Rupert Murdoch’s companies have been found to be grossly misleading the US public over climate change, with Fox News‘ coverage classed as giving dodgy info 93% of the time. In the report, compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal comes a close second in the inaccuracy stakes, with a massive 81% misleading coverage in their opinion pages:

The WSJ, whose commentary include such beauties as “No Need to Panic About Global Warming“, claim that the alarmism created by global warming is something of a conspiracy, offering “an excuse for governments to raise taxes“.

Fox News, who evidently can’t even muster a one in ten success rate of accurate reportage, have certainly got a somewhat dubious record when it comes to accuracy and fairness of their journalism. Readers may recall:

Fox News, scrutinising certain sections of society since 1996.

  1. First problem with the article … you should be stating “man made climate change” rather than “climate change” .. climate change has been a fact of life for earth dwellers for thousands of years and beyond !

    Probably best to start with scientific FACTs as there are so many scientific illiterates who jump on the bandwagon – Climate change is and has been a scientific FACT for thousands of years … Man Made Climate Change is NOT a scientific FACT.

    you can then go in to the debate about why scientists/institutes on both sides of the “man made climate change” debate do not declare their financial interests in taking a viewpoint one way or the other .. without this knowledge the research is tarnished badly (bit like an analyst recommending a stock he has a large position in without telling you)

    Incidently the BBC are far worse in the opposite direction … absolute man made climate change “mad”

    .. and finally pin back your lugholes and wait a few months for a story to possibly break about a certain climate change institute, a large private “green” fund and a government’s money “under the table” … if what i have heard is true and it breaks it will illustrate clearly the bias on both sides of the argument caused by massive personal financial interest.

  2. @Chris

    Actually that’s precisely what the scientific community believes. Humans are a primary source for global warming. The term ‘Scientific Fact’ isn’t applicable. A theory is an explanation to explain facts, they don’t in themselves become facts. The closest thing a theory (or causation) can come to becoming a fact is when published articles stop arguing about the validity of a theory, but instead start to build on it. Which with man made Global Warming has already happened.

    Click Basic Version for the plain English particle.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

  3. “you can then go in to the debate about why scientists/institutes on both sides of the “man made climate change” debate do not declare their financial interests in taking a viewpoint one way or the other .. without this knowledge the research is tarnished badly”

    True, except that all the financial interests in this ‘debate’ are on one side: the ‘sceptic’ one. There’s no money to be made in finding evidence that global warming is taking place, that’s just adding to what we already know. But there’s vast amounts of money available from the likes of oil companies to anyone who can find evidence ‘disproving’ it. Follow the money, and you’ll see that this whole ‘controversy’ is perpetuated by the big companies who want to promote doubt about global warming, because they know they’ll have to pay for it. Among serious scientists, there’s no debate at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>