Asymmetry in Press Coverage

It would be perfectly acceptable to me to solely cover the science associated with global warming, rather than having dueling ad hominem attacks.  However, since as hominem attacks and press coverage based on funding sources has become a staple of at least one side of the climate debate, I must observe the following irony:  Scientists who receive $2 million from Exxon are tainted.  But Al Gore is not, despite the fact that his net worth has increased by at least $35 million, mostly from being paid to speak on global warming or from investing in companies whose value depends on the expectation of government action on global warming.

Either leave the money out of the discussion altogether (my preference) or at least be symmetrical in whose money is being investigated.

  • davidcobb

    Here’s a list of people with ulterior motives for and against AGW:
    FOR:
    1)Earth firsters
    2)Maltheusians
    3)Watermelons (green on the outside but reds to the core)
    4)Power hungry bureaucrats and money hungry politicians and vice versa
    5)Carbon traders
    6)Alternative energy companies
    7)Media(bad news sells)
    8)Asian manufacturers(we don’t give a hoot, we’ll pollute)
    9)Enemies of western civilization
    10)Anti-colonialists
    11)anyone who doesn’t like Americans
    12)Atheistict self-flaggellants(because everything bad has to be our fault and there’s no god to punish us for our sins).

    AGAINST:
    1) oil companies because they know they make more money selling 50bbls of oil for $100 than 100bbls of oil for $50. no.. wait.. that’s backward. It’s because they’re afraid that corn ethanol fueled Priuses will replac….. no that’s not it. It’s …it’s… it’s because they’re EVIL CAPITALIST RUNNING DOG CORPORATIONS and somebody just has to be paying off the denialists.

  • Abuliam

    3)Watermelons (green on the outside but reds to the core)
    First time I’ve seen that one… That is one of those terms that will stick… Brilliant….Perfect for so many!!! Thanks