O’Reilly Factor, Ingraham use doctored video to smear Gore

O’Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Al Gore’s recent congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization. Nobelist Al Gore is careful with his words, climate deniers often twist his words or take them out of context for their attacks (see Unstaining Al Gore’s good name, Part 1: The NYT’s false charge began with Roger Pielke, Jr.).  If you saw Gore’s terrific testimony on Waxman-Markey with former Sen. Warner (details here, full CSPAN video here), then you saw the absurd attempt by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to suggest that the reason Gore has been advocating climate action for decades is to make money.  I had been meaning to blog on this, and since FoxNews doctored the video of Gore’s response to smear him, I’m excerpting a post from Morgan Weiland and the researchers at Media Matters who first blogged on this outrage here.

On the May 1 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, during a segment suggesting that former Vice President Al Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Gore’s April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization.

Introducing the segment, Ingraham stated: “It seems that being green does pay big time — just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he’s now reportedly — get this — worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week’s Capitol Hill hearing.” Ingraham then aired the following selectively edited clips from Gore’s testimony:

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?

[Ingraham’s cut]

GORE: If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.

[Ingraham’s cut]

GORE: I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there’s something wrong with being active in business in this country?

BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification —

GORE: I’m proud of it.

BLACKBURN: — of the relationship.

GORE: I’m proud of it.

The full exchange from the hearing is included below, with the parts Ingraham provided in italics, and Gore’s relevant responses — which were omitted from the O’Reilly Factor segment — in bold:

BLACKBURN: So you’re a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?

GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.

And Congresswoman, if you’re — if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.

BLACKBURN: Sir, I’m not making accusations, I’m asking questions that have been asked of me and individuals — constituents that were seeking a point of clarity, so I am asking you for that point of — point of clarity.

GORE: I understand exactly what you’re doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.

BLACKBURN: And, well — you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit —

GORE: Every penny that I have made —

BLACKBURN: Every penny —

GORE: — has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there’s something wrong with being active in business in this country?

BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification —

GORE: I’m proud of it.

BLACKBURN: — of the relationship.

GORE: I’m proud of it.

[JR:  Not only does Ingraham doctor the video, here is what she says after showing it.]

INGRAHAM: Did she get the question actually answered? With us now Marc Morano, who’s the executive editor of….

[JR:  Yes, Laura, she did get the question actually answered — you just doctored it out and now have the nerve to make that slanderous insinuation.  And, no, I can’t bring myself to publish more of the disinformation of Swift-boat Smearer Morano, but you can read his smear of Gore at Media Matters. Morano is right at home with Ingraham, that is for sure.]

40 Responses to O’Reilly Factor, Ingraham use doctored video to smear Gore

  1. We’ve come to expect that sort of thing from paid professional corporate liars Joe, it’s old news. They get paid to lie. They lie. Banks get the money. The money is lent to corporations for a profit. Nobody knows or cares how that money is invested, as long as they make a profit. Out of sight, out of mind.

    Meanwhile, the country condos and carbon fueled factory farms reproduce exponentially. Who cares about a bunch of birds and animals and stuff.

  2. paulm says:

    It probably was all planned from the start.

  3. MarkB says:

    Clearly this is terrible dishonest journalism, but who beyond a bunch of drooling right-wing nuts (who already are biased against Gore) watches Fox News and the O’Reilly Factor these days?

  4. Bryson Brown says:

    That is one big and ugly lie. Not that I don’t expect it from Fox, but it’s so bad you’d think even a public figure like Gore could actually sue successfully: if celebrities can sue the National Inquirer and win, maybe it’s time some lawyers went to work on Fox.

  5. TomG says:

    There’s a word that covers this very nicely…
    The word is ‘corruption’.
    The lies have become so obvious that the only ones who ‘believe’ are their blind obedient followers.
    What is it with these republicans that makes them stoop to any level just to get their hands back to the reins of power?
    It seems they would rather be the captains of a sinking ship than be part of the rest of the crew bailing like mad to stop the ship from sinking in the first place.

