For example, as the National Association of Scholars writes: “S. Fred Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.”19
Singer established the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which “in 2009 published Climate Change Reconsidered, an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that ‘the science is settled.’ ”20 Chuck Todd dismisses all such experts as deniers and therefore cuts off all intellectual inquiry and discussion about man-made climate change by those who have something worthwhile to contribute to the debate.
Patrick Michaels, formerly professor at the University of Virginia and currently director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, as well as a senior fellow in research and economic development at George Mason University, explains “that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades, and that high-end climate horror stories emanating from these lousy models are largely unsupported by observations. Further, they managed to ignore a spate of published science demonstrating that the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide changes was substantially overestimated in those models. . . .”21
Richard S. Lindzen is a distinguished senior fellow at Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, emeritus professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and previously professor of dynamic meteorology at Harvard University. Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and fellow of both the American Meteorological Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He received the Jule G. Charney Award for “highly significant research” in the atmospheric sciences from the American Meteorological Society and the Distinguished Engineering Achievement Award from the Engineer’s Council in 2009. “Lindzen’s pioneering research in atmospheric dynamics has led to his conclusion that the sensitivity of surface temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is considerably below that necessary to generate disastrous climate change.”22
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace cofounder and Canadian ecologist, testified before the United States Senate that “there is ‘little correlation’ to support a ‘direct causal relationship’ between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures. ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’ ” Moore “also criticized the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for claiming ‘it is extremely likely’ that human activity is the ‘dominant cause’ for global warming, noting that ‘extremely likely’ is not a scientific term. Moore warned the statistics presented by the IPCC are not the result of mathematical calculations or statistical analysis, and may have been ‘invented’ to support the IPCC’s ‘expert judgement.’ ”23
Roy W. Spencer “received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.”24
During a presentation at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas, Spencer explained that “[t]oo many people think that all areas of science are created equal and that scientists objectively look for the answers, but no, there’s two kinds of scientists, male and female. Other than that they’re the same as everybody else, and in many instances [in the climate sciences] more biased than your average person. . . . Spencer went on to criticize the temperature data of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) because it has never taken into account the phenomenon of urban heat island effect.”25
Indeed, Spencer pointed to the thermometer-related algorithms as one of the problems in measuring heat. “A lot of us still think that a lot of the warming we are seeing in the thermometer record is just urban heat island effect. In fact, Las Vegas, here, even though it’s built in the desert basically . . . in the last forty years or so, nighttime temperatures here have risen by ten degrees Fahrenheit because of urbanization. This is an effect that they can’t take out of the thermometer record. Their algorithms can’t take it out because you can’t separate it from global warming. If you’ve got a long-term warming trend because of urbanization there’s no way NOAA can take out that effect because it’s indistinguishable from other temperature readings.”26
In the end, Spencer argues, very little is really known about global warming, also known as climate change. “After working on global warming for the last 20 plus years, what do we know about it now? The longer you go [into the research] you get more questions than you get answers. So, what do we really know about it? Almost nothing.”27
There are many more highly educated and experienced experts who raise a variety of substantive issues and questions about man-made climate change. And henceforth, none of them are welcome on NBC’s Meet the Press. Moreover, like NBC, they are not likely to be taken seriously in most newsrooms or by most journalists because they dare to challenge the orthodoxy of the Democratic party-press and the progressive agenda—in which “solutions” to climate change involve new ways of expanding the government’s regulatory and taxing role in society via the “urgency” of climate change, and surrendering national sovereignty to international organizations through multigovernment agreements. Thus one-sided opinion is treated as objective truth; reputable and legitimate individuals who could provide contrary factual information to the public are dismissed as science deniers and climate impostors; and the government and public are urged to engage in immediate political and social activism and demand far-reaching national solutions, such as the “Green New Deal.” NBC and Chuck Todd, among other media outlets and journalists, have “interpreted” and “analyzed” the relevant facts through their progressive approach and their conclusion is final. “Period.”
