I received an e-mail message from a global warming skeptic yesterday suggesting that Newsweek's disgraceful article about climate change "deniers" could backfire given the facetious headline "Global Warming Is A Hoax*" on the cover.
The thinking was that since far more people would see the magazine at the newsstands than would actually buy it and read the article, a much larger number of people would think Newsweek was indeed claiming global warming was a hoax, and would never understand the sarcasm.
It seems that one of the editors of Scientific American agrees, and posted his concerns at that magazine's editors' blog Wednesday with a headline "Newsweek Denies the Existence of Global Warming" (emphasis added throughout):
Maybe it's because I don't have the faith in people that I should, but I find this Newsweek cover really irresponsible. Actually, it's due to the polls cited in the article--and those I have seen elsewhere--that suggest that the American public thinks, among other things, that scientists are still trying to determine if global warming is for real and that it's a major issue in the upcoming Presidential election.
Sure, the cover is provocative and gripping, but it also may be doing a disservice to the general public and the people working hard to develop new ways to combat what is realistically the greatest threat to our livelihood: climate change.
How fabulous. But it got better:
[I]f I am scanning a magazine rack--assuming I am not a science writer--what am I going to think when I see this Newsweek cover?
Probably not much...Am I going to take the time to read what the asterisk is referencing? Maybe. Another plausible scenario could be: I just read the big print, forget about it and then three weeks later--while I am talking to someone about politics or energy policy or compact fluorescent light bulbs--blurt out, "I read somewhere that global warming is a hoax."
This is one instance when I can definitely say that I hope a global warming alarmist is right.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The astrisk is so large that
August 8, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Survivor24The astrisk is so large that only someone who instantly believes whatever the news headline of the day is and doesnt bother to do any thinking for themselves would possibly be tricked..... o wait, all those people already believe in global warming.
I guess I heard somewhere
August 8, 2007 - 17:48 ET by TruthMongerI guess I heard somewhere that
BUSH IS HITLER*
Oh well, it's not like it will affect polls or voting or international relations - what am I some paranoid anti-MSM freak of nature or something?
}}---> No, TM he's gotta be worse
August 8, 2007 - 17:56 ET by Cool ArrowAfter all, the Hitler built the Autobahn - with very good bridges.
Guess I shouldn't have said that. Libs are gonna run with it.
never had a bridge collapse
August 8, 2007 - 18:01 ET by TruthMongernever had a bridge collapse under saddam either now did we? or Castro, or Satan...
someone get lauer on the phone...!
snake oil for sale
August 8, 2007 - 17:12 ET by DontFeedTheTrollswhat is realistically the greatest threat to our livelihood: climate change.
What nonsense, prove it or get off the pot.
The greatest threat to our livelihood is the hysterical 'carbon offset' tax being forced down America's throat by our witless, selfish, political buffoons.
This is why I don't subscribe to magazines like Scientific American or Newsweek anymore.
Do you hear me editors?
D
P.S. Congress is once again trying to push a bill that would make the ILLEGALS legal. Go to NumbersUSA and let the faxes fly!
I don't support our liberals or their mission.
Sci Am is a liberal rag
August 8, 2007 - 17:23 ET by WingletDriverSci Am is just the "respectable" mouthpiece for liberalism. I pick it up and occasionally read some very well written scientific articles. A few years ago they had one on the brewing process in Lambic beers. It was superb.
However, they tend to tend to editorialize in articles that have moral significance (e.g., embryonic stem cell research, global warming, etc.). Their position is always for the unbridled pursuit of science. Heck, it worked for Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia; it'll work here too.
Their editorial page always clamors for more government funding of any and all "scientific" research. They are always critical that such-and-such is underfunded or that we would have an answer by now if only Uncle Sam had supported this or that research.
Hey I've got an idea. If it's such great science, why don't you find a corporation or individual donors willing to fund it? Heck, how much money do we contribute to medical & scientific research (I mean as citizens, not through the government)? The only reason you need a government grant is because you can't con enough folks with your phoney-baloney "science." But you sure can get some sucker politician to fund it with someone else's money, especially if it will bring pork back to his district.
