Following her disgraceful performance during an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen on Tuesday, one of the producers of the schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” Laurie David, opted to further humiliate herself by publishing a “scathing rebuttal” at the Huffington Post (h/t NB member Sick-n-Tired).
David ironically began her piece (emphasis added throughout):
Webster's Dictionary defines "sloppy" as something that is "careless" or "negligent." For the moment, I can't think of a better word to describe the background research CNBC reporter Joe Kernen did regarding the state of global warming science when Sheryl and I appeared on his program the other day.
Interesting, Laurie, for folks could say – and indeed, have – the same thing concerning the obviously shoddy background research you and your team did by not editing out all of the mistakes and misstatements made by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore in the film you produced.
Obviously missing this delicious irony, David continued:
If you saw the interview, you know that instead of focusing on the serious problems of global warming and what we need to do about it, Joe decided to put on the hat of naysayer to attempt to refute the consensus opinion of over 2000 scientists from over 150 countries including the US.
He chose to refer to a recent 'documentary' out of Britain that attempts to refute the scientific consensus around global warming. The problem is that he failed to take into account the fact that this documentary has received no consideration in serious scientific circles and is shrouded in immense criticism and controversy.
Once again, David seemed to miss the delicious irony that her own documentary on the same subject was similarly shrouded in immense criticism and controversy, even from unlikely sources such as the New York Times. As NewsBusters reported on March 12, the Times was less than thrilled with obvious mistakes made by Gore in David’s film (emphasis added):
In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Neglecting this clearly inconvenient and deliciously hysterical truth, David continued to pummel the British documentary in question by not debating its contents, but by instead using a common, liberal tactic of discrediting the messenger:
A quick survey of film's 'expert' contributors uncovers a virtual who's who of Exxon funded global warming deniers. Further, I uncovered numerous allegations of selective editing of interviews (apparently causing at least one scientist to threaten legal action), the use of mislabeled graphs, outdated and flawed data, not to mention that the list of 'experts' interviewed includes a who's who of Exxon's favorites. Worse is that when the film's creator was alerted to the fact that the data he was using in certain cases was outdated, misrepresented and flawed, he intentionally ignored it.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle a denier. Yet, still not seeing the extraordinary hypocrisy in her position, David continued to stick her green foot further and further in her mouth:
So this begs the question, why didn't Joe check into any of this to ensure that he wasn't using unsubstantiated and flawed material to attempt to refute the consensus of the most credible scientific study on the subject in the world? I would guess it is because he couldn't find anything else, so he hitched his wagon to the product of a man whose previous documentary was apparently found by a regulatory commission to have distorted the views of at least four participants through what the commission called 'selective editing'. Bang up prep job, Joe. Real thorough.
Physician, heal thyself.