  6. TreeHugger2 says:

    How foolish the GOP bought media is as their mind numbing ostrich posture irrefutable locks them into a cast that is dumber then a tar pit! Already they are clawing at the subliminal base of illogical nonsense as they continue to play the role of the innocent news annalist. They must see the light coming at them, for they can carry the lie for only so long before they wear the label of the Great Deceiver! I rate their game just below the commercials that I flee when I switch from CNN to Foxspin to refresh my mind to the great entertainment value of biased [corrupted] journalism. They have lost all form of self respect as they spin falsehood into open lies that will doom the GOP as the lost tribe of history. But the crying shame is that precious time is lost while this Global Warming crisis becomes the catastrophe of all ages. How cruel it is to lie and deceive the America citizens as they spin illogical thought into shear nonsense. I see their real motive is to capture the dollars furnished by the fossil fueled lobbyist. The Fossil Fuel industry will fund their lies until it kills all hope of a sustainable green future for our children. They all are all culpable of being party to this crime of the ages!

  7. I fully respect a person who “puts his money where his mouth is,” and I think most Americans do also, so I think that this turns out to be not much of a smear on Al Gore.

    The joke is that the right wing is trying to turn capitalism into something one should be embarrassed about. Truly, drooling right wing nuts they are. Don’t worry, they will destroy the Republican Party.

    However, I believe it is valid to criticize Kleiner Perkins and Al Gore for the fact that Kleiner Perkins is funding (Al Gore might have had little to do with funding this, though he would certainly know of it.) the Fisker Plug-In Hybrid which is a leading representative of deceptive opportunistic action under the guise of Environmentalism. (For perspective, it has the same engine as the Hummer Plug-In) The Fisker gets my particular disdain for claiming “100 MPG” based on a calculation that should insult any literate person.

  8. Gail says:

    Oh this is just too disgusting. What about using the courts? What about environmental organizations banding together and suing the utilities for knowingly destroying a habitable climate? I seem to remember a recent post about their duplicity concerning the effects of CO2 emissions.

    I just went to a matinee of “Earth”. It was wierd, a message in a bottle that wouldn’t come out and say directly what it was obviously concerned about. Sort of, hey, I’m marooned on a desert island dying of thirst, how’re things with you? Oh well, Disney, what else to expect but pablum.

  9. Bullwinkle says:

    Faux News MUST behave this way to stay in business. It’s target audience is the right wing lunatics. If they tell the truth, they’re out of business.

  10. Algore said he did not profit from his global warming activities. But what is the truth? I am not aware of him ever producing documentation to back up his claim. People at this site can bad mouth Fox and Republicans for ever. But that has no relation to the topic at hand, namely that Algore has made an unsubstantiated claim. Anyone here wondering if he knowingly lied to a congressional committee? Didn’t think so.

  11. Shawn says:

    I think that it’s HYSTERICAL that Lord Christopher Monckton was barred from testifying when the dimocraps in congress found out that it was he that was going to be next to Al Gore to dispute and prove Gore wrong on EVERYTHING about “man made” global warming. The leftist liberal congressmen didn’t want the high priest of global warming alarmism to be embarrassed and made of fool of.

    As for the rest of you loony liberals, don’t you know your history at all? If global warming was man made, then how do you explain the medieval warm period that lasted for several hundred years or the Little Ice Age that followed. By the way, these events happened BEFORE the industrial revolution. Also the medieval warm period temperatures were HIGHER than they are now and neither the world NOR the human race didn’t come to an end.

    Also, how do you explain the polar ice caps on Mars melting? Man isn’t on Mars. Jupiter is experiencing global warming also and mankind isn’t on Jupiter either. So is man responsible for THOSE planets warming up also or could it be that the SUN is responsible because of sun spot activity?

    How do you account for the fact that except for the ICPP report, ALL OTHER reports, studies and findings show that the Earth has been cooling since 2000 or 2001? The fact of the matter is is that the sun has MORE effect on the planet’s climate than ANYTHING that man has done, is doing or ever WILL do.

    I suggest that all of you liberals do your own research on the matter, listen
    to BOTH sides of the story and look at ALL of the evidence instead of listening to just Al (I’m gonna make a billion bucks off of “man made” global warming) Gore or the U.N., which Gore sites as his own “source” of information. Why not listen to the MANY THOUSANDS of scientists from around the world that say that man made global warming is a hoax? Are you so scared that if you actually LISTENED with the “open minds” that you libs claim to have, to a different point of view, that your whole ideology MAY be wrong?

