David Roberts flagged this exceptionally bad NYT article which attacks Vice President Gore for… putting his money where is mouth is. He summarizes:

Professional Gore haters, who make their living peddling lies, cast an absurd charge against Gore. The charge goes in the headline. It goes in the first paragraphs of the story. Then in paragraph 32 it’s revealed that the charge is baseless. And John Broder wasn’t embarrassed to have this appear under his byline.

Oh, and to state the obvious: even if it were true, nobody but a professional Gore hater could possibly find anything wrong with someone investing in the very solutions they say are necessary to save the world. The non-Gore-demented might even find that a perfectly predictable way for a capitalist to respond.

I wonder how John Broder covered the release of the Pickens Plan, which advocates federal policies designed to drastically increase the amount of natural gas used as transportation fuel. Boone Pickens, of course, is the founder of the Orwellian Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, which is the largest provider of natural gas for transportation in the country. Did Mr. Broder point out this apparent conflict of interest?  Here is what he wrote:

Mr. Pickens, 80, the founder and chairman of BP Capital Management, is the major supporter of a national energy plan announced last month to wean the United States of its dependence on foreign oil by turning to domestically produced natural gas. He has pledged $58 million for a marketing campaign that he hopes will force the presidential candidates into a discussion of his ideas.

No mention whatsoever of the fact that Mr. Pickens is one of the biggest investors in natural gas in the United States, and stands to profit substantially if his plan is enacted. Why the discrepancy, Mr. Broder?

Cameron Scott at The Thin Green Line points out that this story was pushed by Marc Morano, one of the least credible individuals I’ve ever had the pleasure of running circles around. Why is the New York Times running stories being pushed by Marc Morano? Are they trying to destroy their own credibility?

Cameron also asks another good question:

Republican lawmakers—including Kyl, Cornyn, Coburn and Hatch—as well as a few Democrats are heavily invested in oil and gas and coal companies. For the GOP, the oil and gas is the sixth largest recipient of investments; automotive is the eighth and other energy companies are 24th and 25th. (See the Democrats’ profile here: oil and gas ranks seventh and automotive 25th.)

James Inhofe, long the lead cheerleader of climate denialism and Morano’s longtime boss, had at least 10 percent of his assets in fossil fuel in 2007.

Where are the articles on that?

Unfortunately, the Times wasn’t alone in leveling this baseless attack.

The London Telegraph ran a shorter version of the same story, as did other outlets.

And once newspapers are talking about the story, it must be news. Right, Mika? Diane Sawyer seems to think so as well.

Gore’s response to this criticism has been spot on. He told Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski, “Of course I invest according to my beliefs and values.” And he told Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer, “I am proud to [have] put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years.”

I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when Brzezinski, Sawyer or Broder challenges Senator Inhofe or T. Boone Pickens, or Exxon-Mobile for that matter, about their obvious conflicts of interests.

Update: Brad Johnson points out that Diane Sawyer repeatedly invoked Glenn Beck in her attack of Gore. He also takes note of the fact out that Beck mentioned the Diane Sawyer segment three times, and clearly enjoyed the recognition from Sawyer.

Following up on my previous note to the authors of Superfreakonomics, I’d like to add this addendum: “When you find yourself employing the same tactics as the Chamber of Commerce to defend your views on climate change, you should probably re-evaluate your entire strategy.”

First, the never-ending saga of the Chamber of Commerce’s identity crisis on climate change continues, with the Chamber beginning to go on the offensive. On Tuesday they filed a Digital Millenium Copyright Act notice with the Internet Service Provider of the Yes Men — the activists that assisted the Chamber in making an utter fool of itself on Monday. This essentially strong-armed the Yes Men’s small ISP into shutting down the websites of hundreds of businesses and organizations, for fear of facing the legal wrath of the Chamber. That doesn’t seem very business friendly to me.

Then on Friday, the Chamber issued the fundraising email below:

The site the fundraising email links to says:

Liberal left-wing extremist groups and their leftist allies continue their attacks on us — because we are fighting for YOU!

Don’t let them muzzle us. Stand up for free speech by making a contribution below.

Leaving aside the irony of an organization that just intentionally silenced its critics saying ‘don’t let them muzzle us’, this is nothing more than a tone deaf attempt to prove their point by way of discrediting those who disagree with them. This is where the authors of Superfreakonomics come in.

On Good Morning America on Friday, George Stephanapoulos challenged Superfreakonomics author Stephen Dubner with a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The video is not embeddable (WTF, ABC?), so I have transcribed the relevant portion below:

George: But a lot of scientists who’ve studied this for an awful long time say you’re not just simplifying, you’re over-simplifying. And here’s what the Union of Concerned Scientists said about this book: “The chapter on global warming is riddled with misrepresentations… The authors appear to have taken a purposely contrarian position on climate change, science and economics.”

Dubner: I think what we don’t represent at all, are the entrenched political and financial incentives of the global warming activist movement. So I would hate this book too if I were the global warming activist movement.

I think it is awfully telling that Dubner’s response to a salient criticism of his work was to attack the organization that leveled the criticism, without responding to the substance. And the implication that the Union of Concerned Scientists — a highly respected and thoroughly reputable organization — is some sort of corrupt special interest is deeply offensive. In reality, the entrenched political and financial interests in the debate about what to do about global warming are overwhelmingly polluting industries that stand to gain from delaying responsible action. This is extremely well-documented, to the extent that it is difficult for me to believe that Mr. Dubner actually thinks his characterization of the Union of Concerned Scientists is accurate. Dubner’s book, whether he realizes it or not, serves the very interests that are actually subverting the debate.

Rather than defending themselves on the substance of the debate, both Dubner and the Chamber have instead resorted to attacking those who are questioning their positions. The Ad Hominem attack is often the first resort of those whose argument has no substantive leg to stand on. It seems fitting then, that both the Chamber and the authors of Superfreakonomics have employed it so aggressively.