A little while back, CNN recruited a right-wing talk radio host named Glenn Beck to host one of its prime-time shows. As MediaMatters rather exhaustively reveals, Beck is an unreconstructed racist, sexist, classist, misogynist, authoritarian, xenophobic troglodyte of the old school. He doesn’t work particularly hard to conceal his trogloditicism. In fact, one suspects CNN views the trogloditicism as the draw.

Beck’s latest crusade is — you guessed it — global warming skepticism. He has a special running on CNN (“Exposed: The Climate of Fear“) in which he compares the consensus on global warming to the early-20th-century consensus on eugenics. It features Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball, Chris Horner, Bjorn Lomborg, and all the other usual suspects.

I have a question for you Gristmill readers:

Do you think I/we should take on this stuff whenever it pops up? Should Gristmill produce a point-by-point refutation every time these same discredited spokesmen and arguments are trotted out? Is there any payoff in it? I could just keep posting links to the Skeptic Guide, but that’s not quite as effective as a targeted rebuttal.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

I guess it would be a public service, but I also wonder whether giving this stuff attention just plays into its hands. Is anyone who tunes into Beck’s show, sees the same handful of cranks, hears the same zombie falsehoods, and is convinced, realistically going to end up at Gristmill looking for counter-arguments anyway?

To spend the time, or not spend the time, that is the question. How would you answer?

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.