Rupert Murdoch’s Climate Change Hypocrisy

The folks at Climate Progress have compiled a pretty comprehensive report documenting the hypocrisy of Rupert Murdoch and his cable news mouthpiece, Fox News. They cover the vast territory between the private and public pronouncements of the rightist propaganda empire.

This is an area that News Corpse has covered in the past exposing the dishonesty of Fox anchors like Glenn Beck and Neil Cavuto, as well as the editorial deceit of Fox’s Washington managing editor, Bill Sammon, who has issued directives to engage in deliberate disinformation.

The evidence of a so-called “news” network speaking out of both sides of its microphone are neatly detailed in the Climate Progress article. It shows that Murdoch and Fox are actively seeking to fleece both sides of the flock when it comes to the debate over Global Warming. They want to present a public image as a good corporate citizen for their business partners and clients, but they are also determined to advance the science denial rhetoric that their political allies and viewers expect.

That’s how you can have statements from Murdoch bragging about the environmental responsibility of News Corp as they achieve carbon neutrality, and later watch Sean Hannity as he declares that Climate Change is a hoax. It’s how you can observe the incongruous spectacle of Beck accusing all Global Warming activists of being socialists while a special, green-tinged Fox logo spins at the bottom of the screen during “Green Week.”

Keep it up Rupert. You are building an empire that is rapidly losing the trust of all sentient beings. But at least you can take pride in the knowledge that you are making your viewers more stupid with every minute they watch.


21 thoughts on “Rupert Murdoch’s Climate Change Hypocrisy

  1. Fox has no credibility with anyone with any objective reasoning. It is a non news network dedicated to spewing fallacies of their making and spinning everything in a biased right-wing slant. “Fair and balanced”, what does that even mean? They are a complete joke and appeal only to the 30% who will always believe what they put out.

    • I absolutely agree. I work with nothing but rightwing ideologs at my shop(a blue collar type of job) and they believe anything and everything Fox. I’ve asked if they get their news and info from any other source to help REALLY balance their intake and of course it’s always “Well, anything else is nothing but librul propoganda”. My only response to them is “Facts are facts whether they have a left leaning sound to them or not(those pesky facts). Why are you still listening to non-factual “news”? They also think because it snows and is still cold in the winter, this dispells any notion of climate change. The brain washing is complete for these people.

  2. I reside in the UK and do not receive FOX NEWS. As for Rupert Murdoch, like all business men, he is likely to sway in whatever direction the financial opportunities lie.

    As for the issue of ‘climate change’ I duly remain skeptical on this issue until empirical evidence emerges that demonstrates the link between anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and the supposedly – dangerous warming that will ensue.

    The scientific method is quite clear on this point; Science only requires those asserting a link to prove it. In reality, this has yet to occur.

    I do not accept that climate change can mean colder or warmer weather. Why? I find it a very convenient non-specific cover-all term which grants its claimants a wide-ranging platform from which to alternate their arguments.

    Previously, ‘climate change’ was referred to as ‘man-made global warming’. Why alternate from this term/phrasing to begin with if the underlying meaning represents the same view? This is typical of how the politically correct manipulate language as George Orwell once quoted i.e. ‘by making lies sound truthful – giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind’.

    The climate system is governed by thousands of factors – many of which are poorly understood e.g. cosmic rays and their presumed influence in the formation of low-level cloud development – which is thought to be a hugely important factor in respect of the climate. It is relevant to note that computer-models do a very poor job in describing clouds (even the IPCC recognises this)). Why single out such a minor and beneficial trace gas as CO2, when clearly there are far greater and more powerful forces at work?

    I think that humility at nature’s marvels is the most appropriate mindset, not making arrogant assertions about future climate states based on the assumptions of computer-models. Computer models reside in the virtual-world, not the real one. They are programmed what to think from the offset which limits their value as a predictive tool. In a nutshell, that’s all climate change boils down too: sitting back on a sofa and thinking up all the possible dangers that may or may not result at any given point in the future – all resting on the assumption that there is a problem to begin with.

    Are people really this bored?

