Another appalling editorial in Nature, starts with "deniers" controlling the media! Claims Paul
Ehrlich is a scientist instead of a raving lunatic.

http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpr...-panic-begins/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/464141a.html

Talking About The Weather
Goliath's Panic Begins
Posted in Cap-and-trade, Climate change, global warming by Harold Ambler on March 11, 2010

A new editorial in Nature is startling for what it reveals, especially the fact Paul Ehrlich is a
go-to figure about how hard scientists have it when it comes to media access. Ehrlich is an
individual who became an international celebrity by spinning one frightening story after another
(about the death of the oceans, for one thing) who maintains, with a straight face, that he and his
fellow scientists have an unfair disadvantage in communicating their side of the climate debate. He
is quoted by Nature as saying, regarding the aftermath of Climategate and the fact that skeptic
scientists are finally getting a hearing, "Everyone is scared ****less, but they don't know what to
do." People often forget: Goliath, right before the end, sensed that something was amiss.

For, ironically, among the most pervasive myths attending global warming is the one pitching David
against Goliath, in which those touting the risks of damaging climate change are cast as David and
Big Oil is Goliath. The story requires observers to ignore the facts: Media, most scientists, and
governments the world over have spent and received so much money on their version of events that
they have collectively become Goliath. Observers must ignore, too, the reality that skeptic
scientists maintain their intellectual freedom at significant risk. Funding routinely dries up;
tenure is denied them; ad hominem attacks of the most vicious variety are launched against them
from the Ivory Tower of academia, from the studios of multi-billion dollar news organizations, and
from the bully pulpit of government.

The myth that relatively simple, un-media-savvy scientists are being undone by oil-funded
think-tanks is absurd on its face. Let's first take the case of the U.K. For more than 25 years,
all forms of the mainstream media in Britain (radio, television, film, and print), the AGW crowd
veritably owned the means of production. People who bother to lookwill find tens of thousands of
stories (many of them placed by slick p.r. machines, it turns out) trumpeting impending doom
related to unprecedented warming. The U.K. became, during this time, one of the twin towers of
warmist philosophy. (The other being the U.S.) And skeptics were simply not abided at all.

Only when Climategate broke, for the first time in a generation, could a skeptic scientist (or
commentator) get an airing in the United Kingdom. By that point, though, the AGW scientists,
members of the media, and politicians had been putting forth alarmist fantasies for decades,
without cessation. They were not sad little children being bullied around the playground by clever
think-tank bullies. They were the bullies. Again, it is all about the means of production, and the
environmentalist movement piggybacked on AGW took over the means of production in the U.K. long
ago.

In the United States, the same applies to a significant extent. There is a reason that people in
the center and the right object to National Public Radio, with public funds, reliably touting
leftist causes, notably AGW. When commentators go on NPR and complain about the slick campaign to
control the media run by oil-funded think-tanks, there is more than enough irony to go around. This
idea is quite simply Al Gore-generated boilerplate. Claims regarding the rightist conspiracy about
climate have been read (more or less) to journalists by scientists, politicians, and celebrities
for years now. Ask them to identify their adversary, and they clam up. Which oil-juiced skeptic
scientist has grabbed the reins? They cannot, and will not, name names. The people at the top of
the AGW movement, scientists and non-scientists alike, are highly sophisticated and extremely
intelligent people, yet they will tell you how they've been out-foxed by a think-tank or two. Paul
Ehrlich and company lacking in media savvy? Absolutely not.

Again, until November 2009, skeptic climate scientists couldn't buy an interview in this country.
Not with the New York Times, not with NPR, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, not to mention
thousands of local papers, not with CNN, Time magazine, Newsweek magazine, CBS News, NBC News, or
ABC News. Even Fox, for all its vaunted right-wing values, very seldom put an actual skeptic
scientist on the air prior to Climategate.

What if I, as a concerned citizen who had learned that when it came to the understanding of climate
in my country up was down, black was white, and good was bad, and I wanted to go to Hollywood to
get funding for a skeptical documentary about it? How do you think I would fare? Laughed out of
town? If I was lucky!

Again, means of production: The left/pro-AGW has owned this issue, for decades. That is why there
are tens of thousands of interviews in the press and other media outlets with Stephen Schneider,
Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer, Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr., etc. One of the
things that they say the most frequently during these free media opportunities is that a dark and
dangerous cabal exists to sideline them. Ummm, no.

By the way, the BBC's employee pension fund is heavily invested in climate-change related
businesses, including carbon trading. Its monumental silence about skeptic science prior to
Climategate (and to some extent since then, too) is arguably corrupt.

Finally, if the best that Nature can do to promote the idea of this dangerous oil-funded conspiracy
is to quote Paul Ehrlich, who has a 40-year history of failed attempts to manipulate people with
the most transparent fear-mongering, then that is not a good sign for the side of fear. One thing
that you can believe believe Ehrlich about (unlike the idea that Malthus was really onto
something): He and his ilk are running scared. That's despite the fact that the skeptic side has
now reached something like a 1 to 10 ratio of parity when it comes to media coverage. See, when
you're
Goliath, that kind of trend seems disturbing.