Story of the Day: Gore Wins Nobel, NY Times Slights Him on Cover

So Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize today for his years of work on global climate change, and what does The New York Times decide to do?

Representative of the most shameless type of "Fair and Balanced" reporting, made popular by Fox News and long de rigeur in our mainstream press, The Times very prominently placed reader comments on the front page of its online edition - specifically, in sets of two directly beneath photos of Mr. Gore, giving two sides to an issue on which the scientific community has already reached a consensus: man has, and is, contributing to the warming of the planet and we must take substantive action before it's too late.

The Times ran this feature on its homepage for at least two and a half hours today, but possibly much longer. I noticed it around 10:30 a.m. By 1 p.m., The Times removed these dueling he said/she saids altogether and, much less conspicuously, placed the link "Share Your Thoughts | Read Comments" in the sixth and very last bullet under the photo (then of Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won along with Gore).

Here are just three different sets of these Foxified couplings (screenshots are viewable in update below):

Beneath a photo captioned "Al and Tipper Gore at the Academy Awards in February":

Comment by Elmer Stobbe: "Junk science prevails, and the Pope of junk science is rewarded."

Comment by Ethan C.: "Nothing like a Nobel Peace Prize to tell the world that there's a real crisis."

Under a photo captioned "Al and Tipper Gore with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in September":

Comment by Liana: "You don't have to politically like Gore, but at least realize what he has done for global awareness of our enviornment [sic]!"

Comment by William: "Nobel is probably spinning in his grave....Another left wing triumph over science and logic."

Rotated comments beneath the same photo:

Comment by Michael Williams: "[Gore's] own actions and lifestyle are in contradiction to the policies/actions that his film supports."

Comment by James Law: "If Gore won't run, then Hillary must appoint him as the head of the E.P.A."

This decision by The Times begs many questions.

Why roll out this feature today, on this particular story, and with such prominence? A topic in which a genuine debate, where stark disagreement exists, is no longer possible. The scientific community - those not acting as shills and fronts for big oil, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and its heavily funded colleagues in the bogus "global warming alarmist" movement - are in agreement over man's significant contribution to this growing environmental catastrophe. In these front-page comments (and in the predominance of all reader comments), you'll notice that each naysayer delivers an ad hominem attack. It's all they have left.

Shame on these commenters for their pettiness and ignorance, but The Times is the culpable party here: blame lands squarely on its shoulders for providing high-profile credence to such stupid, venal and unscientific opinions. And on such a critical, world-changing, life-and-death issue that is already affecting, and will continue to affect, everyone on this planet, in addition to millions who've yet to be born.

So then, should we expect The Times to continue this feature, and on what stories? On reports concerned with Hillary's cleavage, Edwards' haircut and Obama's flagless lapel? Or articles on such legislative votes as wiretapping, habeas corpus, torture, troop withdrawal and military action against Iran? Or on the next National Intelligence Estimate report, black sites, the state of Myanmar, Darfur, the Congo, impeachment, the ongoing plight of Katrina victims, and a plethora of other issues that might be debatable?

Or was this a one-shot deal? And why?

The New York Times has some serious 'splaining to do.

UPDATE: Here are chronological screen shots (click to view) of those aforementioned comments, including the one following this feature's disappearance:

 

UPDATE II: Now, I expect this kind of thing from The Most Trusted Name in News:

Comments

[MediaBloodhound]

Gore Wins Nobel, NY Times Slights Him on Cover

[Dr Moriarti]

http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/counter-consensual-climate-change-conference/#comment-383

[embarassed moderate]

Yes! How dare the NYT offer both sides of the issue? After all, Gore and his drama (aka not real science as the high courts have ruled) is based more on faith in Al than evidence. Of course, it's horrible that opposing views to (soon-to-be Dr.) Gore should be published. You state shame on the ignorance of the posters. In reality, it should be shame on the writers of this article and the editor that allowed it to go by; Nothing screams "I'm a left wing puppet" louder then an entire article complaining about free speech. Way to go!

[Gregory Kilcup]

Dr. Moriarti, the point is not that free speech is not allowed. The point is that when someone wins, say, the Nobel Prize in physics, the Times does not normally go talk to someone completely uninformed in the field for comment. Nor do they go out of their way to find a whacked out academic to say the prize was given in error.
I agree with the article; shame on the NYT.

[Gillmeister]

Typical liberal.......er, progrssive thinking. Don't print any dissenting views to hysterical thinking. Shame on the NY Times for providing a forum for ALL viewpoints. Do you clowns ever wonder why people keep laughing at you ?

[Gillmeister]

Google Dr. William Gray

The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Mike Lawrie]

The day before this happened, here in Britain a High Court judge ruled that the real inconvenient truth is that there are nine claims in his film which cannot be substantiated by the evidence. The case was brought in response to a British govt. decision to screen this film to schoolchildren as though it were fact. The howls from our own "Friends of the Earth" organization were along the lines of your own article ie fair enough, there may be inaccuracies, but the issue is so important that truth becomes secondary to "raising awareness". I have no animosity towards Al Gore as I don't feel qualified to comment on American politics, but it seems to me that there is a world of difference between the scientific consensus and the more extreme interpretation of data embraced by this film and that to teach it to schoolchildren as though it is fact and not political polemic is a very dangerous approach.

[Bobo Fettucine]

Alas, Mike Lowrie lies (but the same lie picked up by the Washington Post in their snarky editorial) -- in his opinion, the judge placed the term "error" in quotes. These quotes have conveniently vanished, with the term "significant" shoehorned in, and repeated incorrectly and ineptly by the Washington Post, among others. If you actually CARE about the truth (and, increasingly, that's a very significant question) see science blogger Tim Lambert's "An 'error' is not the same thing as an error."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

Or, Oct 11th. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

[Texgotham]

The Times could have posted the side-by-side comments where they belong - on the editorial side of their blog or whatever. The carbon producing industries, oil and coal have fought any efforts against curbing greenhouse gases for years and they have plenty of media stooges boosting their cause.

[joanne murphy]

The legal ruling in Britain was actually a VICTORY for Gore----though from the coverage of the matter you'd never know it.

The judge acknowledged that the movie contained what he called "a few awkward errors" and some points that he said were not proven---such as the polar bears were drowning in their quest for ice---but overall he said the movie was "broadly accurate." The movie will STILL be used in classrooms but with a disclaimer that "it is only a movie."

Big deal.

[Will Wy]

Oh, congratulations Dr. Moriariti, Kilcup, Gillmeister. Y'all sound like the NYT and WaPo. How easy it is to damn "liberals" and "progressives" while rhetorically sounding like an echo chamber of contradiction for its own sake. (Hell, except for perhaps Kilcup, you're such cowards, you can't even reveal your true names.) So stop emitting CO2 on this website until you can express some facts to genuinely argue to the contrary.

[Jay]

What the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for:
“to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
I guess a politician giving a pwerpoint slide show qualifies huh? Now if someone can tell me how Gore or the IPCC brought fraternity to the ntions or helped reduce the standing armies of the world or even promote peace, then I would have no problem with the awarding of the prize to Gore and the IPCC.

[Leslie J]

I would LOVE to have seen this feature used with stories about the Iraq war and occupation, where there was debate. Headline: "Bush says that there are WMD in Iraq." Comment underneath: Hans Blix: "There is no evidence of WMD, and Saddam is letting us in everywhere we want to go." Then, of course, it was all cheerleading, and any dissent was buried at the bottom of page A6 or somewhere.

[Nick Howard]

Hey Will Wy, I can explain it for you but I know you don't want to hear it and probably won't listen.

A few years ago the Pentagon commissioned a report on the most serious threats to our future. These top military minds concluded that the most grave threat to our future and to world peace was not terrorism or Saddam Hussein but in fact global warming.
Unless we can somehow stop it or slow it down in as little as a couple decades, the US military said that mass areas of the globe that now support life(in some cases just barely) will become unable to support human life and the result will be worldwide wars over water and food.

While your side is hyping the ridiculous notion that a few thousand terrorists will enslave the entire planet Gore was trying to fight the real threat to peace. You see some people are smart enough to see real problems lurking in our future.

But the wingnuts will heed his advice just as much as they did when he warned that invading Iraq would be a disaster for the USA...he was right about that one too and you were no doubt one of those saying we'd be greeted with flowers...

[Nick Howard]

Oh yeah, I forgot one thing: of course the Bush maladministration deep sixed the report.

[mike]

Let me get this straight. You are accusing the NYT of having an ant-Gore bias?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yertle the Turtle]

Drowning puppies raises questions, should be discussed, critics say

[greg]

Hey Will Wy,

I think encouraging international agreements to address a problem that transcends national boundaries (that's why it's called GLOBAL climate change) would qualify as "work for fraternity between the nations." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change kind of meets that criterion by its very name. Doh.

[Randy]

Fortunately for you, The New York Times doesn't do this very often. Fortunately for the rest of us, The New York Times' declining circulation and ad revenue demonstrate less and less people actually consider that organization to be fair and balanced anyway.

[SamTyler]

Nick,

Here are five predictions of that report commissioned by the Pentagon (a report the authors admitted was based on worst-case scenarios -- it wasn't anything they "concluded") according to an MSNBC story from 2004.

=====================
As temperatures rise during this decade, some regions experience severe storms and flooding. In 2007, surging seas break through levees in the Netherlands, making the Hague “unlivable.”

By 2020, after a decade of cooling, Europe’s climate becomes “more like Siberia’s.”
“Mega-droughts” hit southern China and northern Europe around 2010 and last 10 years.

In the United States, agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher winds and drier climate, but the country survives the economic disruption without catastrophic losses.

Widespread famine in China triggers chaos, and “a cold and hungry China peers jealously” at Russia’s energy resources. In the 2020-2030 period, civil war and border wars break out in China.

“Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.” In a “world of warring states,” more countries develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, Germany, Iran and Egypt.
=================
End of MSNBC excerpt.

It's October 2007 now. How are those levees in the Netherlands holding up? Let's check back in two months to see if that part of the report is prescient. In 2010 we can monitor the "mega-droughts in China." And notice that the report predicted global cooling, not warming, for Europe by 2020.

[Candy Act]

Your post shows how uninformed you are SamTyler: Global warming can cause cooler weather in some areas, because it changes ocean currents. They are not opposites. Try to learn something before you get a smarmy attitude about something you know nothing about.

[SamTyler]

Candy Act,

Nick said "global warming." If he'd said "climate change," you'd be right. But the phrase "global warming can cause cooler weather" is just dumb.

[army wife]

You're right, but the shills are printing it just as they've been told. And judging from the morons commenting here, we have the government and the propaganda we deserve. There's no truth in America anymore. If there's no money in outsourcing to our cronies then it's not worth having. At this point, America is just a gimmick to sell shit. Al Gore stands for the old America that the world actually admired.

[Mikey]

Dr. Moriariti, Kilcup, Gillmeister.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film
Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday October 14, 2007
Observer

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.

A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.
Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.

Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,' Livermore said.

In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'

He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against drunk drivers'.

Dimmock also received support from a new organisation, Straightteaching.com, which calls for politics to be left out of the classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.

Tipp, who is described on the website as having been a science teacher in the Seventies and Eighties, declines to talk about who else is backing it. 'There are other people involved but I don't think they want to be revealed,' he said.

He said he thought his organisation could bring more cases against the government. 'There are a lot of people who feel the climate change debate is being hyped up,' Tipp said. 'To try to scare people into believing the end is nigh is not helpful. We've been contacted by other teachers who raised concerns. There's a lot of interest, especially from people in the US.'

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

[dennisdean]

Army wife, you're wasting your time with these sheeples. To them, facts and truth are what the diseminator of white house, rnc and reich wingnuts talking points, fox noise, and uninformed chickenhawk gas bags limbaugh, o'reilly and college drop-out, broken record hannity bloviate.

Until their equally retarded and uninformed heroes stop being shamless water carriers for oil companies and their puppet president and the republic party, we are stuck with these roving brain-detached-from-mouth clowns!

Kilcup, the world is laughing WITH us whenever they hear republic party tags like like Foley, Craig, Vitter, Delay, Stevens Gonzales, Abramhoff, Cunningham, the liar- and word mangler-in-chief, bush! Glass house, glass house, where are you? Kilchup's glass house is down and out; and he desperately needs new glass houses. We've got the stones!!