Post Page Advertisement [Top]

At U.N., Gore Urges Senate to Pass Climate Change Bill

Ethics Daily ran my latest article today, which is entitled "At U.N., Gore Urges Senate to Pass Climate Change Bill." It covers remarks at Tuesday's meeting about climate change designed to build momentum for the climate summit to be held in Copenhagen in December.

Ethics Daily also has a good column today by Robert Parham entitled "Jesus Would Tweet, and Warn of the Temptation of Technology." He considers the question "What Would Jesus Tweet?"


  1. Brian,

    I suspect that now, as a university professor, you're a bit too stretched on time to write thorough, objective articles, but must simply resort to hastily reporting one side of events like Tuesday's meeting.

    Otherwise, you might have included these concurrent happenings which directly relate another side of the debate:

    Speaking earlier this month at the U.N.'s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Professor Mojib Latif of Germany, one of the world's foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, admitted that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades. This is an inconvenient truth for Latif and GoBama (my coined reference for the lock-step union, in all-things global warming, of our former V.P. and current President).

    Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus described the Tuesday meeting as propagandist, undignified, sad, and frustrating. He noted that, while doubts in the scientific community increase about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena, politicians seem to be moving closer to a knee-jerking, earth-shattering [my two hyphenated adjectives] consensus on "climate change" (as opposed to "global warming" since it doesn't sell as well now). Klaus considers this hasty movement to be a huge mistake--a train that can't be stopped.

    In the spirit of Al Gore, here's my own attempt at being a conspiracy theorist: Since Klaus is a known dissenter among civilized world leaders on the theory of human-induced global warming--having authored a book about it in 2007--should we overlook as mere coincidence the fact that the Czech Republic will no longer benefit from the promised missile defense system President Obama just scrapped?

  2. No, I have plenty of time but thanks for your concern. I was reporting about Tuesday's meeting. Your example is from a different event so my not including it does not result in me only reporting one-side of the Tuesday event. I never endorse a perspective in the piece but simply tell you what a prominent Baptist figure said about it. Maybe the only reason you think you see bias is because you are so biased on this issue.

    Also, I apparently have more time than you to get the facts straight because you left out Latif's conclusions. He was not arguing that global warming is not still a problem, but that there could be cooling or stabilization for a period before it takes off again. Thus, he still believes we must take action. But again, that was not part of Tuesday's meeting. As for Klaus, I sure his opposition simply comes from his political ideology.

  3. Brian,

    You sound like a political hack. Why should re-stating what Al Gore said at a meeting have significance to Ethics Daily? Maybe ABP or MSNBC.

    I don't think, I know I see bias because the organization you're reporting for and--it appears--to is so obviously biased on the issue--you know, Parham presenting Gore with this and that meritorious commendation, etc.

    Regarding the last line of your response to my comment: What a blatantly apathetic, non-intellectual, non-journalistic dismissal of what the head-of-state of an American ally has to say about the very event that is the subject of your article!

    You're sure about Klaus' motives? Well, I'm dead-certain that Gore's big speech "simply comes from his political ideology." And his love for power and wealth. It has little if anything to do with ethics.

  4. Wow, you are resorting to name-calling. How objective and unbiased of you! The tone of your comment proves my point: your bias is impacting your ability to read. After all, I just told you why Gore's comments would be considered newsworthy--he's a prominent Baptist speaking at an international gathering. He was named the "Baptist of the Year" and spoke at the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant so he is a newsworthy figure for Ethics Daily. Only someone really biased against him would not see him as newsworthy.

    It is not "non-intellectual" or "non-journalistic" to not see Klaus as relevant. What are his qualifications for the subject? You only see him newsworthy because he matches your bias. Latif is someone who is qualified and should be considered, but not Klaus. If the president of the Czech Republic was a proponent of global warming science but had no qualifications on the subject, you would attack me for quoting him. Why would Klaus be relevant for Ethics Daily? He's not a Baptist (he's an atheist).

    If you want to actually have a discussion here, I'm willing. But please tone it down and try to be civil.

  5. Brian,

    What name did I call you or anyone?
    Did you just resort to calling me a name caller? No, you just described your impression of what I wrote. In the same way, I described my impression of what your wrote as sounding like what a political hack would write. You may have intended to call me a biased name caller, but I didn't call you any name except "Brian."

