The Chicken Littles of the pseudo-scientific community get smacked down by a pol, of all people.

Miles O'Brien? Wasn't he the guy on Deep Space Nine? Man, Gore's got to find a better Goebbels for his propaganda department...

Drudge: CNN Anchor Spars With Senator - Defends CNN Global Warming Reports By Citing fictional Hollywood Movie...

Washington DC - On CNN American Morning today, Senator James Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee engaged in a heated exchange with CNN newsman Miles O’Brien over CNN’s biased and erroneous coverage of global warming. Senator Inhofe questioned the journalistic integrity of CNN anchor for ‘Scaring A Lot Of People’ with hyped climate reporting.

Senator Inhofe also questioned O’Brien about his 1992 CNN report regarding fears of a coming ice age.

O’Brien responded by citing the 2004 fictional Hollywood global disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” to back up his science reporting. “This is "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario that we're talking about,” O’Brien said after being confronted by Senator Inhofe on his climate reporting.

Senator Inhofe demanded equal time following a CNN segment by O’Brien last week that attempted to discredit the Senator 12 times in a several minute long report. Senator Inhofe debunked global warming alarmism and harshly criticized the media’s unfounded climate hype last week in two separate Senate floor speeches which can be found here: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
and here: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027

The Senator accused the media in his speech last week of dismissing “any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.” This despite the fact that there is no scientific “consensus” that humans are causing a climate catastrophe, as a letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism clearly explained: The 60 scientists wrote: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

Senator Inhofe criticized CNN for its September 28 segment, (click here to read Senator Inhofe’s speech critiquing the CNN segment: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027)
noting that O’Brien made multiple erroneous scientific assertions about Antarctica, the state of Arctic polar bears, the ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature graph and attempted to discredit Senator Inhofe because he has accepted money from oil and gas interests.

O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9 of this year, that scientific skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” But when O’Brien interviewed global warming alarmist James Hansen on several different occasions most recently in August 2006, he failed to inform CNN viewers about Hansen’s partisan funding from Teresa Heinz Kerry’s left-wing Heinz Foundation, or Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of John Kerry for President.

O’Brien’s 2005 global warming CNN special “Melting Point”, also questioned attempted to smear scientific skeptics of global warming as tools of industry. But O’Brien ignored alarmists like Hansen and his obvious ties to environmental special interests and scientists like Michael Oppenheimer -- a paid partisan of the group Environmental Defense and Michael Mann who co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group. When he is asked how much oil and gas money he gets, the Senator responds "Not Enough, -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups spend.” The media never points out that environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle -- a ratio of 3 to 1.