JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

Media ownership and the Rupert Murdoch tipping point?

Rupert Murdoch, 2009

Three years ago Rupert Murdoch was promising to make News Corporation carbon neutral. He implored his staff to personally reduce their footprint, and to be more creative in convincing the world to act too. He created websites specifically to help spread the message about the need to reduce carbon emissions. And he even bought a hybrid car for himself.

Today Quadrant magazine reports what many of us have been speculating behind the scenes: Murdoch has realized the IPCC and the “consensus” are fake.

The Australian has performed best in giving space to sceptics and dissenters but has stuck to the save the planet line in its editorials, some say because Murdoch said so publicly. Yet in a personal communication with Murdoch he indicated his scepticism to me. Last Friday’s editorial moved in the right direction when it called on politicians to question the science used by the IPCC but it has yet to endorse the call for an independent inquiry by a number of Australian scientists.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/des-moore

Rupert Murdoch is unarguably one of the most powerful men on the planet. This is an edited extract of what he said in May 2007 in the first ever global webcast to News Corp’s employees. It’s strong stuff. The whole speech is here, and it’s got detail after detail about how News Corp was acting to reduce its carbon footprint. They were being aggressive, efficient, and effective. If carbon was a problem, Murdoch’s actions would seem unimpeachable. But that’s just it — the job of the free press is not to “convince the world of a policy”, but to inform the world of what’s happening, to report “the news, the whole news, and nothing but the news”.


News Corporation energy initiativeI’m here to tell you about a new initiative we’re undertaking at News, one that will affect us all.Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change…Climate change and energy use are global problems– News Corp is a global company.
Our audiences– hundreds of millions of people on five continents– care about this issue. Three quarters of the American public believes climate change is a serious problem, and in many other countries, developed and developing, the numbers are even higher.

For us, as a media company– this is a chance to deepen our relationships with our viewers, readers, and web users.

The initiative we are launching today will involve every business, every function. It’s not only for our facilities managers or our fleet directors– it’s about how we recruit new employees, how we develop relationships with advertisers and how we design movie sets.

This is all new for us. We have much to learn from others. We studied the example of BSkyB, and we met with non-governmental organizations, with other companies, and with scientific experts.

If we are to connect with our audiences on this issue, we learned that we must first get our own house in order…

Our first step was to measure our emissions of greenhouse gases– our carbon footprint.

Our carbon footprint last year was 641,150 tons. This includes the electricity used in all our operations globally, and any fuels we burned Today, I am announcing our intention to be carbon neutral, across all our businesses, by 2010.

BSkyB has already done this. When all of News Corporation becomes carbon neutral it will have the same impact as turning off the electricity in the city of London for five full days.

…we must do this quickly– the climate will not wait for us.

But becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning. The climate problem will not be solved without mass participation by the general public in countries around the globe.

And that’s where we come in.

We can do something that’s unique, different from just any other company. We can set an example, and we can reach our audiences. Our audience’s carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours…

That’s the carbon footprint we want to conquer.

And, as you saw in our opening video, this is already happening… news coverage of this issue is increasing, but we can also do some things that are unexpected…

Our advertisers are asking us for ways to reach audiences on this issue.

But if we are genuine, we can change the way the public thinks about these issues.

Now there will always be journalists… including some of ours… who are skeptical, which is natural and healthy. But the debate is shifting from whether climate change is really happening to how to solve it.

I’ve started myself– I bought a hybrid car a few months ago…

I ask each of you to think about how this effort affects your own job, because I am certain it does.
As you discover new ways to save money or connect with your audiences or business partners, you will realize: finding a way to act on climate change is not only good for the planet, and not only good for our business, it will be good for your career.
And it will be great for attracting new talent– dynamic, creative, engaged people who think about the future, not one year ahead, but a generation ahead– exactly the kind of people we need for our company to thrive.

I’m not suggesting that he has been overtly dictating exactly what can and can’t be covered by News Corp. Fox News after all has been a shining light for people with sceptical views. But it can’t be argued that the directive at News Corp was always “News First: Propaganda Second”.