No doubt Bernays would be proud of Todd, too, for his outstanding effort at manipulating the public and the use of propaganda in the pursuit of his progressive ideological agenda. Indeed, Todd even cited the “Trump government’s” climate report as incontrovertible evidence of global warming, thereby giving the impression of universal validity to Todd’s edict. Todd declared that “[t]his year, a series of climate reports, including one produced by thirteen agencies in Mr. Trump’s government, issued dire warnings of economic catastrophe, if there is not immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the federal response to the climate crisis has been [met with] political paralysis and denial.”28
Of course, Todd did not mention that the report was produced by holdovers from the Obama administration. Furthermore, the Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett explains in an audit report titled “Executive Branch Websites Promoting Global Warming Alarmism and Propaganda,” that “the websites of NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and E
nergy . . . are continuing to push false claims about climate and environmental issues, including that humans are verifiably causing dangerous climate change. Not only are these agencies failing to accurately describe the active debate concerning the causes and consequences of climate change, they are making normative claims about the past that reflect progressive and liberal value judgments concerning America’s development, rather than objective scientific facts about various technological innovations and the contributions they have made toward extending human life and economic development.”29
Given the abundance of experts and research challenging the man-made-climate-change narrative, who is Todd to throw down the gauntlet and declare the debate over? He does not have any of the background or expertise of the true professionals he dismisses as deniers. He attended college, majored in political science, and did not graduate. While in college he worked in the presidential campaign of Democratic senator Tom Harkin. He is forty-seven years old, with no credentials whatsoever in any of the climate-related sciences. Of course, Todd is not alone among journalists with thin academic records and limited experiential backgrounds. Then again, propagandizing does not require exceptional knowledge or talent.
When looking at media propaganda, it is also necessary to examine its equally deceitful and destructive close companion: “pseudo-events,” or what President Trump has termed “fake news.” Among the most prominent to identify and explicate this modus operandi more than half a century ago was Daniel Boorstin, a widely esteemed historian at the University of Chicago and the twelfth librarian of the United States Congress.
Writing in 1961, Boorstin observed in his book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, “We need not be theologians to see that we have shifted responsibility for making the world interesting from God to the newspaperman. We used to believe there were only so many ‘events’ in the world. If there were not many intriguing or startling consequences, it was not the fault of the reporter. He could not be expected to report what did not exist. Within the last hundred years, however, and especially in the twentieth century, all this has changed. We expect the papers to be full of news. If there is no news visible to the naked eye, or to the average citizen, we still expect it to be there for the enterprising newsman. The successful reporter is one who can find a story, even if there is no earthquake or assassination or civil war. If he cannot find a story, then he must make one—by the questions he asks of public figures, by the surprising human interest he unfolds from some commonplace event, or by ‘the news behind the news.’ If all this fails, then he must give us a ‘think piece’—an embroidering of well-known facts, or a speculation about startling things to come. . . .” This, explained Boorstin, is a new kind of “synthetic novelty which has flooded our experience”—that being “pseudo-events.” “The common prefix ‘pseudo’ comes from the Greek word meaning false, or intended to deceive. . . .”30
Boorstin explained that with the advent of round-the-clock media, “[t]he news gap soon became so narrow that in order to have additional ‘news’ for each new edition or each new broadcast it was necessary to plan in advance the stages by which any available news would be unveiled. . . . With more space to fill, [the newsman] had to fill it ever more quickly. . . . News gathering turned into news making.”31
Moreover, “[p]seudo-events spawn other pseudo-events in geometric progression,” writes Boorstin. “This is partly because every kind of pseudo-event (being planned) tends to become ritualized, with a protocol and a rigidity all its own. As each type of pseudo-event acquires this rigidity, pressures arise to produce other, derivative forms of pseudo-events which are more fluid, more tantalizing, and more interestingly ambiguous. . . . Nowadays the test of a Washington reporter is seldom his skill at precise dramatic reporting, but more often his adeptness at dark intimation. If he wishes to keep his news channels open, he must accumulate a vocabulary and develop a style to conceal his sources and obscure the relation of a supposed event or statement to the underlying facts of life, at the same time seeming to offer hard facts. Much of his stock in trade is his own and other people’s speculation about the reality of what he reports. He helps create that very obscurity without which the supposed illumination of his reports would be unnecessary. . . .”32
A perfect example of this process involves the so-called Russian collusion allegation—which, to summarize, started as a political accusation leveled against candidate Donald Trump by Hillary Clinton and her campaign; followed by political demands by Democratic members of the Senate and House for the appointment of a special counsel, despite the lack of any criminal prerequisite; the chorus of Democratic party-press outlets and their reporters encouraging such an appointment by promoting the demands; the actual appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel; the countless leaks and speculation about the investigation; the indictments, plea deals, and convictions of individuals unrelated to the original allegation of “Russian collusion” and President Trump; the various investigative tributaries flowing from the Mueller investigation, including the subsequent investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, leading to the Michael Cohen plea deal and claims of campaign violations, and now the multiple congressional investigations.
This was followed by news reports speculating about President Trump’s legal peril, and implications that he would be indicted, that he was already secretly indicted, that his son Donald Jr. would be indicted, that his son-in-law Jared Kushner would be indicted, etc. The point is reached where pseudo-events, and the pseudo-news, drive the Democratic party-press and the progressive agenda, which certainly includes the removal of President Trump from office as a top priority.
In the end, the collusion story turned out to be the biggest pseudo-event and news scam perpetuated against the American people by the Democratic party-press in modern times. The special counsel’s report concluded that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Notice that the special counsel did not say that prosecutors lacked probable cause to bring charges, or that prosecutors did not believe they could secure a conviction, given the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt legal standard. The report stated emphatically that collusion could not be established. The special counsel would know. According to Attorney General William Barr, “the Special Counsel . . . employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff . . . [He] issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 request to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”33
Consequently, the Democratic party-press narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election was a complete fabrication that consumed two and a half years of broadcast, print, and internet “reporting,” twenty-four hours a day, and involved an untold number of media-inspired and media-promoted conspiracies, plots, allegations, inferences, suppositions, and conclusions.
On March 25, 2019, Newsbuster’s Rich Noyes confirmed the extent of the media’s saturation bombing of the public with false information about this pseudo-event with these incredible statistics: “From January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day) through March 21, 2019 (the last night before special counsel Robert Mueller sent his report to the Attorney General), the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts produced a combined 2,284 minutes of ‘collusion’ coverage, most of it (1,909 minutes) following Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017. That’s an average of roughly three minutes a night, every night, for an astonishing 791 days. . . . From January 1 through March 21 of this year, the spin of Trump coverage on the evening newscast has been 92% negative vs. just eight percent positive. . . .”34
Among the news organizations wit
h some of the most spectacularly irresponsible reporting were the New York Times and the Washington Post, both of which won a Pulitzer Prize “for scoops on links between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, the focus of an ongoing special counsel investigation into the 2016 election.”35
New York Times executive editor Dean P. Baquet was proud of his newspaper’s journalism, even after the special counsel concluded that there was no collusion. “We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets. It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”36 However, the issue is not about illegality, but the obsessive promotion and perpetuation of a pseudo-event as real news.
CNN was among the most rabid collusion hunters in the news industry. On March 26, 2019, Breitbart’s Joshua Caplan reported: “Last December, CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. access to information nearly two weeks prior to their public release. However, the network failed to verify the email’s date—September 14, 2016—by which time the emails had already been released. In June, CNN reported that White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was being investigated for meeting with a Russian banker ahead of President Trump’s inauguration. Scaramucci denied the claim, and CNN eventually apologized for its inaccurate report. CNN executive editor Lex Harris, editor Eric Lichtblau, and journalist Thomas Frank resigned in shame over the story. Further, CNN claimed in July that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, was prepared to tell special counsel investigators that the president possessed advanced knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting between his son Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer, and others. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, later said CNN had ‘mixed up’ its facts and denied claims that Cohen had any such knowledge about the meeting.”37
Unfreedom of the Press Page 12