    I don't think I'll rehash why the head-of-state of a European ally of the U.S. who attended the meeting and thought that both the meeting and what the notable New Baptist of the Year had to say stunk . . . whew! that's a mouthfull . . . is newsworthy.

    By your rationale, why do you include Obama's comments--he's not Baptist either. Do you know that he or Gore is more qualified than Klaus on the subject?

    The fact that the earth is cooling may be ignored by Gore and President Obama in pushing their agenda, but it would be becoming for you as a journalist to explain why this inconvenient truth will make more difficult gaining their desired results at the coming December Copenhagen summit (they'd better bring their heaviest jackets to Denmark in December).

    Finally, the fact that Latif says global warming will return after another two or three decades of cooling doesn't lessen the elephant-in-the-room blushing truth that has befuddled his past modeling. But I'll trust Latif's 30-year crystal ball return-to-warming prediction more than I do his previous, now-tarnished modeling on which Gore hung his "inconvenient truth" hat. That leap of faith, whether sincere or not, has reaped tremendous monetary reward and fame--which now should be infamy--for the New "Baptist of the Year."

  6. C.D.: If you are going to claim you didn't call me names, at least be smart enough to delete your earlier post that started by calling me "a partisan hack." By leaving it up for all to see, it's pretty obvious you've become pretty emotional trying to support your bias.

    Klaus does not have any qualifications on this issue. Just because he is the political head of an small ally of the U.S. does not make him qualified to speak on all issues. Should I also quote the head of Tuvalu, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, and Seychelles? Not if they have no qualification on the issue. Again, if I had quoted some random leader of a country who had no qualifications on the subject, you would have rightly attacked me for that. Why can you not see your double-standard?

    Gore does has more qualifications than Klaus because he has been recognized by the international community for his work on this topic. You can disagree with him, those awards, and his claims, but he has at least been recognized as an authority. Also, he's actually a Baptist and thus relevant to the readers of Ethics Daily. Obama is included because he's referenced in Gore's remarks and is the leader of the U.S.--thus being important context for the story (an important part of journalism).

    Also, you wrongly wrote "The fact that the earth is cooling..." It is not an established fact, but the exact opposite of what nearly all climatologists believe. Latif is in the minority but is not someone who believes there is no problem (although I love that you now attack him even though earlier you praised him--seems like more of your bias as you just want to selectively pick the claims that fit your already held belief). You may not like the fact that Gore and his opinion gets attention, but that does not mean my article did not accurately reflect the comments during Tuesday's meeting. Please do not expect my journalistic pieces to conform to your biased perspective.

  7. Brian,

    Either your bias is preventing you from reading correctly or you're attempting to mislead casual drop-in readers of this exchange (if there are any). I just explained thoroughly what I meant when I said "you sound like a political hack." Kindly point out where I called you a "partisan hack" (you can't, because I didn't!)

    Unfortunately, you still sound like a political hack. I'm not saying you are one--in fact, it's your uncharacteristic scantiness in this article that caused me to respond in the first place. But your whole handling of my critique is really beneath you. You insinuate I'm not "smart enough" to delete something you claim I said--which I didn't!

    Only one thing to say in response to the little that's substantive in your otherwise emotional tirade. I'm not praising Latif for anything. I'm simply pointing out that he is no longer denying the obvious truth that the Earth has not been warming this decade, is not warming now, and won't be warming for at least a couple of more decades. (It should be noted that he is basing his prediction of a return to warming because of natural, predictable cycles.) Also, Latif has been right in the middle of the U.N. global warming campaign--don't make him out to be in some fringe minority.

    Have you any response to the claim I actually did make that Ethics Daily, for whom you're reporting--and increasingly appearing to be to whom you report--is without a doubt biased on the issue of global warming/climate change?

    Finally, on a lighter note, what do you think about the JMU-Liberty matchup on the gridiron this weekend?

  8. C.D.: The claims that someone is "a partisan hack" and that they "sound like a partisan hack" are both ad hominem attacks, which are unethical and illogical. With your legal hairsplitting there I'm assuming you must have defended Bill Clinton's answer about the definition of "is." Because you are making the distinction to try to get out of what you said. Jesus said let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no."

    Your started this line with a highly charged attack and have only gotten more emotional. But, you have yet to show one thing from Tuesday's meeting that I should have included (you only give comments from a different meeting and from a random guy about the meeting but nothing from it). The meeting may have been one-sided but that does not mean my article did not accurately capture the event. The next time you want to lecture about journalism, make sure you actually have some facts to back up your claims.