Could it be that Murdoch is simply one of the wiser businessmen–and instead of controlling the editors, he allowed some true freedom of editorial in all his media outlets? Could it be that he then listened to them all and found Fox more convincing?

If so, it’s an example of the free market at work, in money and ideas, and I’m relieved to know it still happens. I’m frustrated that it has taken so long for media outlets to begin to report what was so obvious to anyone who investigated the matter with an unjaundiced eye, and that the world came perilously close to adopting a trading mechanism that was irreversible, massively far-reaching, and potentially gave parasitic financial houses and big government even more power than they already have.

My concern with large media conglomerates is that there is so little competition. When money is created from nothing (and bank loans are virtually foisted upon anyone who glances backwards at a bank), it makes it almost inevitable that large corporates would take over other large corporates — generating these megaglomerates. An economy dominated by a few large companies is a more fragile ecosystem, because it lacks diversity and depth.  The sprawling conglomerates that emerge had to borrow buckets of money to eat their competitors, so the power and influence of their financial backers is enormous.

Companies that ought to expose corruption are owned by organizations that benefit from it.

Companies that ought to have exposed the climate corruption, like Reed Publishing (New Scientist), News Corporation, even Shell Petroleum, are in the end, like almost every corporation, deeply in debt to a string of financial houses–and those financiers, as a class, benefit from a carbon credits trading system.

This applies especially to News Corp. The Murdoch family only own about 30% of the voting stock, barely enough to maintain control. News Corp cannot raise money by issuing more shares, or the Murdoch’s risk losing control of the company. That leaves borrowing as the main means of raising more capital. For a couple of decades News Corp has been growing aggressively by acquisition, fuelled by borrowed money — so it is more beholden to its financiers than most companies.

Where are the news media that are driven by subscriptions first and foremost? Which media outlets are there to serve the public, rather than other entities?  Polls and subscriber numbers count, but realistically, when all our major dailies here in Australia are owned by Murdoch or Fairfax, what choice do we have? Which “other major national daily” would I switch too?

We need a better system of managing our free press. Without the internet, the money-masters would have surely have got their trading system based on nothing but thin air.

It looks like we may have just got lucky, fortunate that one of the megalithic entities is managed by a man willing to let them speak freely, even as he encouraged them to proselytize.

When it comes to exposing the power-brokers of global humanity, I don’t like relying on “luck”.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Media ownership and the Rupert Murdoch tipping point?, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2f4yb3r

42 comments to Media ownership and the Rupert Murdoch tipping point?

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    “It looks like we may have just got lucky”,

    I think you’re selling short the efforts of people like your good self, who have been burrowing away inch by inch for years now.

    Well done, and lets hope you are right about R Murdoch. A little luck never went astray :)

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug, when I said “lucky”, I was thinking that Murdoch is smart savvy and wise, and possibly has a conscience. There are plenty of guys who’ve made it to the top who don’t have a sense of fair play, and many of them end up at the top of investment banks.

    00

  • #

    The Murdoch weathervane responds to winds from China, and look what China is now saying.

    00

  • #
    KDK

    Regardless.. Murdoch is NOT someone you can TRUST… EVER. He is in league with Rockefeller on things like Vaccines, and I don’t mean for your best interest–them being the benevolent masters as they are LOL.

    00

  • #
    Robinson

    The Times here in the UK has been very pro-AGW in the past. Recently (over the last 6 months or so) I’ve noticed the frequency of scare stories reduced to almost zero. I think we can put this down to the papers feeling which way the wind is blowing, rather than actually deciding to promote a policy for or against in the interest of the proprietor. Newspapers tend to promote the world views of their readers, rather than try to actively convert readers to their way of thinking, if you see what I mean. Editorials are no different. They want subscribers, that’s all. I would find it very hard to believe that the quantity of activist press releases has decreased, so it must be that editorial judgements have changed to bring in to focus the new consensus (that AGW is plain wrong).