    IF any of you are interested or even willing to give any rebuttal of “man made” global a chance, then here is one of hundreds of links available to anyone willing to listen to logic instead of Al Gore’s greed driven fear tactics.

    If any of you have ever seen both “The Day After Tomorrow” and Al Gore’s propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, you’ll notice that the beginning of BOTH movies start out with the same flyover scenes. Since “The Day After Tomorrow” came out first, Gore, surprise surprise, broke copyright laws lifting that from that movie and put it into his. He CLAIMS that EVERYTHING about his film is true, so WHY did he have to do that? I’ll
    tell you why. Because the opening scene of “The Day After Tomorrow” is all special effects and is not happening ANYWHERE in the world. LOL

    IF you know ANYTHING about biology and science in general, every living thing on this planet is made of carbon. Also, except for plants, every OTHER living thing on earth exhales Carbon Dioxide. In fact, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Plants “inhale” CO2 and “exhale” oxygen, which ALL animals on earth breathe. So the fact that CO2 is a pollutant and green house gas is a BALD FACED LIE.

    Why do you think that almost ALL life on earth lives in the moderate and tropical climates while almost NO life lives in the polar regions, only a couple of species. That’s because warmer is better. Again, look at history.
    Hell, look at current times. When do farmers grow their crops? In the winter with snow on the ground and the temperature is somewhere around zero or when the temperature is warmer such as in spring and summer? So again, warm is good for life and cold is bad. Use a little logic instead of “feeling” everything.

    As far as Fox News goes, if they are so bad, then WHY do they have HIGHER ratings than PMSNBC and CNN COMBINED. Why can’t the highest rated shows on those channels beat the LOWEST rated show on Fox News? I’ll tell you why. Those channels, along with the rest of the MSM have so much invested in Duhbama and his liberal cronies in congress that they can’t AFFORD to tell the truth about “cap and trade” which, by the way is a TAX on carbon. You know, the same Duhbama that PROMISED to cut taxes on 95% of the American population. LOL So prepare to pay a LOT more for EVERYTHING IF this tax is enacted.

    I’m not saying that we SHOULDN’T invest in alternative energies. I’m saying that we shouldn’t be FORCED into using these alternatives energies when they are NOT readily available, affordable and accessible. Again, use a little logic instead of “feeling” and not thinking.

  12. seven says:

    The science of circular reasoning. he gets the NYT to post parts of an article and then for congressional; hearings he quates for supporting his assertions, an article the NYT published. Algore is all politics and no science. As far as putting his money where his mouth is, he is obese and we know better.

  13. Martin says:


    that was a terrific spoof of the usual science-ignorant climate-science denying attacks we see. So real one might almost think you believed what you wrote, but of course that would make you a total moron. Way to go!



  14. David B. Benson says:

    Main Entry: mo·ron
    Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-ˌän\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
    Date: 1910

    1: usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person
    2: a very stupid person


    Suggest possibly not strong enough.

  15. Rick Covert says:


    When you’re Fox Noise channel was caught red handed editing out key parts of Al Gore’s testimony during the hearings designed to weaken his arguments you try to change the channel and put the burdon of proof on the accused. Funny thing though in our system, though this is not a court room though that was the intent, the burden of proof is not on the accused. Its not the job of the accused to do their homework.

  16. Martin you’re all ad hominem and no evidence. Come back when you can contribute substance to the discussion.

  17. Algore made the claim so the burden of proof is on him. I didn’t put it there, I just drew attention to what was being ignored.
    And how does Fox have anything to do with me?

  18. Will Greene says:

    Shawn, I’m not going to call you any names, (like you have done about us). But I just want you to know how wrong you are. We, everyone here, DOES read both sides. I tirelessly read both sides and ask questions because I want to know that my life path (saving the planet) is not a waste of time.

    The most blatant error in your post is that the “Medieval Warm Period” had warmer temperatures than today. That was a belief in the scientific community….in the early 90’s. Since then we have found that the earth is hotter today than anytime in at least the last 1000 years. This finding was first published by Dr. Michael Mann et al. and is known as the “Hockey Stick Graph”. The Mann graph was verified by the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, and many other independent studies that followed it. Please watch this video with an open mind, it explains the Medieval Warm Period.

