Howard Kurtz pointed out this morning that the $3 million in funding for Tucker Carlson’s new project — the Daily Caller — comes from a man named Foster Friess. Of particular interest, Kurtz notes that Freiss ‘calls much of the information on global warming distorted and manipulated.’ Looking into this a bit further, it certainly appears as if the primary funder of Tucker Carlson’s new website is a climate change denier.

Writing on his blog, Freiss refers to this speech by Questar CEO Keith Rattie (PDF)as the best thing on global warming he has read.

Here is just one highlight from the misguided speech (PDF):

Now, I‟d love to stand here and debate the science of global warming. The media of course long ago declared that debate over – global warming is a planetary emergency, we‟ve got to change the way we live now. I‟ve followed this debate closely for over 15 years. I read everything I get my hands on. I‟m an engineer, so I tend to be skeptical when journalists hyperventilate about science – “World coming to an end – details at 11”. My research convinces me that claims of a scientific consensus about global warming mislead the public and policy makers – and may reflect another agenda.

Yes, planet earth does appear to be warming – but by a not so unusual and not so alarming one degree over the past 100 years. Indeed, global average temperatures have increased by about one degree per century since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age 250 years ago. And, yes CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere have increased over the past 250 years from about 280 parts per million to about 380 parts per million today – that‟s .00038. What that number tells you is that CO2 – the gas we all exhale, the gas in a Diet Coke, the gas that plants need to grow – is a trace gas, comprising just four out of every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. But it‟s an important trace gas – without CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be no life on earth. And yes, most scientists believe that humans have caused much of that increase.

But that‟s where the alleged consensus ends. Contrary to the righteous certitude we get from some, no one knows how much warming will occur in the future, nor how much of any warming that does occur will be due to man, and how much to nature. No one knows how warming will affect the planet, or how easily people, plants and animals will adapt to any warming that does occur. When someone tells you they do know, I suggest Mark Twain‟s advice: respect those who seek the truth, be wary of those who claim to have found it.

There is plenty more where that came from.

Here are some other recent headlines from his blog:

• Global Warming a religion?
• Article points out hypocrisy amongst climate change advocates
• California’s so-called “green” public policies are just a form of “energy colonialism”: bringing in energy from other states
• Czech Republic Pres Václav Klaus and Foster Discuss Danger of Trying to “Mastermind Global Climate”
• Green jobs may not help lower unemployment rates
• Growing number of scientists fear the beginning of global cooling
• New book highlights 34 scientists who resist GloWarm hysteria, and the lack of media coverage they receive
• New report from science panel shows CO2 not the cause of global warming

Further evidence that the Daily Caller is likely to be biased against clean energy solutions can be found by glancing at the site’s initial sponsors:

We have five launch sponsors: The Auto Alliance, the Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Company (a power firm), Broadband for America, and the National Mining Association.

Four of the five have a direct interest in climate and energy legislation, and three of the five are major opponents of meaningful action (Chamber of Commerce, Southern Company and the National Mining Association).

Don’t take it from me, though. Drudge protege Andrew Breitbart explains in one of the initial Op-Eds on Daily Caller:

The launch of the Daily Caller is a necessary step toward creating ideological parity in the all-too-clearly biased mainstream media. It is a good thing that you, Tucker, are admitting that you come to the table with certain ideological baggage, and my new site Big Journalism will be there to watch your back when the well-funded, organized left’s knives come out to try to discredit and attempt to destroy you. Believe me, they will.

Prediction: The Daily Caller will be a cross between the Drudge Report, Politico and the NY Post. It will occasionally break news, but only when doing so advances the conservative agenda.

I’ll be following the site for the next few weeks, hoping to be proven wrong. Unless and until that happens, I won’t be sending any more links in that direction.

Update — As if on cue, here is the story the Daily Caller is pushing right now:

Watch:

Here is the transcript:

CHRIS HAYES, “THE NATION”: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Why did “The Washington Post” let us get lectured about science and politics by someone who quit her only state office, and has a pastor who runs these precautionary exorcisms on her so she can stave off witchcraft.

