Genesis of climate change disinformation

Things Break does a nice job documenting the way Rupert Murdoch uses his media empire to disseminate misinformation.

A recent commenter pointed me to one of the articles in that chain, but I really did not give it much thought, it seemed like such a shrug of a story. Nothing new happening and it still doesn’t disprove global warming.

Anyway, it is worth a look at the way these things are actively spread, truth be damned!

4 thoughts on “Genesis of climate change disinformation

  1. Coby.

    This Post and your comments don’t make sense. Am I the only one that sees it? I thought this site was filled with intellectuals.

    First, there’s a link that praises Murdoch for his climate stance, then it knocks him because news is disseminated.

    As if news being disseminated weren’t shocking enough, it gets much,much worse.

    The news that was disseminated, the article in the Australian, that article that you were refering to when you wrote “truth be damned!”……. is presenting accurate information.

    That’s right, Mr. Murdoch is being chastised for disseminating accurate information.

    How do I know this? It came from you Coby.

    In thread #42 in How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic, you state….”That article may be presenting accurate information” and “it’s not a surprise to anyone following the science. It’s not new information.”

    Truth be damned.

    Like

  2. “there’s a link that praises Murdoch for his climate stance, then it knocks him because news is disseminated.”

    Betula, that is known as saying one thing and doing another. Not an uncommon practice. Pointing it out is hardly non-sensical.

    “Mr. Murdoch is being chastised for disseminating accurate information”

    The statements about what antarctic sea ice is doing are correct, however the conclusion the article draws is wildly inaccurate. Again, pointing this out is hardly non-sensical.

    Like

  3. Coby,

    You forgot to mention the misinformation in the Things Break disinformation article.

    It appears Thing break acidentally left out a few key words while pointing out that the Australian article left out a key word.

    In pointing out that The Australian didn’t mention the word “ozone” from the BAS article, Things Break describes the BAS segment like this…

    “as stratospheric ozone recovers, leading to a loss of one third of Antarctic sea ice by end of century.”

    The actual BAS aticle says this….

    “as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.”

    It appears “expect” and “likely” disappeared. Expect simply became “as” and likely became “will”.

    Now how could that have happened?

    I’m sure it was a simple case of miscommunication.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s