    You are correct that the editorial side of Ethics Daily has taken a clear side on the issue, but do not confuse the editorials with the news articles. Although the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is quite conservative it would be inaccurate to call the whole newspaper that because the bias does not show up in their news articles. Although Ethics Daily sent a letter to congresspeople on the issue, my name is not on it. So it is important to understand the difference between editorials and news articles. Again, the next time you want to lecture about journalism, make sure you actually have some facts to back up your claims.

    Neither of us is going to change the other's opinion on this topic in comments on a blog post. But, I would urge you to watch the personal attacks. If you want to express your disagreement about a topic that one of my articles covers, that's fine. But if you are going to attack my article as biased or one-sided, then you better prove it. You keep trying to make this discussion about your belief that the earth is cooling (even though August was the 2nd hottest on record, this year is currently the 5th hottest on record, and 8 of the hottest 10 years have been since 2000). Yet, regardless of that, my article about what was said at Tuesday's meeting was accurate. Your beef is with Gore and the U.N.

    As for your last question, here's an area I will openly admit my bias. But, I think my bias for JMU will be accurate and they will prevail over Liberty this weekend. I won't be at the game, but am looking forward to it.

  9. Brian,

    You misread me--I'm not trying to get out of anything I've said. You extrapolate a straw man, employing Latin terms and Bill Clinton, impugning my motives. All this while you can't back up what you said by pointing out where I called you a "partisan hack" and was not smart enough to delete it.

    The head of state of one of the attending U.N. nations--and ally of the U.S.--is not "some random guy."

    In writing your report/article, you either chose against, or were prohibited by constraints of time or by those imposed by your publisher from, including easy-to-find reactions from world leaders in attendance--pro or con--to what Gore and President Obama said.

    Including such reaction would have made it a better article. Didn't you write this post to direct the me to read your article? Apparently, you don't want critique, but what else would one comment about?

    Yes, I am biased--toward fair and logical researched scientific conclusions, and fair, objective reporting, on those conclusions related to societal-impacting issues. The one-sided, at times false reporting by secular media on learned scientific opinions regarding human-induced global warming is not surprising, but is hard enough to live with. I hope for better from Christian journalism.

  10. C.D. You can try to use legal hairsplitting to get out of it, but regardless of how you wrote it, it was an attack. You started this thread by maligning my motives and have done so throughout without proof (and made several blatantly false claims about my writing process/oversight). So much for my hope for civility from you!

    On the topic of global warming for a Baptist publication, Klaus is indeed some random guy. The session I watched had no criticism of Gore/Obama. Thus, the article was an accurate accounting and you have yet to prove otherwise. Again, your real beef is with Gore and the U.N., not the article.

    Good journalism reports rather than conforming to the bias and ideology that you might have. It's completely fine for you to hold a certain position but please don't act like that is what real journalism should look like. What you seem to want is editorializing, not news.

  11. You just got through to me. I've had an "Ah Hah!" moment:

    I now understand (the light bulb has finally shone through the darkness of my not "smart enough" brain) that the purpose of your many posts that begin with "Ethics Daily ran my latest article today, which is entitled . . ." is not for anyone to comment on or critique them, but is to simply call attention to the fact that you got them published by Ethics Daily. They are, as you have said, simply news reports of events from the angle of Ethics Daily, and therefore have every right to be one-sided and incomplete.

    I take everything back. Don't change a thing!

  12. C.D.: Well, so much for my hope for a civil discussion. That's what I want in the comments--dialogue and constructive criticism, not ad hominem attacks and rantings. But that's why I wrote my book--there are many Christians who just don't know how to communicate appropriately or effectively. Thanks for showing me that I still have lots of work to do.

  13. Brian,

    I think you know me to be a civil fellow, as we've had--and even now are having--plenty of other discussions. I think I offended you from the start by employing a little sarcasm in my first sentence.

    Then, later, I only said you sound like a political hack because you usually don't--I just think you do this time.

    Please forgive me for offending you.

    If either of us were to meet an untimely end to this life before Liberty beats JMU tomorrow, I wouldn't want there to be any animosity remaining to tell Jesus about.

    Sincerely in Christ,


  14. correcting previous comment 13:

    "before JMU beat Liberty . . ."



Bottom Ad [Post Page]