HAYES: I thought it was a really atrocious decision on the part of “The Washington Post” to run this op-ed. What exactly it contributed to the debate-there are people like Greg Mankiw, who worked in the Bush White House, an economist at Harvard. He’s a very conservative guy. He strongly opposes the cap and trade. He wants to see a carbon tax. There is a debate to be had.

But to give over your op-ed page to someone who makes, essentially a conspiracy claim, it would be like if they turned it over to someone who wanted to argue that 9/11 was an inside job. “The Washington Post” would never, in a million years, do that and they shouldn’t be doing this.

OLBERMANN: From Mrs. Palin’s point of view, from the GOP point of view, is this at all about getting elected anymore, or is this just kind of political cover for big business? Keeping the country safe from polluters for another hour, another month, another year, whatever it is they can manage?

HAYES: Luckily, they go hand in hand. I actually think what’s motivating Palin-and you can actually see, she has moved, you know, in the direction of the conspiracy theorists on this issue. What’s motivating her is the fact that the polling on this is really disturbing, because it has become an article of faith among the right wing base that this is a grand socialist conspiracy to usher in state control.

So I think she’s really, as she is want to do, pandering to that base right now. I think what’s driving that kind of op-ed, more than any kind of business shilling, is the fact that it has become one of these issues, like the birth certificate, that you can sort of win points with the base with.

OLBERMANN: And by the way, the video we’re seeing right now, that was taken in July in Washington, D.C. All right, that’s-bad joke, I’m sorry. But let’s put all these points together now about the predilections of the far right and what they believe and what they don’t. What is the Palin explanation for polar ice melting, which she acknowledges. If it is witchcraft, why has she not sent Pastor Moothy (ph) to fix it. A slightly more serious version of that, and if this is not man-made, if it is part of the right-wing agenda, if it all should be theocratically interpreted, if it’s all in God’s hands, how come Sister Sarah, with her direct line to God, has not instructed God to fix this?

HAYES: You know, what’s really interesting about this op-ed is that it’s not even internally logically consistent conspiracy mongering. There are two alternate theories of the conspiracy the denialists make. One is, yes, the world is warming, but it is not caused by humans. The other, the science that says the world is warming is fake and part of the conspiracy. And she endorses both. Those both cannot obtain.

The fact of the matter is, she governs the one state in the union that is most immediately seeing the effects of climate change. The permafrost is actually melting. There are houses that have cracked because of it in the state of Alaska. And because of that, she was forced to kind of acknowledge the fact that warming is happening. She can’t have it both ways.

And the editors of “The Washington Post” didn’t see fit to make any kind of intervention, to at least have a logically consistent piece of work on their pages.

OLBERMANN: Which brings up the idea of an end game for the GOP and Palin. What is the end game? Let’s say they are 100 percent right, that climate-gate exists, that this is a scam, that changes in climate are natural. Do they have a plan for how to keep the government together, to criminalize abortion during the rapture and the upcoming ice age and/or universal sweat lodge, whichever comes first?

HAYES: You know, I don’t know what the right-wing government’s plan is. But I will say, on an extremely serious note, that this-you know, we’ve talked about this in a million different ways-and Al Gore-and there are a lot of messengers who are better at this than I am. But it’s hard to over-state the stakes right now, in Copenhagen, in the climate change legislation moving through Congress. We are at a sort of pivotal moment in the fate of the Earth, but also as a test of the moral fabric of American democracy. And history is going to look extremely, extremely unkindly on this op-ed and the people that are using their platform to sort of propagate this very monstrous deception.

Here is an interesting clip of this wide ranging interview:

MITCHELL: Well, one of the things that she has written recently on Facebook is that this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a — a principle in physics.

It’s not a question of debate. It’s like gravity; it exists.

MITCHELL: If it’s so unequivocal, I’ve got to ask you about the — the leak of those e-mails. Even today, Tom Friedman talked about them massaging the evidence. Why would they feel the need to hype the evidence if it’s so unequivocal, some scientists, I should say?

GORE: Yeah, I don’t think they did. I haven’t read all the e-mails that were stolen. They’re from — the most recent one was like 10 years ago.

