Daniel Moynihan's seminal essay "Defining Deviancy Down," took direct aim at the likes of Juan Williams and Ceci Connelly, who, in exchange for money and media exposure, lend legitimacy to the charlatans and reprobates of Fox News, an outfit devoted to relentless repetition of The Big Lie. On a recent All-Star Panel, used to commence a 48-hour propaganda cycle, Connelly and Williams were used as foils for Chris Wallace and Bill Kristol, who injected a lie in order to frame the debate on global warming:
KRISTOL: Phil Jones, who's the fellow -- the climate scientist who was a huge advocate of the climate change and global warming hypothesis, who was in the center of the "climate-gate" scandal, said a couple of days ago in a BBC interview for the first time, I believe, that it may have been the case -- may be the case -- the Medieval warming period, 1000 to 1400 A.D...
WALLACE: I remember it well.
KRISTOL: ... may have been -- may have been warmer than the current - - the world may have been warmer then than it is now. That's why Greenland was called Greenland. You know, it was green in the southern part of Greenland. You could actually grow things there.
That's a huge concession. Their whole premise has been we are in an unprecedented moment of global warming. They're now having to retreat even from that.
I think the whole -- we're now going to have a complicated scientific debate for the next 20, 30, 40 years and take some incremental steps to adjust a few things. The whole global warming hysteria is over.
Kristol lied, and Wallace backed up Kristol's lie. In the BBC interview -- which by the way, took place 24 hours before Kristol's comments, not "a couple of days" prior -- scientist Phil Jones said the opposite of what Kristol claimed and what Wallace remembered so well. Jones said that the fragmentary evidence of rising temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period was insufficient for an inference that the temperature rise was global. More specifically, the recorded data was basically limited to the Northern Hemisphere. He said:
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
In order to reverse the meaning Jones' remarks, writers for Kristol and Wallace deleted a major qualifier:
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
Given the absence of evidence to back up either possibility, it's a somewhat meaningless aside. But Jones was very clear that neither scenario, nor any other prior periods of solar and/or volcanic forcing, would be relevant to the rise in global temperatures during the past 60 years. Jones categorically rejected the notion that the current rise in temperatures was not man-made. That "huge concession" was a pure invention by Wallace and Kristol, who used it as a retort to the fact-based remarks of Connolly and Williams.
Connolly, as a concession to downward deviancy, spoke to the dumber-than-a-fifth-grader crowd, who don't understand that planet earth is much bigger than the United States, and that seasonal winter storms do not refute decades of climate data:
CONNOLLY: Well, a couple things. I think you're getting at a very important point, which is that there's a real difference between talking about climate and talking about weather. And when we're talking about climate, it's decades and centuries, not one miserable week.
And it's difficult for the human mind to deal with counterintuitive notions. And anybody who was out there this week, as we all were, shoveling and breaking up snow dams in our -- ice dams in our gutters -- it's hard to imagine, but it is correct that '09 was the second warmest year since anybody has been keeping track of these things.
It's a hard notion to get your head around, but I think that is true. And even, you know, any number of respected Republicans and the vast majority of scientists say, "Look, the important point here is that human behavior -- namely, pollution and the reliance on polluting vehicles and factories -- is exacerbating the natural phenomenon."
And that's really what the discussion has to move to, how you can begin to sort of lessen that exacerbation.
WALLACE: But, Liz, on the other hand, there's an awful lot of the, quote, "science" that keeps being challenged. We had those e- mail reports that were leaked out of East Anglia that seemed to indicate that some of the climate change advocates were suppressing opposition.
Now we have this 2007 report by the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change. One thing that I was studying up for this -- this segment -- that there was a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 -- wasn't an academic study. It was one expert who says he was misquoted. Hasn't a lot of the science turned out to be somewhat sketchy?
The most important evidence was suppressed by Wallace, who kept touting the phony "climate-gate" story, which had been thoroughly discredited by the AP's fact checking, and by Connolly, who declined to challenge his deception. Nor did she challenge his other conceit, which suggested that flaws and discrepancies about the rate of change, within a mountain of solid data, do not invalidate the overall mountain of data. The designated flunky knew her place.
And then the uber-liar piggybacked off of Wallace's fraudulent premise:
LIZ CHENEY: And I think the real problem, real-term, for us is that the Obama administration continues to insist that that science is true. And attempts to put policy in place, cap and trade and others that will have a damaging impact in the academy, that will really impose new taxes, new regulations, on the businesses that we need to be growing to create jobs based on what now looks to be very questionable science.
Flunky number two, Juan Williams, was set up to be slapped down by Kristol's lying:
WILLIAMS: But to make this into a political argument that, "Gee, you know what? Global warming isn't happening. Oh, this is evidence. Those crazy liberals have been making this stuff up all along." You know what? Most scientists say this is ridiculous.
Of course global warming is taking place. And it's not a matter of we have to go back to years A.D., Bill. You know what? We are warmer now than we have been over the last few centuries and we have to look at changes in human behavior that produce more carbon gases that go into the atmosphere.
There's no question we have more factories...
KRISTOL: We've been warming since 1400. Have we been driving cars around since 1400?
WILLIAMS: No, we are warming now.
KRISTOL: Have we had factories since 1400?
WILLIAMS: In other words, in this...
KRISTOL: Timing in the last 40 or 50 years, which surely is all you're talking about...
WILLIAMS: That's what I'm talking about.
KRISTOL: ... is tiny. It's -- when you do the recalculations with real science, it's very gradual and very small. And A and B -- you know what used to measure -- "Oh, oil -- we've got to get off oil."
Oil has done an unbelievable amount of good for human beings.
KRISTOL: ... you know, and helping hundreds of millions more Chinese and Indians escape poverty over the next 10 years is a lot more politically and morally defensible a policy than totally trying to turn our economy on its head for the sake of dubious scientific propositions...
WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. What's the...
KRISTOL: ... to make environmentalists feel good.
WILLIAMS: OK, so what's dubious about the idea that we should become more energy independent, not reliant on oil?
Those are the ground rules. It doesn't matter what honest people, like Phil Jones, may say. The liars will always edit their words to change the meaning and smear the innocent. And on Fox News the liars always have the last word.
The very next day, Brett Baier amplified Kristol's mendacity:
The scientist behind the so-called "climate-gate" e-mail scandal now admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
Jones said something very different:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
In other words, Jones is a scientist who requires a broad-based data sampling, in contrast to those lying crackpots on Fox, who select small data samples, such as winter snowstorms, for snarky insinuations. Baier went on:
Professor Phil Jones also tells the BBC that scientists are unsure whether the Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than current temperatures. Some skeptics say that is the first time a senior scientist working with the U.N. report on climate change has admitted the possibility that the time between 800 and 1300 A.D. could have actually been warmer than present temperatures. That would be a blow to global warming believers.
In order to give the false impression that Jones' scientific work on climate change cannot withstand scrutiny, Baier impugns the speaker and twists the speaker's message. Jones neither "admitted" nor said he was "unsure" about anything. He said we don't have the data, so we can draw no inferences about what happened during the Middle Ages. And once again, Baier deceitfully edits the facts to convey a false message. And for the umpteenth time, Baier suppressed the information that discredits his fraudulent "climate-gate" story.
Baier was that evening's warm-up act for headliner Sean Hannity, who panders to the dumber-than-a-fifth-grader crowd:
All right, this winter continues to bring Al Gore bad news. Now first global warming was completely undermined by ClimateGate, now Donald Trump attacking his most prized possession in a speech over the weekend. The real estate mogul argues that, "With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel Committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore." For that, according to the "New York Post," he got a standing ovation. Hey, Al, sorry. Donald, good job.
Or perhaps Hannity's Monday evening warm up act was that drug addict who says he's in recovery but emulates the techniques of Joseph Goebbels. Glenn Beck spewed out one of those delusional rants that seem so antithetical to sobriety:
Even as the global warming hoax continues to be exposed and debunked -- and again, more on that coming up in a second -- the president is trying to hammer draconian measures through, using executive orders. And now the EPA is pushing their way through. He'll get what he wants. Farmers in California continue to struggle with no water as the state focuses instead on the beloved delta smelt.
The EPA continues to crackdown on manufacturing, which would further cripple the U.S. economy but save the cave-dwelling Piute trout or whatever it is they're trying to save at this point. If this issue were really truly about science, wouldn't we stop right now? The global warming thing, isn't there enough right now? I mean, assuming that you've found any of the articles on TV or on, you know, the Internet or any of the magazines on the newsstands or your newspapers about global warming -- wouldn't, wouldn't you say there is enough to say, "Hey, wait, wait. We should -- we should look at what the scientists are saying?"
This isn't about science. It never has been. It's about control -- all of it. Health care is not about health. It's about control.
The next day, Neil Cavuto picked up where Baier and Hannity left off:
CAVUTO: All right, well, the president pushing green jobs, as we have been saying, even as a top climate scientist is raising some big doubts about it -- Phil Jones now admitting that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years. Now, it's the reason why three big companies, ConocoPhillips, B.P., and Caterpillar, are pulling out of a major climate partnership and why Donald Trump is urging something else be pulled, Al Gore's Nobel Prize.
He joins us now on the phone for this exclusive chat. First off, on these companies pulling out of this, maybe they're catching on to something you had warned about. What do you make of this?
TRUMP: Well, I don't blame them. They probably see the e-mail that was sent a couple of months ago by one of the leaders of global warming, the initiative, and almost saying -- I guess they're saying it's a con.
And they see things like that. They see the fact that, in Washington, where I'm building a big development, nobody can move, because we have 48 inches of snow, and the snow is not melting because it's so cold. And, in New York, we have had the coldest winter on record.
And all over Europe -- by the way, I have friends in Europe -- they're are freezing. It's so cold. It's never been colder.
CAVUTO: Well, you know, but, Donald, I have talked to a lot of the environmentalists and global warmists, whatever you call them, who have been saying, well, this is global warming. This is what happens.
TRUMP: Well, the problem we have is that the world has also got to play the game. And we're scrubbing our coal, and we're doing all sorts of things that are making our products much more expensive and non- competitive.
And places like China, do you think they scrub coal? Well, I doubt it. Japan, India -- do you really believe that India is out there scrubbing their coal to make it nice and clean? I don't think so, Neil. So, we...
CAVUTO: So, you think we're stuck with the burden of doing all of...
TRUMP: Well, we do it, but they don't do it. They talk a good game. And they talk like, oh, well, we will do it.
I watched as one of the big representatives from China was talking about global warming, and I know that, underneath, he's laughing, because I know a lot of people, a lot of entrepreneurs and businesspeople from China, they laugh at our stupidity as a country.
Actually, our stupidity is not so funny. But Kristol, Wallace, Baier, Hannity, Beck and Cavuto are coming up with new and inventive lies to make us more and more stupid every day.
How will Donald Trump’s first 100 days impact YOU? Subscribe, choose the community that you most identify with or want to learn more about and we’ll send you the news that matters most once a week throughout Trump’s first 100 days in office. Learn more