviews are as independent as the IPCC’s science was a consensus.
Do the AGWers really believe if they repeat something enough times that it automatically comes true? Maybe they should try this:
“There’s no place like home … there’s no place like home … there’s no place like home …”

James Sexton
July 12, 2010 7:43 pm

I’m expecting a retraction anytime soon…..or a correction, or a clarification……or just a plain refusal to print any opinions dissenting from the views of the AGW crowd in general……I’ve seen other papers cave. Maybe the WSJ can withstand the brow beating, but my sense is that any integrity MSM used to purport is ancient history. Even the op-ed space, they will conform or simply not be allowed to write. Excuse me while I don’t hold my breath for a rebuttal to the heavy hand of the AGW crew, even from an establishment such as the WSJ. I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve lost faith in journalistic integrity long ago.

July 12, 2010 7:47 pm

Message sent!

Toby
July 12, 2010 7:47 pm

Letter sent, light up their inbox and let them know that there are many readers and possible customers that appreciate honesty and balanced reporting!!!!

pat
July 12, 2010 7:51 pm

I think these Warmists may be insane. I am not kidding.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
July 12, 2010 7:52 pm

Anthony, be sure to change taxi cabs often & take circuitous routes to and from the airport and office!! Maybe even hire a double!
Hah!! Thanks for posting the WSJ editorial, I enjoyed it when it first surfaced and hoped it would show up on your blog. Michaels does a very good job of pointing out the obvious flaws of the many whitewash reports.

CodeTech
July 12, 2010 7:53 pm

Okay, I know this is weird, but for some reason the AfCP’s little diatribe there sounds like something from Star Trek. It’s like something a giant skulled alien would pronounce to his people: “Amazingly, the Earthmen insist our planet is not the only one in the galaxy, we must ignore these Earthmen and continue filling our atmosphere with toxic sludge”…
By the way… balanced media? Really? So it’s only balanced when it’s saying what WE want it to say, otherwise it’s biased? Oh wait… there is a “consensus” among media outlets, right?

Ralph Dwyer
July 12, 2010 7:59 pm

Supportive email sent to the WSJ. I’m also challenging Michael Hawthorne at the Chicago Tribune for his use of the term “climate-change pollution” supposedly sanctified by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 “and other heat-trapping gasescan be regulated as air pollution.” As related to the new Prairie State coal plant in southern Illinois. Enough to gag a maggot.

artwest
July 12, 2010 8:08 pm

RK,
I think its “Climate Protection” in the sense that Luigi and the boys “protect” local businesses in gangster films.

Dave N
July 12, 2010 8:10 pm

James:
If I recall correctly, the WSJ has had a history of being rather impervious to the taunts of the likes of Al.
I don’t expect a retraction ever, especially since they reported the truth, regardless of whether they referred to it as a “whitewash” and that they didn’t mention the so-called “affirmation”, which given what they did report, holds less water than a thimble; and that’s being generous.

TimM
July 12, 2010 8:11 pm

If I get the meaning of this video correctly I think Mr Gore should be seeking climax protection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH0Yxk-C5y0&feature=player_embedded#!

Dave McK
July 12, 2010 8:11 pm

From [edit] Gore Flakes
666 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC 22301
To [edit] The Wall Street Journal’s
NOTE: Each recipient will only see his/her own email address.
Subject [edit] Gore’s Form Letter to Harrass You
Message [edit] I just thought I’d put a bit of his bandwidth to harmless use CONGRATULATING YOU FOR A CRITICAL LOOK at the global warming fraud and coverup.
I remember the WSJ reported the outcome of these investigations over a month ago in an article reassuring carbon traders that all would be well.
You know they’ll be back for an attack at Xmas, right?
They’ve really done a job on the economy for the next decade.
Anything you can do to unwind that fate, or are we locked into it now?

R Shearer
July 12, 2010 8:14 pm

Gore and company…never quite satisfied.

Tom in Texas
July 12, 2010 8:21 pm

From the comments at the WSJ post:
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” –Jay Leno

kramer
July 12, 2010 8:27 pm

I noticed that the Alliance for Climate Protection has Joseph Stiglitz listed on their board members page:
http://www.climateprotect.org/about/board-members/
Here’s Joseph Stiglitz listed on a Socialist International web site:
The Commission, established by the Socialist International Presidium at its meeting at the United Nations, New York, at the end of September, brings together political leaders, ministers and experts from all continents, and its members include: Professor Joseph Stiglitz from the United States, Nobel laureate and Chair of the Commission;
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1958
You can also find Gordon Brown listed on SocialistInternational. Carol Browner has also been listed on their web page in the past…
Why are these socialists so involved with AGW?

Denny
July 12, 2010 8:29 pm

Anthony,
Great article! Here’s another good article from the “Left” called;
An Open Mind About Climate
By EUGENE ROBINSON
It was posted today at IBD here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539847/201007091902/An-Open-Mind-About-Climate.aspx
Mr. Robinson really left himself open and read the comments…Wow, did He get “Hammered”! You have to sign up to comment!
Also Popular Science Magazine came out with a “dosie” with Rebecca Boyle spouting off! Again, you need to read the responses…Totally amazing how blantant the article was and the responses were at the most “against” the article…It’s called:
Six Quiet Climate Villians: Brick Tamland, James Inhofe And Cows! It’s posted at:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2675.last
The Alarmists are “trying” to fight back but it’s amazing how little they represent “anything” of value! Just a bunch of accusations… Running scared, maybe but we have a long way to go…

hunter
July 12, 2010 8:41 pm

And the CAW community has the guts to claim skeptics are astroturf insincere puppets.
What a sad pathetic joke Gore and pals are.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 12, 2010 8:53 pm

Maggie L. Fox
President and CEO
Alliance for Climate Protection

Yawn.

April E. Coggins
July 12, 2010 9:08 pm

It’s worse than you think. The Seattle Times is running idiodic articles while banning comments from “skeptics”/”deniers” and all common sense people. All dissent is being banned while abusive One World lefties are given free reign to suggest people thinning is a good, reasonable thing.
How do I stop this railroad while remaining a peaceful, tolerant American?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338264_acidification13m.html

1 2 3 4