And what they’ve done is they’ve snatched a few phrases completely out of context, and I’ll give you an example.

One of the oft-quoted phrases has to do with the scientist saying that a particular study isn’t good science and shouldn’t be included in the — international report. Well, that was their view. They exchanged it privately.

The study was included, fully aired, discussed. The weak points were — were analyzed. The other points were analyzed. So it’s an example of how these private exchanges have been blown out of proportion, taken out of context, misrepresented.

Full interview here.

Several folks have already taken the Washington Post to task for publishing a factually incorrect Sarah Palin Op-Ed in today’s paper.  And many have already noted that the piece is an updated version of a rant Palin published on Facebook six days ago.

But his appears to violate the Post’s own Op-Ed guidelines, which unequivocally state: ‘Op-eds may not have been submitted to, posted to or published by any other media.’

While today’s Op-Ed is not exactly identical to last week’s Facebook note, the similarities are overwhelming. In addition to making the same argument, many of the phrases and sentences are exactly the same.

The Post also offers the following guidance to would-be Op-Ed contributors:

You also don’t need to have an important title — and having an important title doesn’t mean we’ll publish your op-ed. In fact, because we realize that senators, business leaders, heads of state and the like have access to various platforms where they can express their views, we hold them to a particularly high standard when considering whether to publish them in The Post.

If this they held this piece to ‘a particularly high standard’ I’d hate to see their normal standards. Oh wait, we already have.

I’ve written several times now about Tuesday’s climate policy briefing hosted by Newsweek magazine and the American Petroleum Institute.

Here is the full transcript of the event:

23527903-Newsweek-Dialogue-Series-Climate-and-Energy-Policy-Moving-12-1-09 –

This story keeps getting better and better. Greenpeace seems to have evidence that all of this was in violation of Senate rules. Their Executive Director Phil Radford has fired off a letter to Senator Schumer to this effect.

Here is the letter:

Letter from Phil Radford to Senator Schumer-1 –

Here is the sign on the front door of the event, which prominently displayed API and Newsweek logos:

Here is the flyer the American Petroleum Institute distributed at the event, claiming the oil industry is responsible for 9.2 million jobs:

API jobs flyer_color copy –

Here is the event’s program:

API Newsweek program_color copy-1 –

Media Matters:

While discussing the purported “Climategate” emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, Steve Doocy claimed that Jon Stewart “really took a shot at Al Gore,” then aired a clip of Stewart stating, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented.” But Doocy — in a possible violation of a recent Fox News memo on “Quality Control” — did not air Stewart’s subsequent statement in which he said the emails don’t “disprove global warming,” but do offer ammunition to global warming deniers.

Here is the video:

I told you the other day about Tuesday’s policy forum hosted by Newsweek magazine and the American Petroleum Institute. At the time, Howard Fineman defended his magazine’s role in providing a forum for communication between powerful special interests and members of Congress:

Rep. Ed Markey, the chief sponsor of the House cap-and-trade bill and a leading environmental advocate, is a full participant in the open, on-the-record discussion with no control by API over the questions or flow. Dem Sen Byron Dorgan is also participating and will reflect various views in Dem caucus. Rep Fred Upton, who opposed the House bill, will also participate. I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record balanced discussion like this. Newsweek has a long tradition of enviro reporting, including our annual green issue.

It looks like I wasn’t the only one who took issue with Fineman’s take. TPM Muckracker ran the headline: Fineman: “I See Nothing Wrong” With Newsweek/Oil Lobby Panel. Jamison Foser of Media Matters wrote:

Seriously? The “discussion” featured the president of the American Petroleum Institute — which just happens to fund Newsweek — but no representatives of environmental organizations … and Howard Fineman calls that a “balanced discussion”?

Apparently to Newsweek, “balance” means “Industry representatives who fund us and–Hey! Look over there!”

Despite basically nonexistent media coverage, the event went forward as planned on Tuesday evening. We’ve begun to hear from some folks who were in attendance.

Greenpeace, which has been leading the charge on this, provided me with this dispatch via email:

Greenpeace staff got into the event (on the 3rd attempt) to confront Gerard and Fineman with the questions of Newsweek’s rental price and the pay-to-play nature of the panel. Gerard was able to sit side-by-side with the members of Congress who showed up: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI).

Greenpeace staffers approached Gerard with cameras rolling to get answers to the question of Newsweek’s rental price. At first, Gerard unwittingly shook the staffer’s hand before realizing what was happening. He then quickly walked away with Greenpeace on his tail – all the way out of the building and out onto the street.

Fineman quickly left the scene without comment.

Here is a short video clip of the incident Greenpeace describes:

Additionally, I got ahold of a short audio clip from the event. After Representative Markey talks up the future of natural gas, Newsweek’s Fineman tells an industry-friendly joke:

As a native of Pittsburgh, I’m really excited about the Marcellus Shale. I’m hoping maybe there’s some under my relative’s land. (laughter)

Listen to the audio here:

No word yet on whether Fineman joked about the recent string of carcinogenic chemical spills in Pennsylvania as a result of hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale.

Update — Mark Floegel has more on this:

The first question from the audience was for Mr. Gerard: “How are you, the head of the oil lobby, qualified to speak about climate change?”

His answer? Money. (Well, what did you expect?) Mr. Gerard claimed that 9.2 million Americans rely on the oil industry for their jobs. He claims the oil industry has spent $58 billion dollars “addressing climate change,” which he says is “more than the federal government has spent.” Then he spoke about how we need to burn coal.

Floegel also notes that the American Petroleum Institute distributed ‘literature’ at the event:

Here are the headings:

This is about jobs.
This is about new taxes threatening your job.
This is about new taxes hurting our economy.
This is about higher energy taxes hurting your wallet.
This is about protecting and growing jobs.
This is about a better way forward.

A careful read of the API document reveals not one word about global warming. “Climate and Energy Policy: Moving?” Yes, in the wrong direction.

About a month ago, a strange email hit the inboxes of many congressional staffers. It was an invitation to an ‘Executive Forum’ on climate and energy policy hosted by the American Petroleum Institute. What was strange about this invitation was the sender of the email and the co-host of the policy forum: Newsweek magazine. The event is scheduled for today at 4pm.

Greenpeace’s Executive Director Phil Radford, understandably, took issue with this when the event was announced:

At present, the panel’s only member is American Petroleum Institute (API) President Jack Gerard.As you know, Mr. Gerard is the nation’s top registered lobbyist for Big Oil. API and its biggest member, ExxonMobil, have aggressively lobbied against global warming policy solutions that will inevitably limit global consumption of oil. API and its members have spent tens of millions of dollars over the past decade alone on propaganda efforts and front groups to undercut public confidence in the wide and deep global scientific consensus that global warming is real, that human consumption of fossil fuels is driving it, and that the problem is a serious threat to America and the rest of the world.

Greenpeace was not alone in its concerns:

“You’re selling access,” said Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va. “Newsweek is using its reputation as a great news organization to convene these officeholders to talk about public policy. Then it’s renting out a space at the table for one of its customers who would not be at the table if not for giving money to Newsweek.”

Upping the ante before today’s big event, Greenpeace called for the event to be canceled and issued the following statement:

“Big Oil is buying access to our elected leaders by paying Newsweek to host this forum, and it must be called off,” Radford said. “Gerard and API will stop at nothing to stall progress on clean energy and climate solutions. I’m amazed Newsweek is endangering its reputation by renting its banner and top pundit to Big Oil. This forum is pay-to-play propaganda.”

In response to this, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman provided EnviroKnow with the following statement via email:

Rep. Ed Markey, the chief sponsor of the House cap-and-trade bill and a leading environmental advocate, is a full participant in the open, on-the-record discussion with no control by API over the questions or flow. Dem Sen Byron Dorgan is also participating and will reflect various views in Dem caucus. Rep Fred Upton, who opposed the House bill, will also participate. I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record balanced discussion like this. Newsweek has a long tradition of enviro reporting, including our annual green issue.

We’ll have more on this after tonight’s event.

Update: Talking Points Memo has now picked up this story.