    • Wow. That was a long exposition based on a fallacy stated early on: “Science only requires those asserting a link to prove it. In reality, this has yet to occur.”

      Except that it has occurred. Hundreds of scientists have produced thousands of peer-reviewed facts proving the link between human activity and climate change, as well as the consequences. As long as you continue to pretend that that isn’t true you will dismiss reality. It’s a function of a sort of faith on the part of the deniers, just as the early Catholics turned their eyes away from the evidence that Galileo offered.

  3. No, it hasn’t occurred Mark, not in the real world anyway.

    The ‘peer-reviewed facts’ you refer to are based on computer-models, which quite frankly are so dismal in their predictive capabilities – as to be laughable. It was only a year or two ago, that one of the central claims of the IPCC – that the Himalayan Glaciers were going to melt by the year 2035 was exposed for being utterly bogus. After all, the computer-models told them the future Mark!

    Proper Science in conducted via observation and measurement; real world applications for determining climate variability. Computer-models, on the other hand, are only as accurate as the assumptions that get programmed into them – of which there are hundreds. They are told what to think from the offset – which deeply limits their predictive value.

    Contrary to what you claim, there is no empirical data based on measurement that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. In reality, the hypothesis has repeatedly failed!

    Your belief in human-caused global warming is typical of the Environmental Movement in general; born out of self-righteousness and feel-goodery.

    Try opening up you’re mind Mark to alternative ideas; start thinking for yourself; reject the ‘herd mentality’ because it serves as a drain on your natural sense of suspicion. There are two sides to a coin Mark whether you like it or not (what scientists term as an ‘observed reality’); unless of course you’re in denial on this issue as well as the climate change scam!

    • What a load of bunk! The “Proper Science” is irrefutable, whether empirical, computer-modeled, or historical. If you want to ignore the voluminous scientific affirmation of Climate Change, go ahead. You can also deny the existence of gravity if you like (after all, that’s just a theory).

      And the nonsense that I should “think for myself” on this matter is hilarious. I am not a climatologist. It would be foolish to put my opinions above of those of hundreds of experts. I’ll go with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. You can go with your gut. Good luck with that.

  4. Thankyou for your reply Mark.

    I don’t go with my gut. I go with my skepticism. I love skepticism because it always a win, win situation; in other words – INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!

    Mark, this is the point I am trying to convey. It isn’t about you or I placing our opinions above other people; it is strictly about listening to both sides of the argument and attempting to remain impartial and balanced. All too often, people are willing and prepared to believe anything just because authority presents it as ‘VALID’! Try doing some research into the geological history of this dynamic planet and it will soon become apparent how ludicrous the theory of human-caused climate change really is. You seem awfully gullible to me!

    As for you’re sarcastic remark about ‘Gravity’ – don’t insult yourself. I recognize the point you’re trying to make – but that is a completely different issue to ‘climate change’. Stick with the issue!

    Can you cite or reference one study that refutes natural variability as being the predominant driver of climate change? As yet, no-one has been able too and thus the ‘null hypothesis’ remains; in other words – the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one!

    Mark, if you honestly believe that in the Earth’s 4.5 BILLION year history – temperatures have never been warmer than today with far higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than at present – then I would really suggest picking up some geological textbooks and start familiarising yourself with past periods in Earth’s history P.S. good starting point would be with the ‘Jurassic Period’; it makes today’s climate look like an ICE-AGE!!!

    To end, I would also suggest Mark that you stop hiding behind the notion of ‘CONSENSUS’ on this issue. Science does not progress by consensus; it progresses by falsification and what scientists term as ‘paradigm shifts’. Science only requires one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. What is relevant in Science is reproducible results; the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus e.g. Albert Eistein, etc. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled!

    Start educating yourself Mark and stop listening to what people are telling you – including me! Help yourself out for God sake!!

    • Arguing with you is like arguing with a Holocaust denier. You won’t hear the truth because you don’t want to.

      First of all, no one is saying that the planet has never been hot before (sheesh). It’s the recent trends that are unprecedented and alarming.

