MARC MORANO 202-224-5762 email@example.com
Matt Dempesy 202-224-9797 firstname.lastname@example.org
WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, will deliver a major speech today at approximately 3pm eastern on the floor of the United States Senate on the latest developments in global warming. Senator Inhofe will deliver a stinging rebuke of the media’s coverage of the climate debate. The Speech is titled “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming.” Who: Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
What: Speech titled “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”
When: Approximately 3:00pm ET, Monday, September 25, 2006
Where: Floor of the United States Senate (Coverage on C-SPAN and C-SPAN Radio, or online on CSPAN.org http://www.cspan.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30)
Excerpts from the Speech:
Senator Inhofe on media coverage of global warming:
“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media pedaled a coming ice age.
It is an inconvenient truth that so far, 2006 has been a year in which major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness and objectivity when it comes to climate change. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try and convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of England’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.
After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.
Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific ‘consensus’ of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.”
Senator Inhofe on projections of global warming disaster:
“In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models. This threat is originating from the software installed on the hard drives of the publicity seeking climate modelers.
The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.
The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict.”
Senator Inhofe on the Kyoto Protocol:
“Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along:
The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.
The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.
I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions like the Kyoto Protocol.
In addition, we now have many environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities, like Laurie David, who have been advocating measures like changing standard light bulbs in your home to fluorescents to help avert global warming. Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is a fine thing to do, but to somehow imply we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd. Once again, symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.”
Senator Inhofe on former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth:”
In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.
On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted over 100 scientists.”
Senator Inhofe on the media’s coverage of climate alarmist James Hansen:
“Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.
The foundation’s money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.”
Senator Inhofe on Time Magazine’s Global Warming Special Report:
“The April 3, 2006 global warming special report of Time Magazine was a prime example of the media’s shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism.
So in the end, Time’s cover story title of “Be Worried, Be Very Worried,” appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried --- very worried -- of such shoddy journalism.”
Senator Inhofe on Tom Brokaw’s July 2006 Global Warming Special on the Discovery Channel:
“You don’t have to take my word for the program’s overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted
“You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program” because of its lack of scientific objectivity.”
Senator Inhofe on Reuters News article (September 15, 2006) about polar bears in the arctic appearing to be exhausted:
“The article did not state the bears were actually dead or exhausted, rather that they “looked” that way. Have we really arrived at the point where major news outlets in the U.S. are reduced to analyzing whether or not polar bears in the Arctic appear restful? How does reporting like this get approved for publication by the editors at Reuters?”
Senator Inhofe on what the a British group called the Institute for Public Policy Research has termed “Climate Porn” to describe the media’s relentless hyping of global warming:
“Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’ has failed to seduce many Americans. According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.
Yes -- it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.” On CBS’s “60 Minutes” one-sided global warming segments of 2006:
“Why would “60 Minutes” ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of ‘Holocaust deniers.’”