    The tone and number of negative comments an AGW article in a newspaper gets these days is overwhelmingly negative. I used to be one of a couple of people questioning the consensus online in forums and on article comments, now I find it almost impossible to get a decent argument out of the warmists because there are so many of us adding our criticisms.

    Happy days!

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Murdoch,

    Too Little too late. I disagree with the comment that news corps values are “News First: Propoganda Second”. Climategate showed they are all about propoganda.

    What a sucker.

    Sure he knows how to run and grow a business, but like so many others, he was so dumb on matters of science that he couldn’t see through AGW and the obvious fraud it was.

    00

  • #
    mohib

    From WUWT

    IPCC = International Pack of Climate Cooks

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I’m not suggesting that he has been overtly dictating exactly what can and can’t be covered by News Corp. Fox News after all has been a shining light for people with sceptical views. But it can’t be argued that the directive at News Corp was always “News First: Propaganda Second”.

    I’m willing to argue that one. I see it as money first, propaganda second, and news fills in a bit around the edges. You can clearly see it in the stories that they don’t tell (like how hard it has been for Peter Spencer’s story to get out, and when it does get through it has usually been mangled).

    Never forget that people buy newspapers primarily to confirm their own prejudice rather than to risk learning something new.

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Let’s continue to make the Murdochs of the world less and less relevant. Packaging up information and distributing it around the world no longer requires a global mega-business. I haven’t read a paper in years, and I don’t watch the TV news – I got tired of being lied to – and I suspect many here are the same. I much rather support those I trust; such as our esteemed hostess!

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Sure he knows how to run and grow a business, but like so many others, he was so dumb on matters of science that he couldn’t see through AGW and the obvious fraud it was.

    I’ll admit that I foolishly believed in it for many years and mostly because I read what was in the newspapers thinking I could at least mostly trust those guys.

    After reading through the East Anglia emails and then seeing how many people are willing to step up in public and defend what went on at East Anglia by blatantly ignoring what was written and making up their own fanciful excuses, now I understand how deep the disregard for truth really is.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Tel and other people who converted,

    On important matters people make the best decision they can with the information they have available at the time.

    I had a choice many years ago – to go with the flow or to remain sceptical until unbiased evidence proved the contrary. That evidence has never been forthcoming (or at least I never got hold of it).

    I should clarify – people in Rupert Murdochs position must have been in a better position to get hold of accurate information to make decisions. Both then and now. It is for this reason I am particularly unforgiving to him and others of his ilk.

    The fact that he took the position he did, I am sure swayed other people in the public to then move towards the AGW camp with the knowledge that Rupert Murdoch must have access to better information than “An inconvenient truth”.

    Of course, I think someone talked to Mr Murdoch about the money that could be made through carbon markets, he probably put in some seed money and then did threw his weight behind AGW. Now he has probably seen his seed money evaporate. Good job.

    And as for encouraging his staff to be carbon neutral – this looks more like a an opportunity to cut costs within his empire. Having said that, the impact of his views on AGW have corrupted his journalistic organisations integrity, I believe, beyond repair.

    As I have state before, the net is my own source of data now. And yes, it does mean I have to filter and do the job of a journalist, but at least I am subject to my own bias only – not some left wing hippy burnout who doesn’t want to get the sack.

    That’s my 2c worth.

    00

  • #
    ed gallagher

    The fraud and distortion that have come to light in the last few months have given a number of folks the excuse to jump off the AGW bandwagon, including Senator John McCain. That someone as influential as Murdoch is now tipping to the side of sanity is indeed promising. As the real agenda behind AGW came to light in Copenhagen more and more people are beginning to not only look at the evidence, they are questioning the motives of those who are proposing to turn the human race into one big meerkat colony. The image broadcast to the world was one of a group of whining socialists demanding more money to implement their utopian plans with warming abatement as a side dish. The chances of the cap and trade bill in the U.S. Senate passing are getting slimmer with each day. A number of senators are already talking about passing legislation preventing the EPA administrator from imposing AGW regulations that exceed the legislative intent of the EPA charter. This is in response to the Supreme Court ruling on the EPA’s authority to classify emissions as pollution or a threat. Now if only we could get Lindsey Graham to see the light, or at least take off the blindfold we could be assured of stopping the senate from bringing the bill to the floor.