      More importantly, your assertion that consensus is somehow a cognitive flaw is surreal. It’s an argument that having hundreds of unaffiliated scientists, from diverse institutions around the world, affirming independently sourced research on Climate Change, is proof that they’re all wrong. OK. And I’m gullible because I defer to that huge body of knowledge, while you’re merely skeptical because you believe Fox News and a handful of science-whores paid by Exxon and right-wing think tanks? OK. Which one do you work for?

  5. Whose version of the ‘truth’ Mark?. You are trotting out the same old chestnut as all the alarmists!

    As for FOX news, I reside in the UK and don’t receive the channel – although you sound more than familiar with it!!

    I do not deny the Holocaust either Mark. This is often the claim of people who cannot stick to the Science; instead they resort to personal attacks as if it somehow justifies their own ignorance.

    Moreover, ‘Consensus’ is a cognitive flaw – because it presumes on the basis of it’s own self-awarded elitism that all other views with the exception of it’s own are illegitimate. Stop thinking in terms of the ‘herd’ Mark; you should you know better! It doesn’t matter if ten thousand scientists agree on one issue and two people dispute it – unless one can scientifically demonstrate one’s theories in accordance with the scientific method – one has nothing whatsoever in terms of empirical evidence to support one’s hypothesis.

    I put the question to you, WHAT IF, 50 years from now – it turned out that a select minority of skeptics proved right on the issue of global warming and tens of thousands turned out to be wrong? Of course, I am exaggerating this example to illustrate a point, but WHAT IF this happened? How would you justify you’re blind acceptance of global warming?

    You argue that the recent trends are unprecedented and alarming. No they are not Mark! It has been warming gradually since the last ‘litle Ice Age’ – long before we could have possibly exerted any type of influence whatsoever. In FACT, since 1998, the planet has actually shifted into a cooling phase!! (owing to the ‘El Nino’ effect).

    You’re arguments defy logic Mark. They are an appeal to authority! You state that you can think for yourself and all you do is keep repeating the same old mantra about ‘how everyone agrees with each other – so it must be true’. My word, it’s a good job that not everyone in the world thinks like you!!

    Also Mark, there are thousands of skeptical scientists around the world from diverse backgrounds who do not accept the notion of human-caused global warming and so that OLD CHESTNUT CUTS BOTH WAYS!! Furthermore, you state that there is a huge body of knowledge on the issue of climate change and guess what you’re absolutely right – there is. But knowledge is not physical proof Mark; knowledge is what scientists intellectually apply in the hope of acquiring proof. Again, you’re arguments defy logic! They are an appeal to authority as previously stated.

    Try explaining you’re arguments Mark so I can make sense of them. Please spare me you’re insults and insinuations; I am too skeptical to even believe these! Words are cheap!

    In scientific terms, current CO2 levels are around 390ppm. During the ‘Jurassic Period’ they were estimated to be nearly 7000ppm. Guess what Mark, life still flourished – ZERO catastrophes resulted. There have also been many other periods, such as the ‘Cambrian Period’, ‘Eyptian warming’, ‘Roman warming’, ‘Minoan warming’, the ‘Medieval warm period’ – all with temperature and CO2 concentrations higher than today.

    NATURAL VARIABILITY demolishes you’re belief in anthropogenic global warming; from a geological perspective it makes it look absolutely pathetic.

    I am still awaiting that peer-reviewed reference that refutes natural variability as being the predominant driver of climate change!!

    Look forward to you’re – dare I say it – hostile reply!!!

  6. The climate is changing rapidly with a shift in average global temperatures already occurring and a recent increase in the number of severe weather events. Many agricultural areas around the world have seen some of the early impact of climate change and have been hit hard by the changing weather. Somalia is a current example of extremes in weather conditions, while the USA has just had one of the worst hurricane seasons on record. There have been severe fires in Europe, along with very cold weather that has brought nations to a standstill. Australia has seen severe flooding in the East after just emerging from drought, while Western Australia is facing a growing trend in decreasing rainfall which looks set to worsen.

