Silencing global warming critics

The Warmists are at it again, attempting to manipulate media coverage of global warming, in a manner reminiscent of JournoList members attempting to downplay troublesome Obama stories in the 2008 election. The is not the first time for such media manipulation, either.

Now, a reader tip at Anthony Watt's popular blog site seems to indicate the Union of Concerned Scientists has set up, instead of a network to coordinate talking points, a media alert request page that could end up being an intimidation system against certain journalists. At the UCS web site, we are instructed to "Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming". Considering the multi-tens-of-thousands of people reading Watts's blogs, I think his followers are likely to crash the UCS email system with alerts about overblown reports of man-caused global warming. Following the article, one hilarious comment by Accu-Weather's Joe Bastardi suggests a counter-group called "The Union of VERY concerned scientists."

Trouble is, this isn't exactly the first time UCS has set up an alert system. Back in 1998, as seen at this web page copy (save your own copy in case this one gets scrubbed) their Sound Science Initiative had out-flowing alerts and directives with talking points, in this case to thwart the efforts of the Oregon Petition Project:

"This message from the Union of Concerned Scientists is to caution you about a petition effort to reject the Kyoto Protocol that is circulating throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide.... The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors' affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project's conclusions reflect the authors' political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it."

The page continues with some various directives. Among them:

ACTION: Monitor your local newspaper for coverage of the Petition Project's release, and write a letter-to-the-editor (LTE) in response, if you see a story.

MAIN MESSAGE: Contrary to the petition's misleading claims, there is an [sic] strong consensus in the world's scientific community that the threat of global warming is very real and action is needed immediately.

DEADLINE: Monitor your paper this week and send your LTE within two days of the story's appearance.

Perhaps most entertaining of all much further down the page is the "letter...submitted to the Wall Street Journal in December 1997 (but not published)", written by Thomas Karl (famous for his doctor problems), Kevin Trenberth (famous for hurricane harbinger problems) and James Hansen (famous for civil disobedience, among other things)", which was "endorsed and circulated" by such current luminaries as Obama's current NOAA Director Jane Lubchenco, and Science Czar John Holdren.

In all this effort, has the UCS ever actually engaged the skeptic scientists in head-to-head debate on the underlying science of man-caused global warming, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how they prevail? In all the UCS' reliance on Greenpeace's for its accusations that big oil & coal corrupts the skeptics, have they ever shown smoking gun evidence such as "...according to Oil Company document ‘X' dated ‘Y' going to ‘Z' accompanied with the instruction to fabricate ‘AB' science document having ‘CD' conclusion about natural global warming..."?

For some incredibly odd reason, the suicidal idea that a small group of people can manipulate the news and suppress criticism prevails, as opposed to a more logical approach where debate is won though the presentation of incontrovertible evidence.