Maybe the Sherrod Non-Scandal Will Help Put the Global Warming 'Controversy' in Context?

Well, we can always hope. In a recent column about global warming, Paul Krugman makes this ancillary point (italics mine):

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers -- allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don't believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod

Krugman continues:

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

While this isn't news to anyone familiar with the Republican War on Science, it's good to see this clearly stated in the national media.

Like E.J Dionne, I hope I never hear the phrase "teachable moment" again. But the Sherrod non-scandal (or maybe it's an anti-scandal) could--and should--serve as a prime example of how the right constantly distorts or flat-out lies (and this is the modus operandi for the more genteel practitioners too). Just as 'Sister Souljah' entered the lexicon, so too should Sherrod.

And the Coalition of the Sane should mercilessly beat the Tea Partiers and the theopolitical right over the head with it.

More like this

In an otherwise excellent article about the Breitbart scandal/Sherrod non-scandal*, Eric Alterman writes the following: To be fair, Kurtz does come up with one legitimate example [of liberal excess]. He quotes MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, observing that Sherrod's reputation had been "assassinated by…
Who are the founders of Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore. Patrick Moore is a Hippie for Hire. He makes the claim that he co-founded Greenpeace, and charges a fee to show up at conferences or other venues, or sit on boards, to provide a story that anti-environmentalists, global warming deniers, and…
If you haven't heard, rightwing slime mongerer James O'Keefe struck again and managed to give National Public Radio (NPR) a black eye, although to a considerable extent, this was a self-inflicted wound. Over at Whiskey Fire, Thers makes a very astute observation (italics mine): The most bizarre…
Over the weekend, I had started writing a post titled "When Will [economist Paul] Krugman Have His Creationist Epiphany?" It was inspired by a comment left on a Krugman post about "the Great Ignorance which seems to have overtaken much of the economics profession -- the "rediscovery" of old…

"And the Coalition of the Sane should mercilessly beat the Tea Partiers and the theopolitical right over the head with it."

If it would help I'd agree but the extreme righties are still claiming Sherrod should have been fired and that it was all a plot to humiliate Breitbart. Some people are beyond help.

Seems to me that Krugman uses the term "fraud" rather loosely. Also, he might have a hard time fitting someone like R Pielke Sr. into the box labeled "receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies."

By bob koepp (not verified) on 28 Jul 2010 #permalink