  19. Martin says:


    I’m impressed that you saw through my sarcasm. Really, quite impressed.

    Why don’t you and your ilk attempt to substantiate your claims. Based my years in the biological and physical sciences, years of reading the science of climate change and the conclusion of EVERY major scientific body in the world, I’d say your fellow traveler, Shawn, is shooting rhetorical blanks. Every one of his, ahem, arguments, was wildly off the mark.

    As for you, what exactly did you contribute? Let’s see, ahh, a baseless insinuation about the veracity of Al Gore. Come back when you have an iota of evidence that he lied. Until then, let the serious people get on with business.



  20. Rick Covert says:


    Your rant was so funny I practically fell out of my chair and hit my head on the ground. Too much to address but I’ll tackle most of it.

    So The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchly (aka TVMOB) didn’t get to speak at the hearing. It’s probably because TVMOB speaks in a reality (and science free) zone. TVMOB was involved in a case in Britain back in 2007 to prevent the release of Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth” by and the judge concluded that the film was “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.”

    So Jupiter’s getting hotter too?! News flash! Jupiter is a gas giant not a rocky planet like earth. Mars is a rocky planet but you can’t base a whole planet’s average temperature on one or two probes when we take temperature measurements all over the earth. So you comparison is invalid.

    Also nobody argues that CO2 is needed in the atmosphere to keep the earth’s average temperature at a level and climate we are accustomed too. It is when human activities pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb that causes the rapid rise in average global temperature we are measuring today. The science behind CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been established for over 100 years.

    The earth too, has been getting warmer since 2001 and continues to do so. 9 of the 10 hottest years have all been in this century. The average temperatures exceed even the warmest period of the Medieval warming.

    As for warming being always good consider the bark beetle infestations that are ripping through the Boreal forest in Canada. They used to be killed by the brutal winters. Now because of global warming the winters aren’t as cold as they used to be and the trees are dying because of the bark beetle. You also have to look no farther than California and the droughts that seem to get worse and the trend for fire seasons is lengthening.

    Finally if we don’t invest in renewables we will not only bring about irreversable global warming which will impact our fresh water supply but it will also adversly effect our growing season as well. If you liked the hike in food prices this last summer, without the messy medling dogooder bleading heart liberal carbon cap and trade system you’re gonna love the reduction in our food supply caused by extreme drought brought on by CO2 emissions.

  21. Rick Covert says:


    this article is about Fox Noise. You are defending their premis. That’s why I said your Fox Noise channel.

    As for Al Gore’s conclusions a judge in Britain concluded in a case brought up by Christopher Monckton to block the release to schools in Britain that the film was, “…is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.”

    Now if you can show me anywhere, anywhere, that denier talking points have been peer reviewed and accepted into the body of science on global warming I’m game. Please no old debunked claims.

  22. Rick says:

    Conflicts of interest mean something.
    If an oil company exec says global warming is a scam – well – he has a conflict of interest. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong but you consider the source.

    If Al Gore gets fabulously wealthy off the climate change issue, he also has a conflict of interest. So lets all just can the Al worship please.

  23. Martin
    I have no claims to substantiate. I have not made any unsubstantiated claims about Algore. I merely said that he made a statement and there is no proof available to support what he said. If such proof exists, please tell me where it can be found.
    You bad mouth Shawn’s comments but offer nothing to prove that he is wrong. If you are a scientist you might know that your appeal to authority is nonscientific and proves nothing.

    Rick C.
    If you will read what I wrote you will see that I nowhere seek to defend any premise from Fox. I merely said that Algore made a claim about how he has spent certain of his profits and there is no objective proof to support what he said. That is very simple and unassailable. If you are aware of anything that proves his claim, please tell me where it can be found so I can examine it. I remain mystified as to why you feel compelled to lump me with Fox when nothing I have written warrants that.

  24. PeterW says:

    Rick says: “Al Gore gets fabulously wealthy off the climate change issue”

    Proof Rick, what’s your proof that Al Gore is profiting off of Climate Change. Just saying this over and over again doesn’t make it true.

    If I said “Rick is profiting from AGW denial.”, I would be smearing your character. Do you understand this? I have no proof, just like you don’t have any proof about Al Gore.

