Think Progress Takes Climate Alarmism to Absurd Degrees

On Thursday, NewsBuster Amy Ridenour reported the hysterical protestations of the liberal blog Think Progress concerning conservative websites like ours having the unmitigated audacity to share with readers the global warming skepticism of The Weather Channel founder John Coleman.

Our crime against humanity (emphasis added for your amusement):

The right wing should check Coleman's credentials before touting his "scientific" work. As Coleman admits, his "expertise" is in weather - not climate change science. In fact, he "has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953."

Oh my goodness. You mean that someone who's been professionally reporting on the weather for over 50 years shouldn't be allowed to comment about the climate, but a political blog that's been in existence for less than three years should?

Adding insult to absurdity, take a look at the bio for the Think Progresser that wrote this ridiculous critique (emphasis again added for your amusement):

Satyam Khanna is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. Satyam holds a B.A. in Biology and Political Science from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to joining the Center, he worked as a field organizer for Jeff Smith's Missouri Senate campaign and a researcher for Claire McCaskill's US Senate race, both in St. Louis. He is also an alumnus of the Washington Leadership Program of the Indian-American Center for Political Awareness.

So, Satyam, what's your background in climatology and/or meteorology that gives you climate expertise superior to Coleman's?

In fact, looking at the entire Think Progress staff, there isn't one person with any technical science degree or background related to climatology or meteorology. Yet, in its less than three year existence, this blog has published 390 pieces with the words "global warming" in it, and 246 with the words "climate change."

Using the logic that only degreed experts should be allowed to comment on this issue, isn't Think Progress employing the standard liberal practice of "Do As I Say, Not As I Do?"

Of course, as Ridenour pointed out Thursday, this blog loves to cite the words of global warming alarmists regardless of their lack of degrees or related scientific backgrounds. For instance, TP has published 79 articles which included the name Al Gore and the words "global warming." It's also posted 47 articles including the name Al Gore and the words "climate change."

So, Satyam, what degrees does Al Gore hold in meteorology or climatology, hmmm?

Or how about "An Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David who's featured in three TP posts which include the words "global warming." What are her scientific credentials, or musician Sheryl Crow's who has also been written about by TP concerning her global warming opinions?

In reality, the hypocrisy in this position on TP's part is multi-faceted, as journalists can't possibly hold degrees and have professional backgrounds in all the fields they cover. If such was the case, Katie Couric would only be qualified to report on English and history, and Brian Williams wouldn't be allowed to discuss anything because he never graduated from college.

For the record, I didn't take one college course specifically related to climatology or meteorology. However, much like Al Gore, I have read voluminous papers and studies concerning the matter, more than enough in fact to feel qualified to report on this controversial issue especially when specifically citing the work of experienced professionals in the field.

And, as Mr. Coleman has been involved in weather reporting since well before most Americans were born, his views on this matter should be welcomed rather than chided as it is further evidence that the claim of a "consensus" regarding anthropogenic global warming is a canard of epic proportions.

In fact, what made Coleman's article at ICECAP was not in the science being conveyed, but instead that such a high profile member of the weather reporting community would make such statements, especially one with a prior connection to a cable channel that has made climate change activism an expressed mission in recent years.

Such was clearly lost upon the good folks at TP.

Yet, this is the typical liberal disqualifier for anyone that says anything that goes counter to their dogma even though folks who support their positions don't need to live up to such standards.

Maybe even more hypocritical, the bar concerning expertise and the lack thereof can also be a shifting one at TP, for it had no problem citing the hurricane forecast of Colorado State University professor William Gray in April in a post that also referred to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Yet, when Dr. Gray spoke skeptically of manmade global warming and ill of Al Gore a few weeks ago, TP went on the attack:

In May 2006, a Wasington Post [sic] magazine article quoted Gray directly comparing Gore to Hitler:

Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.

As such, degrees and expertise are a red herring here. All that matters is whether or not your views are consistent with TP's, for if they're not, regardless of your background, you have no right to utter them, and journalists have no right to quote them.

Do you folks really think this is progress?