    00

  • #
    Frank Brown

    Seems to me that Mr. Murdoch figured out that JN and lots of others can’t be bribed, threatend or repressed that he’s gonna say that he was really really on their side all along … gotta sell ads after all.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tel,

    I would not call AGW fraud after watching the channel 7 sunshine interview between Monckton and Ben McNeil on Sunday. McNeil’s sincerity in his belief was palpable.

    It’s not a new phenomenon but one which those of us in the hard physical sciences recognise as “deductive” science in which in situ tests are nigh well impossible. These sciences start off with some generalised assumption, here climate sensitivity, about which they are still arguing, and then deduce outcomes from that starting point. The crucial point is that it’s a belief system, and not one based on evidence, because no one has produced any physical evidence to support their interpretation of climate sensitivity.

    Because it’s a belief system it then relies on confirmation bias to build it up into a theory, and that theory relies on the peer review system to maintain itself, the peer review system here culling out non-confirmatory evidence. Quite natural for a belief system, of course, but not science.

    Deductive science also relies on argument to establish itself, while proper science relies on evidence and experiment but with the introduction of the term “climate change” it can’t be falsified, confirming its status as pseudoscience, and not junkscience.

    But I would not call it fraud in the classical sense – these people actually believe in all this, and they sincerely believe they are doing science, hence the ferocious reactions to the sceptics. Sad to say, it’s the predictable outcome when academics from the social sciences start involving themselves with the physical sciences. I noticed it during the 1970′s when I had to do a couple of geography courses as an undergraduate – even then the academics running geography didn’t really understand the physical sciences but could authoritatively pronounce that clouds did so and so, and the weather that, and that.

    So calling it fraud is a bit harsh.

    00

  • #
    Michael Cejnar

    While the internet has been a life saver, I am not sure the demise of MSM is attractive. News needs resources, coverage, expertise, objectivity and quality control. While Joanne is a qualified science correspondent and manages to control her outrage most of the time, much of the internet content, with notable exceptions, is very narrow, by definition amateurish and highly interdependent, with one news source spreading like wildfire – good when it’s correct but hard to eradicate when its wrong.

    A narrow field like AGW, is able to be guarded by volunteer experts, and we have all become part experts from months of study and we can make judgments ourselves. But my life had nearly stopped in this pursuit of just one topic, so we sure can’t all become experts in all news fields.

    We need to develop a model of greater integrity and objectivity in MSM, or at least in scientific matters. Collapse of AGW will not restore the lost money, but we must use the momentum to generate outrage over the abysmal loss of scientific literacy in all strata of society and governance. No excuse, that I am not a scientist. It was the scientific / objective method that was lost, and all should understand this.

    Otherwise the handful of science ‘wizards’ and their controllers will eventually rule an ignorant society, too busy with homeopathy, astrology and iPhone games.

    00

  • #
    SPEEDY

    Jo – nice to see truth winning out, although it must have been a long haul for you and the other guys. One media outlet I’d like to see change its outlook is the ABC. Imagine what fun Brian and John would have had in the last few months if they’d been off the leash??? Maybe something like this, but only better…

    If the ABC Was Relevant, Part 6

    Kerry: Tonight, we’re joined by Senator Penny Wong.

    Brian: Senator Wong, thanks for joining us – and may I add how lovely you look tonight.

    John: Why, thank you Brian.

    Brian: You’ve been pretty quiet lately, Senator.

    John: Plenty to be quiet about Brian.

    Brian: Such as?

    John: Climategate, Copenhagen, conflict of interest, Glaciergate. Blizzards in the northern hemisphere. Anything to do with Climate Change, actually. It’s all gone to custard.

    Brian: So it’s been a tough few months, then?

    John: Been a mongrel, Brian, yes. First Climategate made us all look like a bunch of crooks. Then Copenhagen made us look like a bunch of stupid crooks. And…

    Brian: And ???

