QUESTION FOR BILL O'REILLY: WHO'S THE IDIOT NOW?

Question for Bill O'Reilly: Who's the Idiot Now?

By Cliff Kincaid

The ClimateGate scandal demonstrates that some of the key figures behind the man-made global warming theory manipulated the "science" and hid data. Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, says such conduct may be criminal.

Bill O'Reilly should lead the effort to put these criminals in jail. Why? He was misled by them.  In a 2007 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," O'Reilly said not only that "global warming is here" but that those opposed to the theory were "idiots."

Who's the idiot now?

Accuracy in Media never bought into the media-hyped theory. Over the years, under the leadership of AIM founder Reed Irvine, we held numerous panels at our conferences on the subject of how the "science" behind the man-made global warming theory was being manipulated. Dr. S. Fred Singer was a regular speaker. In fact, our recent 40^th anniversary conference had a panel discussion, "Global Warming: Fact or Media Myth?," featuring Lord Christopher Monckton, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, and Ann McElhinney, director of the powerful film, Not Evil Just Wrong.

AIM published Jerry Carlson's, Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?, in February 2008. Some of our other articles include, "Media promote Global Warming Fraud" and Roger Aronoff's "Media Frenzy Over Global Warming." and "More Hot Air on Global Warming."

May I be permitted to say, "We told you so."

One of our best AIM Reports on the subject was Roger Aronoff's "Flip-Flop: From Global Cooling to Warming," on how some "scientists" and journalists once promoted the theory that the earth was cooling.

But the liberals weren't the only frauds and/or dupes. 

"Government's gotta be proactive on environment," O'Reilly told Mike Wallace during that "60 Minutes" interview. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."

We don't expect the liberals in the media and elsewhere to apologize. Their standards are low, if not non-existent. But O'Reilly claims to hold himself to higher standards. He should prove it.

It is important to note that O'Reilly flip-flopped, saying in 2008 that it was "all guesswork" as to whether global warming is "natural" or "man-made."

We don't need a body language expert to conclude that O'Reilly didn't know what he's talking about. He was not alone but he did have a popular cable program.

Obviously confused and then unwilling to do the hard work, O'Reilly said back in 2002 that "I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming." He faulted Rush Limbaugh for rejecting evidence from "reputable scientists" but didn't name any.

His evidence? O'Reilly declared, "When I was a kid, we used to be able to skate on frozen ponds for two months. Now if you get a week of natural ice, that's a cold winter."

O'Reilly's pathetic treatment of this matter received our attention back in 2004 in a column we headlined, "Flip-flopper Bill O'Reilly." We noted that O'Reilly had claimed that unnamed scientists at MIT, whom he described as "the best in the world," believe that "all this fossil fuel is hurting the earth" and that global warming is occurring and must be urgently addressed. However, the most prominent expert on global warming at MIT, meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, had not been invited on "The Factor." Lindzen is a leading critic of the theory.

On July 13, 2009, as noted by Gateway Pundit, O'Reilly told his viewers that since 2001 we have witnessed "seven of the hottest years" on record. This was nonsense. On December 1, John Stossel entered the "No Spin Zone" and declared, "There hasn't been warming for the past eleven years and we have real problems in the world¯millions are dying from malaria, malnutrition, bad hygiene. The idea that we should keep people poor by spending all this money on global warming is an awful idea."

But rather than apologize for misleading his viewers, O'Reilly adopted a new tack. He became an advocate of "global warming agnosticism" and said, "Only the Deity knows whether the planet is warming and who is at fault. But along with that, anything that we can do to make the planet cleaner, we should try to do."

O'Reilly is spinning so fast a body language expert would be of no practical use in determining what exactly he means.

Now that ClimateGate has so clearly exposed the fraudulent nature of some of those behind the theory, O'Reilly should himself "come clean" and set the standard for what the rest of the media should be and do. 

We suggest a Bill O'Reilly "Talking Points Memo" that includes:

"Factor Viewers: I was wrong about global warming. I didn't do my homework. I jumped to conclusions and flip-flopped. What's worse, I accused those of telling the truth of being idiots. I was the idiot. For that I apologize."

It is incumbent on O'Reilly not only to apologize to his viewers but to work actively to expose the evidence of what Beisner calls "serious scientific malfeasance¯the fabrication, corruption, destruction, hiding, and cherry-picking of data," as well as "intimidation of dissenting scientists and journal editors¯and efforts to evade disclosure under Freedom of Information Laws in the United Kingdom and the United States…"

Naming names, Beisner told this columnist, "Rational inquiry, reasoned discussion, and open debate are the victims of such men as Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Ben Santer, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other scientific high priests of the religion of manmade global warming exposed in ClimateGate, along with their non-scientist acolytes like Al Gore and Maurice Strong."

He adds, however, that "There's a silver lining to this cloud: All of their victims may be resurrected by the misconduct's exposure. Thousands and thousands of scientists the world over, not to mention federal and state attorneys general and university academic fraud investigators, now need to restore scientific integrity and the open, transparent quest for truth by holding these scientists accountable and demanding absolute public openness in all future scientific research."

Beisner says that "the scientists, and with them the institutions that employ them, who violate the canons of complete openness with all the process and products of publicly funded research, should be held liable and required to repay every penny of the millions of dollars in research grants they've received."

Equally important is that their motives be exposed. In this case, the obvious intention is to destroy the American way of life through higher taxes, even on a global level.

As I told Foxnews.com for their article, "Critics Decry 'One-Sided' Media Coverage of Climate Change Debate," our media have not only embraced the bogus "science" and the fraudulent theory, they have failed to tell the American people what is in the draft treaty being debated at the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from December 7-15.

According to the conference website, President Barack Obama is shifting the timing of his visit to the international climate summit in Copenhagen "as prospects for a political agreement at the event seem more likely."

