So what exactly is National Review Online‘s blog Planet Gore, and why is PG such a unique combination of disinformation and (unintentional) entertainment that I’ve started PGDW (Planet Gore Disinfotainment Watch)?
We can find the answer in PG’s very first post, “Welcome to Planet Gore, NRO’s Global Warming Blog,” by Peter Suderman on February 14 (how sweet) of this year. I’ll give the entire post since we, unlike the global warming Denyers, work very hard not to take words and phrases out of context:
From Al Gore and Laurie David to the UN’s IPCC report and Nancy Pelosi’s special global warming committee, global warming is one of the most talked-about and contentious public policy issues of the day. We are constantly told, as Rep. Henry Waxman recently claimed, that “it is one of the most important public policy issues facing our nation and the world.” But the hyped-up rhetoric doesn’t always accurately reflect the complexity of the issue. That’s where Planet Gore comes in. NRO has gathered a team of experts to report and comment on the myriad scientific and economic issues surrounding the global warming debate. So check back regularly for informed news and views about climate change, alternative energy, environmental activism, and of course, Al Gore’s carbon footprint [emphasis added for your entertainment].
Whoa. A whole “team of experts.” Perhaps this team of experts could actually include an example of “hyped-up rhetoric” in their inaugural post. The only quote they give is Waxman’s, which is hardly much rhetorical hype, unless PG’s expert would have us believe that global warming is very talked about and contentious, but not important. If so, why bring in a whole team of experts for a blog on an unimportant subject? This kind of illogic is standard fare on PG, as we’ll see.
Ironically, PG is itself a source of hyped-up rhetoric. In the first post I have already debunked–written just one (!) day after this post–PG uses the phrase “global warming Chicken Littles.” Is that phrase a genuine effort to “accurately reflect the complexity of the issue”? Or is it hypocritical hype?