    John: Subsequent events have confirmed the earlier conclusions Brian. The UN head of climate change turns out to be a railway engineer who’s now on the gravy train, and it seems our peer reviewed glacier data is obtained over the phone from a gentleman in the Punjab.

    Brian: Who is…?

    John: A certified idiot Brian. And as of late, a highly respected and very well credentialed traveler on the gravy train as well.

    Brian: Where the wheels are looking wobbly to the point of parting from the vehicle?

    John: Cheers for that Brian. Can we change the subject please?

    Brian: OK. So, err, Senator, any plans for the future?

    John: Not much.

    Brian: How about the ETS legislation in February?

    John: Not much point really, is there Brian? Blind Freddy can see it’s a crock of it. A total waste of taxpayer’s resources and government’s time. Government exists to maintain and expand the social and economic well-being of its population – not to legislate natural events. No responsible government would even contemplate such a thing.

    Brian: Then what will you do instead?

    John: After disbanding the Department for Climate Change?

    Brian: Dismantle your own department?

    John: Of course. It’s about as useful as tits on a bull right now Brian. Yep. Disband the department, resign from parliament and then I think I’ll renovate the en-suite and put in a home entertainment room.

    Brian: (Gobsmacked) What!?

    John: Home entertainment room Brian. A lot of houses have them these days.

    Brian: (Spluttering) Resign?

    John: Sorry, should have mentioned it earlier. The Labor Party will be resigning on Monday. We’ll probably be the first government in history to resign in protest at their own incompetence.

    Brian: (Still gobsmacked.) The Labor Party?

    John: Only the feds Brian. Though I hear the New South Wales guys reckon it could be a good idea as well. Kevin might stick around to run a garage sale and hand over the keys. The best thing we can do for the country Brian.

    Brian: You can’t be serious!

    John: (Laughing) ‘Course not Brian. When do you want to start the interview?

    00

  • #

    Rupert might be changing his views but at the ABC it’s business as usual. Lord Monckton was given about three minutes of airtime on News Radio on Monday morning; he barely had time to state his main points. I felt he was only there so the ABC could say Look, we let him say his piece so stop accusing us of bias.
    The interview later in the day on Counterpoint was much better.

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    I’d been wondering what Rupert’s position on AGW was, and this doesn’t surprise me. In the light of the speech quoted here, it’s fair to suspect that Murdoch, either personally, or as News International, has put his money where his mouth is and invested in green stocks and carbon credits. That would certainly fit with the generally warmist slant of its coverage, and the grudging space given to dissenters. If so, his case is an early example of what has been happening in the minds of committed warmistas the world over – “at what point is the doubtful benefit of continuing the defence of my green investment (even if it’s only the social one to which warmism owes most of its appeal) outweighed by its cost in damage to my core business?”. In this sort of calculus Murdoch is generally well ahead of the pack he leads, and it looks as though he has decided the green portfolio is a busted flush, and that his best interests are henceforth served by turning sceptic and preserving what remains of his readership. The Australian’s coverage of AGW dissent has been notably generous in the last few days, but it remains grudging, condescending and passive – this is no sign yet of a serious investigative approach to AGW. Still, in the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King, and as we know, once you start to allow sceptical thought to occur, it tends to gather pace and energy. So the true significance of News Corp’s AGW “tipping point” is not what it might reveal about Murdoch’s honour, but that it serves as a template for countless other individuals and organisations around the world, who lack the clarity of thought and personal wealth of RM, but must, sooner or later, come to a similar conclusion.

    Be all this as it may, if Big Rupe thinks his change of editorial protocol will persuade me and people like me to resume spending money on his products, he can forget it. Climategate has taught me a lesson I won’t forget.

    00

  • #
    Albert

    I’m not surprised that the believers in AGW continue their fight. The ETS and all other associated propaganda is fighting to establish the biggest “Cash Cow” that I’ve ever seen.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Thnks Jo I understand now.

    Slightly off topic.