    After speaking with many other farmers around the world I have heard their concerns of visible changes in the landscape and alarming stories of unprecedented changes in weather (such as snowfall during summer periods that are usually very hot). Farming communities are making large changes in how they do things to adapt to the changing climatic conditions and to prepare themselves for future events.

    Changes in climate may not be as noticeable in cities. Trends in weather conditions and changes in the natural rhythms of the world around you, are all to apparent when you live with forest and rivers on the land. What may not be noticeable to many who no longer live on farms, will become increasingly noticeable as farmers deal with increasing severe weather and the associated loss of crops due to damage increases food prices.

  7. John, are you taking drugs or what? Bloody hell, there’s always some crisis isn’t there? If it wasn’t global warming, there would be some other looming disaster around the corner, no doubt man’s fault of course.

    John, one can read too much into things. If history has taught us one lesson above all others; the environmentalists always get in wrong!

    Climate change is the NORM John! It always has been and always will be. There are always patterns we can read into and interpret in our own CONVENIENT ways, but guess what – nothing we do really matters in the wider context of things. We are merely a passing blip in geological terms!

    The sooner people develop intellectually, the better! No offence John, but you strike me as a person who has already convinced himself that there is a problem, when in reality, there isn’t one!

    • “…you strike me as a person who has already convinced himself that there is a problem.”

      That’s funny, because you strike me as a person who is already convinced that there is no problem, And your statement that history has taught us that environmentalists always get in wrong, is laughably wrong itself.

      Once again, I’ll stick with hundreds of independent, unaffiliated scientists, whose only agenda is the accuracy of the science, over the rantings of an obviously biased non-scientist commenting on my blog.

  8. Calm down, I enjoy my cynical rantings Mark. They make me feel alive! As for being ‘biased’ – you’re absolutely right, but then again, aren’t we all?

    Back to the good old ‘Consensus’ line again, I see. I suppose it’s easier for you that way, isn’t it? Like ‘John’ above, at least you don’t have to think for yourself!

    As for the Environmental Movement, let’s bring a few bare truths to the surface shall we. In the 19th century they banged on about how London would soon be uninhabitable due to the growing piles of horeshit in the streets. Then we had the problem of fog caused by coal which meant all our grannies had to spend more on expensive smokeless coal brickettes; I say grannies because the rest of us had nice CENTRAL HEATING INSTALLED instead! Twenty years ago we were going to lose all the forests due to acid rain; turned out that the rain wasn’t so acidic after all. Now we are being asked to stop driving our gas guzzling Range Rovers in favour of crappy little Volvo Hybrids. The FACT is that the ship that brings us our Volvo’s from Sweden emits more C02 in one trip than a ship full of Range Rovers would in a lifetime (FACT!).

    If we really want to reduce emissions – kill all the cows that belch and fart more C02 in a day than China does in a year. Thus, the truth of the matter is that none of this makes any real difference because the planet will continue getting warmer until it starts to cool down – which at some point it will. In FACT, temperatures have been slightly cooling since 1998 – no global warming since then unfortunately. I say unfortunately – because more things have a way of dying in colder weather than warmer conditions.

    Ten years from now, this nonsense of human-caused global warming (no point hiding behind ‘climate change’ Mark – we both know what is really meant by it) is going to look as daft as the millenium Bug.

    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

    Also Mark, in today’s communication-age, there is no such thing as UNAFFILIATED! You probably got that one from John above! In addition, you’re statement – ‘whose only agenda is the accuracy of the Science’ couldn’t be more hilarious! I put the question to you – How do you know their agenda? The fact is – you don’t! You’re entire argument is an appeal to authority!

    Furthermore, there are also thousands of scientists from different parts of the world who don’t subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. As I stated previously to John, that old chestnut cuts both ways!!!

    I would sooner argue that you support the notion of climate change because it appeals to your sense of virtue. It makes you feel virtuous i.e. protecting the earth from the evils of humanity. Like all alarmists, you would sooner create a problem than live without one; it gives you a cause in life!

    I look forward to your reply! P.S. you’re words of truth and wisdom enlighten me by the day!

    • I’m glad you enjoy my “words of truth and wisdom.” I wish I could return the compliment. In fact I’m rather bored. And in as much as I am a media analyst, not a climatologist, I am not going to respond further to your disinformation.

