FNC host Glenn Beck on Tuesday cited a NewsBusters article in his attack on all the television news outlets that have boycotted the growing ClimateGate scandal.
As NewsBusters reported earlier in the day, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC have completely ignored last week's bombshell story about controversial e-mail messages between some of the world's leading global warming alarmists.
By contrast, Fox has been all over this issue.
With this in mind, Beck used the NewsBusters piece to demonstrate that much as in their boycott of the ACORN scandal and green jobs czar Van Jones's peculiar associations, the television press are once again hiding important information from the public hoping it will all just go away (video embedded below the fold with transcript):
GLENN BECK, HOST: Well, once again, there's a budding scandal that is completely invisible to the people who do not watch FOX News. This joins the parade of such scandals as Van Jones Who? ACORN with hookers. What? And now, the terribly titled, ClimateGate. Huh?
Noel Sheppard at "NewsBusters" found that after this thing started breaking late last week, there has been a total, out of all these networks, all the stories combined from ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC - ABC had to cover the affair of Republican Senator John Ensign, which, I guess, some people were talking about in July.
But the scandal we are talking about - all of these combined, all of these networks, zero - zero. Nobody is reporting on this story. CBS also had a breaking story about a 10-year-old pianist playing at the Carnegie Hall - and you know, good for her or him.
And NBC featured not one but two stories on the release of Susan Boyle's new CD. Oh, I can barely contain my excitement. But in case you missed it, because you were anywhere but here, a hacker or whistleblower released thousands of E-mails and documents between some of the biggest players in the global warming non-debate debate.
Give credit to the "New York times" and "The Washington Post" for confirming the E-mails and that they are legitimate. Yesterday, we showed you the messages between the scientists bragging about climate tricks used to hide the decline in temperatures that were all freaking out, "Oh, no, it looks like our models are wrong."
They were asking each other to delete messages to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of peer review journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published.
Wow, that almost sounds like the dark ages. Back in 2006, the media flocked to report on James Hansen - this is Al Gore's climate scientist of choice. Remember, he is the guy who said, "I'm being silenced by the evil Bush administration."
Bush was apparently very good at silencing scientists as he was controlling spending, because Hansen did hundreds of interviews, hundreds of them. What was the proof of the silencing at the time? He got some pressure in phone calls.
That was enough for all of the networks but not these thousands of E-mails. No, no, no, no. Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? The media couldn't get enough of every scandal that pops up from Lewinsky or Scooter Libby or you know, Mark Foley, Eliot Spitzer, apparently John Ensign.
All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.
And this scandal is so far invisible to everyone but FOX viewers. Think of it this way. Let's say you're an astronaut and you're getting ready to go out in space and we're going to switch from the space shuttle to the glorified smart car to get into orbit.
And everybody who's on the smart car team, they're like, "No, no, no. The science is settled. This is perfectly safe." And you're like, "Wait a minute. I want to ask you something." "No, don't ask any more questions."
How do you react when you find out that there are engineers who are privately deleting files to avoid any kind of oversight? Or that they're colluding to keep other engineers quiet that don't think there is going to be - I don't know - enough oxygen for the trip? Or that the data doesn't agree with their predetermined conclusions, so they assume the data just must be wrong?
When it's your body burning up in the atmosphere, I bet you'd be interested. Well, your body is about to be burned up. When trillions of dollars are at stake in the middle of a financial meltdown, maybe we should look into this one because it is getting hard to breathe in here.
Why would we get into the smart car economy when it is now clear that many of the people who are forcing us inside are no longer to be considered honest brokers? Look what we have learned here.
Well, look what you have learned by watching FOX. Highly questionable, possible illegal behavior from some of the top scientists who screamed the loudest about global warming. And on the political and economical side, the president hires Van Jones, who has admitted that there was a radical colonel in the green economy, which was an engine, quote, "for transforming the whole society," end quote.
We know how corrupt politicians are. We are now learning how some of the biggest names in science are not that far behind. There are thousands of other E-mails and documents that echo these same sentiments and scandals in this batch. As we confirmed them, I guess FOX and possibly FOX alone will bring them to you.
I want to make it clear. There are a lot of good scientists out there working hard to do what's right every day, a lot of good scientists that actually believe in global warming.
But even if you're a hard core believer, when you look at these E-mails, shouldn't those scientists and all those hard core believers say, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's clear this one up, because we're about to spend trillions of dollars. And it's based on the words of these people."
I, for one, am not willing to risk our country and our world's economic future on an unsure solution to an increasingly unsure problem. That's just in my head that that science is settled.