    Lord Monckton is too smart and polite to go over the top in attacking the Oz PM even though the Oz PM attacked him late last year. MSM always prefers controversy.
    How about we all chip in and buy a full page in our only national paper The Australian for the Lord to have his say.
    If we send out “frontrunners”, the full page may become news itself. Nowhere for the PM to hide then.

    00

  • #
    Groundhog Day

    Just an observation wrt to Rupert’s view on AGW.
    Andrew Bolt and Terry McCrann at Melbourne Herald Sun (Newscorp) have been consistently putting the case that AGW is a hysteria concocted by various powerful vested interests and assorted misanthropes. In the case of Andrew Bolt, virtually every day for the last six years he has been running items(links to publications and data)in his forum-blog that cast doubt on ths so-called scientific consensus behind AGW. One cannot say the Mr Murdoch told Bolt to cease because his views were contrary to his. Bolt has been probably Newscorp’s biggest drawcard to their website compared with the dimishing readership of the pro AGW groupthink socialist elite at The Age (Melbourne). There have been other jounolists within the Newscorp group that also hold a skeptic view eg. Tim Blair, Piers Akermann and Alan Woods.

    Another small observation at ‘The Australian’ (with still pro AGW editorials or perhaps precautionary principle’d editorials), since approximately November 2009 they have dropped the ‘Climate’ heading on their website.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Isn’t this a 360 pivot for Rupert?

    Wasn’t he something like a “skeptic” before he apparently suffered some mental breakdown to “go green?”

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    @Groundhog Day

    I’ve seen a lot of frankly sceptical stuff from the writers you mention, but all of it on their blogs! That rather illustrates the point, doesn’t it? Newscorp, qua Newscorp, has steadfastly clung to the “science is settled” stance, until the last few days, while allowing its dissidents free rein to expound their denialist lies in what they have fondly imagined was an inferior intellectual forum. Trouble is, the upstart medium has turned round and mugged its parent with reality. While Newscorp’s recent change of heart is welcome, it is hardly a complete, nor an honourable one. Perhaps its current editorial trajectory will lead to a full-on coverage of Monckton/Plimer in their treeware editions, and surprise us all. But they’ve got a lot of catching up to do. As for Fairfax, forget it.

    and SPARKY – top script…

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Louis Hissink:
    January 26th, 2010 at 10:20 am
    Tel,

    “I would not call AGW fraud after watching the channel 7 sunshine interview between Monckton and Ben McNeil on Sunday. McNeil’s sincerity in his belief was palpable………..So calling it fraud is a bit harsh.”

    I agree with you up to a point Louis… and your example of Ben McNeil is a good one that I would agree with.

    However when it comes to the more political…. an example would be Pachauri. I sense that the is a malevolence of aforethought in those kinds of people…. True, they may not understand the science, but on the other hand, they have no interest in the science–only in manipulating people for their own ends.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tel,

    Aah Rajendar Pauchari – now in that case you are on the mark but he is also a socialist and call it conspiracy or whatever, but he and his fellow travellers are intent on gulling us into a quasi totalitarian system, not a world government per se as that is administratively impossible, but via the loose networked system Maurice Strong is working towards. People really should study the Fabians are lot more closely than they are – this world governance policy remains on the agenda but I suspect they underestimated the inscrutability of the Chinese and Indians, for that matter. (Nehru and his successors were all Fabian acolytes by the way). Online Quadrant is posting some pertinent essays on this.

    It’s precisely what the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley asserts, and if a few can enrich themselves in the process, as Pachauri and Gore seem to be doing (I don’ support La Code Napoleon), then so be it. The corruption within the UN is enormous, and quite another issue, but I suspect that Rupert takes a slightly longer view than the politicians, hence his subtle change in tack.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Whoops,

    J. Hansford I meant. :-)

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Louis,

    I also think you are being too soft on Ben McNeil. Yes, he is apparently a true believer, and as such I agree with your objection to the use of the word “fraud”. But he claims to be offended by the ignorant sceptics having the effrontery to challenge the wonderful work that he and his oh-so-clever scientific colleages are so graciously contributing daily to the world, and then in the next breath issues a barrage of bull, (from memory) droughts and bushfires and sea levels and disappearing arctic, and blabla, which you and I know he would have no show of supporting scientifically, and therefore just thrown in for the emotional appeal. So I don’t care whether he is a nice and sincere young man. If he wants to call himself a scientist, then he has to start acting like one, I’d say. People like him are pushing an agenda that severely threatens my future, and I want him stopped, regardless of how sincere he is.

