WashPost Film Critic Applauds Film Charging Climate Deniers Just Like Tobacco Lobbyists

cigaretteLiberal Washington Post movie critic Ann Hornaday is a you-had-me-at-Hello date when it comes to “climate change” documentaries. The latest is called Merchants of Doubt, comparing global-warming denial to denying cigarettes are bad for you.

Merchants of Doubt, a documentary by Robert Kenner, takes up where the 2006 global warming tutorial An Inconvenient Truth left off, probing the dubious annals of climate-change denial and the unholy alliance between corporations, partisan politics, pseudo-science and marketing that has given it traction despite clear scientific evidence and consensus.

The headline in the Weekend section on Friday was “Spinning out of control with a familiar formula.” Hornaday reports the book was inspired by the book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. This means another Al Gore connection: He’s the first cheerleader for the book:

“Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ‘safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book.”

Yes, the “state of democracy in America” stinks when one side doesn’t run over the other and squelch all debate. Back to Hornaday’s rave review:

Kenner traces the roots of their deception to the 1950s and early ’60s, when DDT manufacturers and the tobacco industry began pushing back their critics by falsely insisting that no consensus existed regarding the harmfulness of their products. With the help of such often-controversial public relations companies as Hill & Knowlton, these campaigns successfully passed as fact-based hard news, the invaluable “other side of the story” that an unquestioning press was eager to amplify in the name of fairness and balance.

It’s no surprise that, nearly half a century later, the playbook invented by Big Tobacco and perfected by food and chemical companies should be exploited by energy firms chary of government carbon regulation. But what’s disheartening about Merchants of Doubt is that the strategy still works so effectively, especially in a hyper-partisan, intellectually lazy, spin-addicted 24-7 news cycle.

Even more sobering is how tribal fealty trumps objective reality. Nowhere is that more evident than when a global warming denier, former U.S. congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina, changes his mind, only to be faced with ignominy and the outrage of his fellow Republicans. When Merchants of Doubt isn’t making you mad, it makes you very simply, and overwhelmingly, sad.

In 2012, Hornaday gushed over the documentary The Island President about Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, a chain of islands near India, who announced his people would be murdered by the West: “Whatever happens, even if we all die, we should not be angry with the people who murdered us. We can’t run climate change campaigns fueled by anger. I can’t tell the people [of the Maldives] that there are other countries trying to murder you. They’re trying to do good by their people according to their understanding.”

Hornaday introduced the murder quotes with this gush: “what emerges is still an impressive portrait of a charismatic, compelling leader punching far above his weight and managing to land a few blows.”

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (12)

  • Avatar

    Drewski

    |

    Good movie.

    Stupid commentary here though — why in the world is Mohamed Nasheed mentioned?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Are you one of the few who bothered to watch? 😆

      Another warmist propaganda movie with zero proof that man is warming the planet.

      Found that stack of papers yet? 😆

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Robert

        |

        I doubt he watched it, it just supports his belief system so it’s “good.”

        It’s like the study he gave us three direct quotes from, none of which were anywhere in the study. He never read the study, he got the “direct quotes” from somewhere like SkS and just parroted the information.

        As long as someone tells him it says “this”, and he agrees with whatever “this” is, he’ll parrot it forever on without ever bothering to see if any of it is true.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          A few of us at Goddard’s site just completely dismantled an anti-fracking freak. She posted links to EPA documents and made claims found nowhere in those documents. We beat her over the head with the actual text, and she slithered away after calling us liars.

          Sound familiar? 😆

          Reply

  • Avatar

    L. E. Deaux, LEED AP

    |

    So then it tells us irrefutable well established facts like:

    1) A CO2 molecule has 2 x the ENERGY TRAPPING VALUE ETV as a molecule oh H2O.

    2) That atmospheric CO2 has increased by 34% in the last 125 years.

    WAIT! STOP! Those are huge facts that the AGW community relies on to convince everyone of the advant dangers of CO2. But I bet, that just like Algore’s Inconvenient truth, the film also conveniently leaves out /he following facts like:

    3) A water molecule has an atomic weight of just 18 compared to CO2 at 44.

    4) So per #3 above, it takes 2.45 water molecules to = 1 CO2 molecule by weight. But that would mean…

    5) Water by = weight would be 22.23% more effective as a GHG than CO2.

    6) Since there is approximately 41 x as much H2O in the atmosphere as CO2, it is easy to realize an inconvenient fact, that water is 49 x as important a GHG as CO2.

    I guess we can hope the really smart people in government press for a complete ban on di-hydrogen monoxide next. The next group og inconvenient facts left out involve the :ntire atmosphere. You see…

    7) Water and CO2 only make up about 4% of the entire atmosphere. Which in terms of global warmth is like thinking you could sleep comfortably under a blanket 9″ square on a cold night. The entire rest of the atmosphere of O2 and N2 with tiny trace elements of O3, Argon and methane accounts for 36 x the heat trapping value of H2O (49/50ths) and CO2 (1/50th) combined. In other words, climate and temperature have litterally nothing to do with the HEAT TRAPPING VALUE of CO2 when measured as a component within the overall atmosphere. Removing it 100% or increasing it 100% is so rediculously unimortant, it is unfathomable that real science has allowed the AGW hoax, farce, stupidity, coj-game get this far. There simply is no science, no physics, no chemistry, no mathematics such as calculus or pobability that gets us to a place where CO2 at 380 ppm has had any appreciable forcing effect on climate. The math above is quite irrefutable. How many millions of words have been written at a cost of billions to perpetrate the CO2 is Poison MYTH? YET! In lessthan 1000 words I just dumped that myth into the dustbin of history with real science.

    Water is 49 x as important to climate as CO2. The entire atmosphere (96%) that is just N2 and O2 accounts for 36 x the heat blanket effect of the atmosphere as all water and carbon-dioxide combined. Hey Algore and you minions of Marx inspired dupes….refute that inconvenient truth!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    L. E. Deaux, LEED AP

    |

    Sorry about the typos…its difficult to type well or go back and edit text on this mobile device. Please forgive my poor typing. But the truth of ehat I’ve written above cannot be disputed.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Owen Smith

      |

      As an airline captain, all of the aviation met text books I have read state the composition of the atmosphere is 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen and 1% all other gasses including water vapor and co2.
      Have I been misinformed all of these years?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        What I’ve seen, heard and read is that :

        Water vapor varies from 0% to 4% depending on location, temperature and other variables.

        Therefore they almost always speak of the ” dry ” atmosphere being 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.1% comprising ALL other gases.

        Carbon dioxide at 0.038% is equal to 380 parts per million.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Owen Smith

          |

          Not to belabour the point and I know what is in avaition texts does not go into great depths, but the 1% includes the water vapour. I have never heard the term “dry atmosphere” used before.
          I am not in disagreement, just wondering.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I’m wondering too because I remember reading that in at least some locations, water vapor can be as high as 4%.

      • Avatar

        L. E. Deaux, LEED AP

        |

        Owen, you and JayPee are both correct. Remember that when we speak of Oxygen in the atmosphere, it comes in many forms (O2, CO2, H2O, H2SO4, etc. about 16%age points of the 20.5% oxygen is in the O2 form which we breath. Water does vary in the atmosphere, based on exact locations and seasons. But overall it makes up just under 4% of the total atmosphere ON AVERAGE. If can fall to as little as 3.25% worldwide during extreme drought, and can rise to more than 4.25% when climates are warm and allow more circulation and evaporation to take place. I think te most telling aspect of the math I demonstrated is the futility at pegging climate change on CO2. More CO2 in the atmosphere can result from warming climates, but it is of negligible value in producing warmer climates until and unless some far greater concentration on the order of water is achieved and even that theory is quite suspect. It turns out that every molecule has a HTEV that is most actively specific to certain frequencies of visible and infrared radiation from the sun. At around 500 ppm, CO2 achieves over 98% of it’s saturation capability such that higher concentrations of CO2 would not in fact continue to trap heat. it would begin to reflect it back into space.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      I gave up on using the phone to try and type anything more involved than a text message. As it is the only “mobile” device I have I fully understand the difficulties using it to respond on a website can entail.

      I suppose the laptops I have could be considered mobile as well but whenever they are actually moving from place to place they usually aren’t on a network. I tried the balance it on one hand type with the other approach once, wasn’t worth the effort.

      Typing up the preceding piece of yours on a mobile is pretty impressive IMO.

      Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.