I took my cue from Lord Monckton and read the document. Page 83 raises the possibility of "cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes." Page 134 suggests a "global levy" on carbon dioxide emissions, including from international aviation and maritime transport. Page 135 suggests an "international adaption levy on airfares" and a global tax on international financial markets.

We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

As Monckton suggests, if you read the entire document you come away convinced that these people want to put in place a world government. Yet, the United States was born in a tax revolt when King George tried to tax us.

Freedom of the press does not mean the right to lie. It is time to tell the truth about those who have been lying to us.

          Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

By Cliff Kincaid Email: cliff.kincaid@aim.org Click here for bio and archived articles

Yes, Climategate. Posted On: 12/14/09 04:02:00 PM Age 49, IL The issue is less about the data than the "revelation" that, although academics profess freedom of expression and tolerance for dissenting views, when given a position of power through public funding they deny other professional academics scientific freedom of expression unless they are already "part of the club." Even in those cases, the tolerance only reaches certain limits. The best example of this is, of course, the whole evolution "debate" (e.g. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box). The philosophical roots of Darwinian evolution can be traced clearly, showing us that Darwin's commitment was less about science (due to lack of real scientific evidence) and more about a worldview shift toward naturalism as the new god of science intended to replace the God of the Bible. Academic professionals are effectively restrained from teaching alternatives to Darwinian "theory" in the public school/public university setting. In the university setting "dissension" is permitted, but only if it leads to a "new theory" of neo-Darwinian expression, such as puncuated equilibrium or some other nonsense that is intended to protect a vapid "theory" from the requirement to provide real scientific (observable, testable and repeatable) support for their claim(s). Enough said. As to global climate change, take a look at Svensmark's (1995 or 1996 and later) work on low cloud cover and its correlation to cosmic ray flux (i.e. solar activity). The work appears credible and compelling, especially since the link to CO2 makes little sense as it is just a trace gas in the atmosphere (approximately 0.3%, I understand). Obama for president??? Posted On: 12/10/09 07:10:05 AM Age 49, WA O'Reilly should also apologize for telling us that Barak Obama could do the job as president. Any respect I had for him was gone after that declaration. I wonder if Bill is actually surprised where we are as a nation after one year of this guy? Climate Gate? Posted On: 12/09/09 10:08:36 PM Age 50, NC The strangest thing about your opinion is that you did not bother to read the emails in question. You can read them for yourself and I urge every person who reads this article not to listen to Bill or YOU. Your both defending entrenched positions which rely less on truth, and more on emotion than either of you care to admit. I CAN PROVE IT: GO GET THE EMAILS AND READ THEM... http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009 Myself, I downloaded and read every email. And my opinion is as follows: 1. Every human has bias, and this includes scientist. 2. You can certainly make a case that the scientist in question were trying to suppress certain opinions. 3. However, you will be surprised to learn that the data they wanted to suppress were not due to a bias towards or against any particular supporting case for or against global warming, rather it was strictly a quality of sampling technical arguement. In several instances including the data would have created a INCREASED WARMING TREND IN THE DATA!!! Unbelievable isn't it. They actually were working to suppress data that would have shown an increase in warming over a shorter period. LOL!!! GO READ THE EMAILS~! 4. It is clear to me that we just don't have enough data to determine whether global warming is real at this stage. What data we do have is not conclusive. And believe it or not the trend in the emails suggest this as well. In this instance, with the damning evidence available for all to read, you would do well to read the emails before you write one more word about what they contain. From the statements you have made it is clear you haven't spent one minute examining them. “And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)”. Left-leaning Moderate Posted On: 12/09/09 02:42:51 PM Age 65, CA I stopped listening to O'Reilly a long time back when I personally discovered he is a left-leaning Moderate. What say you ? Posted On: 12/09/09 01:48:41 PM Age 69, LA What say you, Mr. O'Reilly ? Keep it pithy. O'Reilly is a Moderate Posted On: 12/09/09 01:40:14 PM Age 65, CA I stopped listening to O'Reilly a long time back when I personally discovered he is a left-leaning moderate. I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that he is a mole. Fox Programming Posted On: 12/09/09 12:14:35 PM Age 67, TX Although Fox programming is much better than any of the other TV networks, in my opinion, I get much more information from Brannon Howse and Jan Markel. I don't see evidence of the Biblical Worldview from O'Reilly, Greta, or Glenn Beck. The Name calling. Posted On: 12/09/09 11:06:47 AM Age 36, IL Its obvious the ones who worry about name calling dont actually watch the show. Because Pin head or Patriot is of His own doing and is a segment on the show. Instead of opinoins how about we stick to the facts. He sided with ignorance instead of truth. And I hate to say it, but Christ did not like Lies either and said so. Christ Is the salvation for all who call on His name. Again you can only lead a horse to water you cant make him drink. Plus he is a grown man and should know right from wrong, is has become to common place for ingorance to be associated with The Father and lies instead of truth. You can only pray for a soul they are the ones that have to accept deliverance. Kincaid is right! Posted On: 12/09/09 10:43:25 AM Age 73, FL Yes, Kincaid is right and O'Reilly is the pinhead! And if O'Reilly is man enough to admit it, he should call himself a pinhead because it's the perfect metaphor for being on the wrong side of an issue. And if I may, a suggestion for making use of John Stossell's talents since he is now part of the "No Spin Zone." Please, Mr. O'Reilly, stop assigning John to such trivial stories as the "crisis" over "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays." Put Stossell on the global warming scam and let him expose the truth related to this important topic. Not so dogmatic Posted On: 12/09/09 09:02:39 AM Age 76, PA Bill O'Reilly needs to be less dogmatic about things he cannot be sure about. He is a good influence in most cases, but not all.