60 Minutes did a piece on global warming recently and did NOT attempt to present any counter-argument to the existence of global warming or that CO2 was the main culprit.

The reporter on the piece answered some questions about why he did not want to present an “opposing” point of view. His viewpoint is presented below, in an excerpt from a DailyKOS diary about the 60 Minutes episode.

Think about the reporter’s explanation when you see the anti-warming pundits on TV or radio.

Ask yourself “Who are these Anti-Warming” pundits? Is the new outlet telling us of any economic bias?

If the pundits are climate scientists, who funds their research? If their research is funded by a trade group that will be adversely impacted by efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn’t we be told of the scientist’s paid bias? We know who butters our bread, after all. Well, from my recollection we are not typically told that the pundit has an economic bias.

Why would a news outlet give a stage to an anti-warming pundit who is not a climate scientist?

If the pundit is not a climate scientist, we should wonder why the pundit is being given a stage to attack the peer-reviewed findings of legitimate climate scientists. We should suspect a propaganda ploy by a news outfit friendly to the interests of industry, in presenting a non-credible person as if he were some real authority.

If the pundit is a scientist, is he respected by his peers?

If the pundit is a climate scientist, is he or she someone respected by their peers for the quality of their work, regardless of the conclusions of the work? Scientific peers show respect for the work of others through reviewing their research papers for publication and through citing their works, pro or con, in their own scientific papers.

Be assured: Scientists would LOVE to be known for credibly debunking global warming

Scientists can quickly make a name for themselves worldwide by making groundbreaking new findings that challenge the established orthodoxy. And so, scientists the world over would LOVE to be able to debunk global warming - they would become world famous. The problem seems to be that climate scientists CANNOT amass credible verifiable scientific evidence disproving the presence of warming, or disproving the link to greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately for the anti-warming pundits, the credible science seems to be against them

Global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases is about as close to an established fact as the natural sciences can achieve. There have been prior instances of global warming, but scientists have concluded based on the evidence that the current round of warming is not due to a natural cycle of cooling and warming.

We can debate the causes, but not the fact of warming

BUT: We can still debate the causes of the increase in greenhouse gases, and we can still debate the effectiveness of various proposed means to control or reduce greenhouse gases. However, the FACT of warming due to greenhouse gases is beyond reasonable dispute.

Yet, Limbaugh - Hannity - Coulter - etc, continue to speak of global warming as if it is a myth concocted by those set out to destroy America. That’s just absurd, and keeps the people ignorant.

It appears that the following is the truth, based on the credible verifiable scientific evidence: “Global warming is occurring. The cause is the increase in greenhouse gases, primarily CO2. We don’t know for sure what, if anything, we might feasibly be able to do about the current warming trend. We don’t know exactly what the long term effects will be. The best we can do is to make reasoned predictions based on data models. ”

Daily Kos: 60 Minutes Refusing to Play by Fox News Rules

“It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere who is not thought of as being eminent in the field and put him on television with these other guys to cast doubt on what they’re saying,” he continues. “It would be difficult to find a scientist worth his salt in this subject who would suggest this wasn’t happening. It would probably be someone whose grant has been funded by someone who finds reducing fossil fuel emissions detrimental to their own interests.”