I guess once the real numbers were in Newsweek had to cover their tracks. If you missed their cover last week it attacked those who dare to question the Global Warming question by claiming that they were all paid off hacks. An accusation which quickly drew a pushback from people like Marc Morano from The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

“Newsweek Magazine‚Äôs cover story of August 13, 2007 entitled, ‚ÄúThe Truth About Denial‚Äù contains very little that could actually be considered balanced, objective or fair by journalistic standards. (LINK)

The one-sided editorial, masquerading as a “news article,” was written by Sharon Begley with Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift and Matthew Philips and purports to examine the “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

The only problem is — Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics ‚Äì Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )

This week‚Äôs ‚Äúnews article‚Äù in Newsweek follows the Magazine‚Äôs October 23, 2006 article which admitted the error of their ways in the 1970‚Äôs when they predicted dire global cooling. (See: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70’s Predictions of Coming Ice Age”

Of course, later in the week as you know blogger Steve McIntyre discovered that the NASA data was off, making 1934 the warmest year on record instead of 1988 which pretty much tosses Al Bore’s theory in the crapper.

All this leads to to a hugh retraction from Newsweek via their editor.

“We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week’s NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It’s an object lesson of how viewing the world as “good guys vs. bad guys” can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it.”…….

…..Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK’s “denial machine” is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn’t have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)

The alleged cabal’s influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they’ve treated global warming ominously. The first NEWSWEEK cover story in 1988 warned THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. DANGER: MORE HOT SUMMERS AHEAD. A Time cover in 2006 was more alarmist: BE WORRIED, BE VERY WORRIED. Nor does public opinion seem much swayed. Although polls can be found to illustrate almost anything, the longest-running survey questions show a remarkable consistency. In 1989, Gallup found 63 percent of Americans worried “a great deal” or a “fair amount” about global warming; in 2007, 65 percent did.

What to do about global warming is a quandary. Certainly, more research and development. Advances in underground storage of carbon dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter energy economics. To cut oil imports, I support a higher gasoline tax—$1 to $2 a gallon, introduced gradually—and higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles. These steps would also temper greenhouse-gas emissions. Drilling for more domestic natural gas (a low-emission fuel) would make sense. One test of greenhouse proposals: are they worth doing on other grounds?

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don’t have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale‚Äîas NEWSWEEK did‚Äîin which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.”

If this had been the first time that Newsweek had floated some bogus agenda driven crap as a news story it might be forgivable. But as we know that is simply not the case, and it’s just another reason why the American public simply doesn’t trust a word they say.