- Text smaller
- Text bigger
At least you have to admire the honesty of ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore.
He says he doesn’t “like the word ‘balance’ much at all” when it comes to the global warming debate.
On Aug. 30, he told the nation, or at least those who still get their “news” from the major networks, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no [scientific] debate” on whether the planet is warming as a result of man’s activity.
Then, over the weekend, as if we needed confirmation that he is no reporter but an advocate for the half-baked theory, he told a conference of the Society for Environmental Journalists there was no more need to seek balance in stories about the topic.
“It was very lazy of us for 10 years when we were asked for balance from the [climate skeptic] spinners,” he told a group of fellow activists posing as reporters. “We just gave up and said, ‘OK, OK – I will put the other side on; OK, are you happy now?’ And it saves us from the trouble of having to check out the fact that these other sides were the proverbial flat earth society.”
He continues: “Does [extreme weather patterns] fit exactly within the predicted pattern that we projected almost 30 or 40 years ago? This is the little logical problem that we journalists can still work on and solve.”
Actually, if indeed Blakemore was actually reporting on the topic of climate change 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago, he would know that the scientists and his media colleagues have changed their minds several times about what is happening.
In fact, in the 1970s, Blakemore’s colleagues were telling us the real threat was global cooling. The hysteria then was about an impending ice age.
That was also true from 1885 through the late 1920s, when slightly warmer weather prompted the New York Times to report “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
Then in 1954, Fortune magazine was back promoting the cooling theory. The New York Times changed its mind in 1975, reporting “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
Newsweek predicted an impending ice age. Some of the same activists today who are preaching doom from warmer weather were telling us then to expect global famines as a result of the cooler temperatures.
It wasn’t until the early 1980s that the scientists, most of whom earn their keep from government contracts, and their shills in the media decided the real scare – and the real payoff – was in global warming. So they switched gears again.
On Aug. 22, 1981, the New York Times, once again leading the pack, reported seven – count ’em, seven – government atmospheric scientists were predicting global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
So, we’re talking about four changes of direction on climate change in one century. We went from global cooling to warming, to cooling to warming again.
The only difference now is that some journalists and scientists are so rigid in promoting their theories that they refuse to accept any debate. They refuse to hear any dissenting opinions. They refuse to hear any evidence that contradicts their lucrative scam.
Now we have people like Blakemore – and, by association, his network – saying skeptics of global warming should be ignored because some of them are being funded by industry. Of course, he neglects to mention that the scientists promoting global warming work for an even bigger industry, the monopoly of the U.S. government, or environmental groups that have their own axes to grind.
You know what I think?
I think we have enough man-made problems on this planet to talk about without inventing phantom crises whose government-mandated “cures” will be far worse than the symptoms.
Related special offer: