1%er Warmist Katrina vanden Heuvel Really Psyched Over Shutting Down Debate

Prick a Warmists and a fascist bleeds

The distorting reality of ‘false balance’ in the media

False equivalence in the media — giving equal weight to unsupported or even discredited claims for the sake of appearing impartial — is not unusual. But a major media organization taking meaningful steps to do something about it is.

Earlier this month, the BBC’s governing body issued a report assessing the BBC’s impartiality in covering scientific topics. When it comes to an issue like climate change, the report concluded, not all viewpoints share the same amount of scientific substance. Giving equal time and weight to a wide range of arguments without regard to their credibility risks creating a “false balance” in the public debate.

This is a lesson for all media on both sides of the Atlantic — and not just when it comes to science coverage. There are many sides to almost every story, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically equal.

The lesson is that dictators through the ages would be proud of this conduct. Of course, she yammers on about consensus, and ends with

Ultimately, forcing balance where there is none is not journalistically ethical. It’s not part of the proud and essential tradition of truth telling and evaluation, either. At best, it’s lazy. At worst, it’s an abdication of the media’s responsibility.

Rather than uncritically repeating talking points, isn’t it time for the media to take the BBC’s bold advice and exercise editorial judgment? Because if the scale tips in favor of the truth, that’s not imbalanced reporting. That’s journalism.

In other words, shut down the debate. Self censorship. It’s not enough that Skeptics are rarely allowed their say within the media to start with. Is there a counter opinion piece to Heuvel’s? No. She, like most Warmists, wants to institute their fascistic viewpoints, and stop the spread of anything that doesn’t fit in with their political cult.

From the comments

Is there anything more Orwellian than this. “False balance”, how about giving all the information and letting the reader make up his mind.

Say, when is Katrina going to give up her own Big Carbon Footprint lifestyle?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “1%er Warmist Katrina vanden Heuvel Really Psyched Over Shutting Down Debate”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Media outlets are private businesses and make editorial judgments all the time. Deniers will always have their websites and FOX News to spread their misinformation. There is no shortage of opportunities to get your “truth” out.

    Should schools use judgment in what they teach or should they teach all the available options? In geology, should they also teach the concept of the 6000 year old Earth that most Americans believe in? Or should we encourage the teaching of science in science classes?

    Should media outlets assume that the 4 billion year old Earth and the 6000 year old Earth are just two equal sides of a scientific argument and always offer balance?

    The scientific argument about global warming is over. If the Denier side had any new arguments to make, any new evidence to present, they would. Even the Denier elites are retreating and forming a new defense line.

  2. jl says:

    Poor, deluded J. The scientific debate is never over for any subject. People who have facts and data have no problem debating-it’s because they have…facts and data. The only reason the astrologers say “it’s over”, or are happy when debate is shut down is due to the simple fact they have nothing to debate, other than scare tactics about things that never come true or are far enough into the future that they won’t be called on it. “Should media outlets assume a 4 billion year old earth and a 6000 year old earth..” Geez, J- look up false equivalence in the dictionary. There’ll be a picture of you next to that stupid sentence you wrote. You’re going to the bottom of the barrel in your “arguments”, aren’t you? “If the denier side had any new arguments or evidence to present, they would.” Earth to J- we don’t have to prove a negative. No new arguments are needed because you still haven’t proved the first one. When you have evidence from something other than a computer model that’s been loaded with not yet proved positive feedbacks give us a call.

  3. Jeffery says:


    You’re the Denierest of all the Deniers! Possibly one of a kind. You have not in all your arguments mentioned having facts and data. Why didn’t you present some??

    You’re still denying that the Earth is even warming, which even Teach and Lord Monkton have given up.

    Hang in there, lad. You seem to have a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method at best, and seem to be refractory to learning. Scientific theories are never proven but arise from overwhelming data. That’s not to say that you won’t unearth some hidden gem that refutes the theory. But I find that unlikely.

    Yes! You do know about false equivalence! That’s why you wish to have a Denier with every climate scientist.

    The Earth is still warming because of CO2 added to the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels. The three basic facts of the theory of AGW wrapped up in one short sentence. You should memorize it. You’ll be hearing it a lot.

  4. Jeffery says:


    Do you find the evidence of a 4 billion year old Earth to be overwhelming? It’s certainly never been proven, has it? Sure, there’s lots and lots of evidence consistent with an ancient Earth but what if God planted all that evidence to test your faith? The clear scientific consensus is that the Earth is ancient, even though most Americans think the Earth is young.

    Same goes for evolution. The scientific consensus is that biological evolution has occurred since there has been the most primitive life on Earth. Most Americans reject that theory.

    • Jl says:

      “4 billion year old earth never been proven, has it.” Only of you don’t believe in carbon dating. But again, obviously you don’t understand false equivalence, as the government isn’t trying to force folks to change their behavior and raise taxes regardless whether they believe it or not. Is the government trying to get us to buy something or change our light bulbs or whatever because they believe in evolution? As I said, you really don’t understand FE. “The earth is warming..” Nice try, J. No one has ever denied the earth warms. But it hasn’t in the last 17 years, contrary to the alarmists predictions. And if it does warm, there’s no proof the factors that have warmed it in the past aren’t doing it now. RSS satellite data, which is the only data set not “adjusted” by NOAA shows no warming. Sorry. Gee, I wonder why the astrologers changed their mantra from global warming to climate change if it was still warming? As far as facts and data, read above. The ultimate facts are Mother Nature, which refuses to do much of anything the alarmists proclaimed. Anyway, the new kids on the block are the ones who have to come up with the facts and data. As said hundreds of times, the garbage that comes out of the highly adjusted computer models isn’t data. But keep trying.

  5. Jeffery says:


    You are refractory to learning aren’t you?

    You accept the science of carbon dating but not the science of carbon isotopes that proves that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuels?

    What factors that warmed the Earth in the past are causing the Earth to warm now? Some physical process that has not been discovered?

    The RSS dataset is the only one not “adjusted”? Another wingnut lie. Prove that statement, please. Satellite datasets are the MOST adjusted since they don’t measure actual temperatures, they use computers to model temperatures from measured microwave radiation. Why do you trust manipulated computer model data over thermometers? (Answer: Because it tells you what you want to hear.) Follow-up question. Why do you prefer RSS satellite data over UAH satellite data? Denier/skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer developed UAH, and after they were discovered inaccurately manipulating the data resulting in “cooling” years ago, that system has apparently been accurate.

    From the RSS Website: “Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is a world leader in processing and analyzing microwave data collected by satellite microwave sensors” and “Calculating brightness temperatures from raw radiometer counts is a complex, multi-step process in which a number of effects must be accurately characterized and adjustments made to account for them. These effects include radiometer non-linearity, imperfections in the calibration targets, emission from the primary antenna, and antenna pattern adjustments.”

    No one changed global warming to climate change. Another wingnut lie. IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE. The IPCC is about 30 years old. It has always been climate change.

    Every dataset but the RSS shows warming. Here’s what Mother Nature is telling us. The atmosphere and lands are warming. Ocean heat content is increasing steadily. Sea level is increasing. The ice is melting. And you claim it hasn’t warmed in 17 years, based on a satellite system that converts upper atmosphere microwaves to an apparent “temperature”.

Pirate's Cove