  25. Peter
    You would be so right if Rick had said that. But that is not what Rick said. It looks like either 1. you’re outright dishonest and are purposely misquoting him, or 2. you just plain don’t understand the difference between what he said and what you inaccurately claim he said.

  26. Rick Covert says:


    Alright. What you said. Except Here’s the question that was asked by the Congresswoman, “BLACKBURN: So you’re a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?” O’Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham then added, “INGRAHAM: Did she get the question actually answered?”

    Now here’s what you said, “Algore said he did not profit from his global warming activities. But what is the truth? I am not aware of him ever producing documentation to back up his claim.”

    I see no difference between what Laura Ingraham posited and what you asked. So if it bothers you so much why are you asking me for proof? It obviously isn’t putting you enough of a dander to your own homework.

    It’s not even relevant to the reason for the hearing. The hearing was to debunk the massive lies about the Waxman-Markey Carbon Cap and Trade bill. This line of questioning was intended to monkey wrench the original purpose of the investigation to take the spotlight off of the Waxman-Markey bill and on to Al Gore alone because the Republicans have repeated the easily refutable lies about the bill that it would embarrass them to have them revealed in the hearing just like they have been so many times this year.

  27. In the hearing Algore said that any profits he made from any GW activities were given to charity: It is easily available on YouTube. There is no proof of this assertion to be had. You say I should do some homework and find the proof. That is not possible since I have no right to examine Mr. Gore’s financial records without his permission. Your assumption that some homework would be of some use is a source of wonderment.
    Your inability to see any difference between what I said and what Laura I. said tells us more about your intellect and motives than it tells us about the statements you are unable to critically examine. My sense is that you will assume a feigned denseness to finesse a point. Don’t expect anymore replies from me since your dishonesty renders you useless in a rational discussion.

  28. Stephen says:

    Gore’s claim needs clarification. To say he put every penny into a non-profit is not to say that he does not benefit from it. The non-profit might pay him a salary, for instance.

  29. Is it an eight figure salary?

  30. As for the video being ‘doctored,’ I think a more accurate term would be ‘edited.’

  31. Gail says:

    “As far as Fox News goes, if they are so bad, then WHY do they have HIGHER ratings than PMSNBC and CNN COMBINED. Why can’t the highest rated shows on those channels beat the LOWEST rated show on Fox News? I’ll tell you why.”

    Maybe because people who are too smart to watch the idiots blathering on fauxnews teevee are too busy READING or something? Maybe they get their news, information and analysis from sources like, I don’t know, Scientific American, or the New York Review of Books?

  32. Snaggletoothie… and Shawn…

    Might I suggest that both of you google the termastroturfing, and read the pages at Wikipedia or Sourcewatch.

    You’ve been duped into parroting the lines fed to you by groups with respectable sounding names — like the Science and Public Policy Institute, Friends of Science, Heartland Institute — that are funded by the fossil companies. Lots of smarter people have been duped, too, so don’t feel too bad.

    The smoking companies used the same technique for years to keep tough tobacco legislation from being passed.

  33. Rick Covert says:


    I really don’t care if you think I’m dishonest. That’s like being called ugly by a frog. You don’t even post with your real name. I’m debating with someone who calls himself Snaggletoothie because he doesn’t want to use his actual name. Really?! So who is dishonest here? I guess that helps to explain why you don’t have any problems with the edits.

    Here’s the speech that was edited out. The Congresswoman had asked whether he, Al Gore, stood to benefit from the Waxman Markey Cap and Trade bill. GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.

    And Congresswoman, if you’re [Blackburn’s lines edited for brevity]

    When the Congresswoman pressed Gore further if every penny went to non-profit causes Gore replied, “Every penny that I have made –”

    That was what Laura Ingrahm edited out and then she asked the Swift boat professional smear job artist Marc Morano if Al Gore answered the question. So she deletes Al Gore’s answer to the congressman’s questions and she and you wonder if he has answered the question. That’s precious. ;-)

    If you are unable to find the evidence that Al Gore is profiting from the bill then why ask me for it?

    If Congressman Blackburn had evidence that Al Gore was profiting from his activities then she would have produced them in the hearing and made Al Gore own up to it.