Noel, do you have to point
August 8, 2007 - 17:36 ET by tracheostomyNoel, do you have to point out EVERY error the MSM makes? This was one that would have been better left alone. ;)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Not enough hours in the day
August 8, 2007 - 18:02 ET by nkviking75trache, don't worry. There are only 24 hours in a day. Noel can't possibly get them all.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
NK
August 8, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Noel SheppardNK,
Can so! ns
Constant swatting
August 8, 2007 - 22:59 ET by nkviking75While I don't doubt your dedication, trying to catch every biased MSM screwup is like trying to swat every single mosquito in Iowa. The numbers are just too great!
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I have a dumb question; has
August 8, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Sick-n-TiredI have a dumb question; has this issue already hit the newstands? Only reason I ask is, would Newsweek have time to change their cover based on this 'worrisome' article published in Sci Am?
It must have.
August 8, 2007 - 22:04 ET by Scout FinchI work at a library, and it's already been delivered and cataloged. Just for fun, I always put the most egregious covers of Time, Newsweek, and USNews behind the lamer ones. This is one cover of Newsweek I may just leave up front. No one takes that mag home, but everyone glances at it while they're selecting their home decorating or cooking magazines!
Good!
August 9, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Sick-n-TiredThanks Scout!
Wishful Thinking
August 8, 2007 - 17:53 ET by mattmSince so many dim bulbs in America never look past MSM headlines, maybe this one will backfire on Newsleak and cause a mass apostasy from APGW dogma...
Duuhhh...
August 8, 2007 - 17:56 ET by dervishWate,mr sientis
me no no big wurds
whatdo hos need wid ax?
purty oridge bal, tho
Tornado in Brooklyn
August 8, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Sick-n-TiredF2 confirmed in Brooklyn, NY. Just waiting for the other shoe to drop....
3, 2, 1.......BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING!! I am sure the connection will be made and reported very shortly.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_220172727.html
Sort of shows the
August 8, 2007 - 19:20 ET by Chris NormanSort of shows the utter condescension with which the "elites" view the intelligence of the public. That's why they feel they have to use cartoons and lots of colorful graphics to describe "global warming". Come to think of it, anyone who falls for their elementary school teaching tactics should be viewed with contempt.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Headlines
August 8, 2007 - 19:29 ET by BradyFinally, Newsweek as seen the truth and is stating their position. I applaud them.
Everyone knows that the headlines are the most important part of written news stories otherwise liberal editors wouldn't make up headlines that say exactly the opposite as the stories they head (as has been documented many times on this site).
The thinking was that since
August 8, 2007 - 20:01 ET by drillanwrThe thinking was that since far more people would see the magazine at the newsstands than would actually buy it and read the article, a much larger number of people would think Newsweek was indeed claiming global warming was a hoax, and would never understand the sarcasm.
Yes, the same people who don't understand the supposed news the MSM is feeding them is 1/2 sarcasm, 1/2 fiction.
Noel,
August 8, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Dave RSo Scientific American has its boxers in a bunch over an asterisk. Well, if their fellow libs, who took over our government school system 40+ years ago, and who have been running it ever since, would actually educate children instead of indoctrinating them, this wouldn't be an issue.
Lets face it, many of the idiots our government shools are turning out today can't make change even when the register display tells them what it is. Why should these same idiots be expected to know what * means?
Help Fred defeat everybody.
I went over to the Newsweek
August 8, 2007 - 23:48 ET by KhyrisI went over to the Newsweek site and took a look at the feedback thread on the article.
The good news is that at LEAST half of the responders called the story nonsense in that it implies scientific consensus about AGW
The bad news is that the lesser half were somehow able to look at that feedback thread, and STILL remain convinced that a consensus existed.
If a consensus exists, then by definitition there wouldn't be "denialists" that argue with them... It's amazing how many people can't grasp such a simple logical tenet.
Consensus isn't about
August 9, 2007 - 00:31 ET by danboConsensus isn't about having all or even a majority in agreement. Rather it's about quieting disagreement and claiming the issue settled.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
}}---> danbo does (Monty Python)
August 9, 2007 - 01:00 ET by Cool Arrow"Consensus" is now a Monty Python word, to be followed with "nudge, nudge, wink wink."
We know what it means, and in the court of public discourse, whenever the term "consensus" is delivered, we must stop, midconsternation, and uproariously guffaw.
see also "religion of peace"
Another broken hockey stick?
August 9, 2007 - 11:38 ET by danboI had to share this.
Thanks to Iceberg.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT