Media Matters with Bob McChesney

It still baffles me that a journalist like Alexander Cockburn so brushes aside the whole idea of global warming being caused by human activity. The way he glibly blows off the contributions of thousands of scientists and observers who say that the evidence overwhelmingly points to human activity... his flip assessment of the "hockey stick"... etc. I've had a lot of respect for Cockburn (actually, both Cockburns and their niece Laura Flanders) and his intellectual authenticity for some time --- especially on foreign policy --- so the way he doesn't just respectfully differ with the adherents of human-caused global warming science but outright ridicules them makes me wonder. Whose theories does he embrace? Has he done his own scientific study on the subject? What's the deal with the sarcasm? I'm not a scientist and I haven't done my own research, so I weigh the arguments based on what I hear from people like Al Gore, Thom Hartmann, Bernie Sanders, Tim Flannery and other informed observers who agree on the overwhelming evidence of the human hand in climate change. Yes, I get the story from one side, by and large, but I hear interviews of and by these people and I don't think they're stacking the deck. In fact, I've heard Hartmann debate openly and fairly with a number of global warming deniers, and I've heard Gore's testimony before the Senate, and I can't believe Hartmann and others are either so hoodwinked or have such a dishonest agenda as Cockburn implies. I appreciate Bob McChesney's silence when Cockburn makes these dismissive comments. He reminds me of Brian Lamb or Terry Gross at those moments, letting the guest's words stand or fall on their own. In this case it seemed to me the silence was deafening after Cockburn's scorn for thousands of honest scientists and thinkers fell with a shocking thud, like a David Horowitz "Islamofascism" speech at a gathering of Palestinian refugees.

By the way, I found a series of articles disputing global warming, written by Alexander Cockburn, and a series of responses by George Monbiot. The articles have the same sarcastic tone as the above interview. The beginning of Monbiot's first response includes this admonition: "When a non-scientist attempts to dispute the findings of an entire body of science, a good deal of humility and a great deal of research is required. Otherwise he puts himself in the position of the 9/11 truthers. Though they might know nothing about physics, structural engineering, ballistics or explosives, these people still feel qualified to assert that the experts in these fields are wrong, and that the Twin Towers were in fact brought down by controlled explosions." Links to the articles and reponses can be found here: http://tokyoprogressive.org/index/weblog/comments/alexander-cockburn-and-george-monbiot-debate-climate-change-issue/index.html

One more thing: Here's Monbiot's final response to Cockburn's articles. (The link from the page I posted above is dead.) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/06/12/the-conspiracy-widens/

'When a non-scientist attempts to dispute the findings of an entire body of science, a good deal of humility and a great deal of research is required. Otherwise he puts himself in the position of the 9/11 truthers. Though they might know nothing about physics, structural engineering, ballistics or explosives, these people still feel qualified to assert that the experts in these fields are wrong, and that the Twin Towers were in fact brought down by controlled explosions.'

"Yet the media are the most frequently misunderstood parts of our lives. We want to help people understand the role of media in society." I believe esp the electronic media..! it comes to misunderstanding when reporting becomes the desire of media. Who are running the media? How a non-issue becomes an issue? When stories gets opened and people got to know the facts then it results in mis-understanding, esp with news channels/papers.

I must say that the sarcasm is indeed prominent and is huge in proportion. What exactly is his problem? I mean, everyone knows both the sides of a coin named Global Warming, then why such a negative and laid back attitude?