    People can’t just say what they want in a congressional subcommittee. They are sworn in. If it does turn out that Al Gore was lying to Congress then he can be held in contempt of Congress, prosecuted and sent to prison. This proved to be a bit of a problem in the Bush era when Scooter Libby lied to congress and he was sent to prison only to get a get out of jail free card from former President Bush.

    Ok I’ve connected the dots for you. You’re free to dispute, deny, confuse, deceive or whatever you want. There will be no further responses from me on this point.

  34. john says:


    First, Gore’s tax filings show that he is telling the truth. And he has released them.

    Second, the issue here is that Fox was caught lying on video tape again, not whether Gore got rich … people with a grip on reality — and global warming is reality — ususally do better financially than the flat-earthers and other scientifically ignorant deniers who can’t or won’t understand science.

    Third, this bait and switch tactic is prima-facia evidence that you know Fox was caught and that they are totally discrediting themselves yet again. Why else would you try to shift the argument to Gore?

    Weak, snaggle, weak.

    As for Shawn? Take a junior high science class so you have a modicum of critical reasoning skills, the come on back and try again. As it is you are embarrassing yourself, dude. Badly.

  35. darth says:

    The weird part about the grilling of Gore is how Ms. Blackburn seemed to be obsessed with Al making money off of his investments and lobbying to get his priorities enacted. This is exactly what all industries do everyday. She seemed to think this was some kind of conflict of interest. Perhaps she thinks Mr. Gore is still VP or a Senator?

    I pretty sure a private citizen in this country is free to invest in whatever they want and lobby for it.

    Memo to Ms. Blackburn and the GOP – Mr. Gore is not in politics anymore. He is free to invest, make money and lobby for whatever he wants.

    Please make the stupid stop!!!!

  36. Martin says:


    Once again, you are making a baseless insinuation attacking Al Gore’s veracity. He doesn’t need to prove his claim to you unless there is an iota of evidence that he is lying. Seriously, you can hid behind “well I didn’t actually make any claim. Snicker, snicker, snicker” all you want. That’s as believable as the congress woman’s attempt to backtrack and say that she was only asking, not trying to imply anything. Nothing to see here. Bullshit. It’s an attempt to smear. You can’t attack the science, so you launch baseless attacks on the advocates and, in some cases, the scientists.

    As for Shawn’s spiel, there’s nothing in it that hasn’t been debunked, disproved or dismissed countless times. Why waste time on explaining it to someone who is either mentally deficient or a willfully ignorant dupe? It gets very tiresome.



  37. Yuebing says:

    Fact: Ingraham uses doctored video to smear Gore

    Corollary: Ingraham uses doctored video to discredit efforts to increase public awareness and policy action on GLOBAL WARMING

    Fact: GLOBAL WARMING is far and away the the largest threat humanity has ever faced, and the USA will heat up about twice as fast as the globe.

    Conclusion: Ingraham used doctored video to make Amercians less prepared and proactive in this time of crisis.

    Question: What do we call a national media personality who sets out to make America less safe than it could be?

  38. Susan says:

    Thanks all for the great arguments. I think you are wasting your time pointing out logic and truth to those who are religiously committed with all the resources of the denial community (funded by decades by fossil fuel profits, and if we are to talk of profits, how about those; and supported by two sets of 8-year obfuscations, Reagan and then Bush 2) at hand. Every time a new point comes up some skilled communicators take a good hard look at how to turn it on its head so it looks like the opposite of what it is.

    I do, however, remember my aha moment when I realized it is all about “kill the messenger.” Before that I had been puzzled about how such a large and committed group could be so convinced without much basis in fact, truth, or scientific history.

    All the techniques of science are now being applied to discredit science. Got a small degree of uncertainty? The science is not proven. And I used the word “religion” above; but now “religion” is used to characterize those who follow science. You get the picture.

    Lord Monckton is a personal favorite, as he uses his accreditation as a Nobel laureate from the IPCC to “prove” that a Nobel laureate doesn’t “believe” in the IPCC!

  39. Leland Palmer says:

    Ingraham is a member of the Scaife funded “Independent Women’s Forum”, which is neither independent, funded by women, nor a forum (it’s funded by right wing men and discourages dissent). shows 7.6 million in right wing funding for the IWF- a depressingly familiar pattern:

    Ingraham is just a paid propagandist, like many others.