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    Louis, Ben McNeil is either a fraud or a fool – only he knows which. Sooner or later, though, he’s going to have to decide which he wants to be seen as – why not leave it to him?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You know that when you are scathing of media, but reserve some praise for Fox News as a “shining light” then you are not exactly viewing things from a balanced political perspective.

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki

    Meanwhile on the non-MSM, Der Führer again. This time on glaciers

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Louis Hissink:
    January 26th, 2010 at 6:48 pm ………..”but I suspect that Rupert takes a slightly longer view than the politicians, hence his subtle change in tack.”

    Aye. I would say he does.

    … as for the UN… The sooner we can deprive that sorry excuse for an organization of funding…. The better. The trouble is in the…. How.

    If we had a truly free and impartial press, staffed by competent journalist capable of independent thought. It would probably be an easy matter…. But maybe these stirrings, climategate, glaciergate, Pachauri, etc, are the opening shots of a resurrection?… We can but live in hope.

    00

  • #
    KDK

    They are frauds… get over it. Anyone calling themselves and ‘expert’ or ‘scientist’ on an issue that really has had NO intention of viewing the ‘dissent’, in this case, which is actually facts/truths is only an agenda machine. You cannot be an expert… to be an expert, you’d have to review many papers, dissent included and be able to sift through that data with an open intention, unless you intentions were to fulfill the agenda.

    00

  • #
    stephen richards

    There is no-one pushing AGW harder than Murdock’s BSkyB in the UK, not even the BBC.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    The main reason Murdock is changing his tune slightly is he is recognizing the tide has turned and he doesn’t want to be on the losing side. That’s the sign of a good businessman. Always has been and always will be.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Deductive science also relies on argument to establish itself, while proper science relies on evidence and experiment but with the introduction of the term “climate change” it can’t be falsified, confirming its status as pseudoscience, and not junkscience.

    That would be too kind.

    The point is that it is possible to take measurements of temperature and keep some sort of historic trend for each site and look at that. However, if you thumb back to the situation at Darwin where there were not one or two but many of these “homogenization adjustments” inserted into the data, you can’t call that confirmation bias. It is outright manipulation, and at least as far as we understand the concept of taking measurements of anything in the physical world… manipulation of the data isn’t an issue regarding falsification, it’s an ethical issue, not a logical issue.

    Once we have some measurements, then and only then can we start the discussion about what the meaning of those measurements are… and after that we might find issues with what is falsifiable and what is not.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Louis Hissink,

    Pauchari is not a socialist, he is an opportunist. He says the words that he thinks will make Pauchari wealthy and if writing books on climate change and slurping off the UN does the job, then that is the job he will do (until something better comes along).

    00

  • #
    jaytee

    Brian, you are letting the side down. If Rupert pivoted 360 deg, he’d wind up facing the same way ( not that you’d notice).I take your point, though.
    Bear in mind: Rupert got to be where he is by smelling the trends. Seems his nose might be still working.

    00

  • #
    Ed Gallagher

    I think I am seeing the trend in the logic here. As long as Murdoch supported the AGW KoolAid club he was an upstanding business visionary. Now that he is having doubts about the non-science, he is a money grubbing opportunist. It’s all clear now. What a pathetic attempt at reasoning.

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    Ed Gallagher, you misread the “trend in logic”. As long as Murdoch supported the AGW KoolAid club he was money grubbing opportunist. Now that he is having doubts about the non-science, he is a money grubbing opportunist. Clear now?

    00

  • #
    vanderleun

    Never underestimate the influence of a young wife. And when that influence wanes, suspect trouble in paradise.

    00

  • #

    Hey, nice story. I just now found your site and am already a fan. ;)

    00