      We have gotten way off the subject. This web site is about media. This article is about hypocrisy (Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp aspiring to carbon neutrality to reduce Global Warming while broadcasting that the whole thing is a hoax). I would be happy to discuss that, but I’m not wasting any more time or bandwidth on a debate that has become repetitive, tedious, and outside my area of expertise.

  9. You have returned the compliment in more ways than you realize.

    By ‘disinformation’, you mean a viewpoint that doesn’t fall in line with you’re own and strangely – one that you fail miserably in contending with!

    Neither of us has ‘gotten off topic’ either Mark. The issue of ‘climate change’ is still ‘climate change’ regardless of whether it relates to Murdoch!

    Just a quick point Mark. In you’re own words – you have stated that you are NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST and the issue of ‘global warming’ is outside you’re area of expertise. Yet, ironically, you commit yourself to a stance on the issue even though you know nothing of Science. By you’re logic, the more pies I eat – the thinner I get!

    Weird! But then again, that’s the environmental movement in a nutshell!

    • By disinformation I mean the sort of discredited babble you spew relentlessly.

      And yes, we are off topic. Because you are apparently too dense to understand it, I’ll explain again. This article is NOT about Climate Change. It is about how News Corp has an official policy of supporting efforts to minimize Global Warming, but its “news” network says it’s a hoax. That does NOT address the merits of the Climate Change debate, just the fact that Murdoch’s company is speaking out of both sides it’s corporate mouth. That’s the topic. Get it?

      And you’re pathetic assertion that I would have to be a climatologist to have an informed opinion on the subject of Climate Change would disqualify more than 99% of the country from having such an opinion. That’s almost as stupid as your contention that nearly universal agreement by experts is evidence that they are all wrong.

      Please note: Any further distracting and off-topic comments by you or anyone else will be deleted as spam.

  10. That’s right Mark, only allow the views you agree with! I accept you’re defeat! Shame, I enjoyed our exchange of bitter remarks!

    • Are your serious? Look back up this thread and tell me if you really think your views have been suppressed. You’ve written MORE than I have. What disingenuous bullshit!

      After you were advised not to post off-topic comments you continued to do so. I will not permit you, or anyone else, to diminish the value of these forums with what amounts to repetitive and distracting spam. Sorry if that gets in the way of your trolling agenda.

      p.s We will not be debating this decision either.

  11. I think Leigh Harwood just enjoys yanking people’s chains. But all’s well that ends well — he finally conceded. I quote:

    “I accept you’re defeat!”

    There you have it: He accepts that you’re (you are) defeat. End of story. 🙂

  12. Chris, it’s so easy to yank you’re chains; this is the problem with gullible people – they fall for anything.

    If the IPCC told you that aliens were causing global warming – you would MORE THAN LIKELY believe them. After all Chris, thousands of reputable scientists all agree with each other on the issue. My word, it’s best not to question them just in case they label us as ‘alien deniers’!

    Unfortunately, I cannot accept defeat – because I have yet to engage in an intellectual conversation with anyone commenting on this article. No offence, but the entire ‘climate change’ argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

    Let me ask you three straightforward questions Chris: Do you believe in the theory of anthropogenic climate change? If so, do you believe that it will lead to catastrophic future consequences if ignored? Spare me the line of ‘Consensus’; Politicians sell certainty, Science lives off doubt!

    In addition, what EMPIRICIAL evidence exists – via measurement and observation – to support the hypothesis of human-induced climate change? Please, don’t give me the line that computer-models can accurately project future climate states 50-100 years from now!

    The climate system is what Scientists and the IPCC refer to as a ‘COUPLED NON-LINEAR CHAOTIC OBJECT’ – which basically means that present projections with respect to future climate states is NOT POSSIBLE! The clue is in the word ‘CHAOTIC’!

    Give me something to work with Chris, please. I want to hear you’re thoughts and insights as an individual on both this article related to Rupert Murdoch and how the issue of climate change underpins it!

    Look forward to you’re, dare I say it, hostile reply!

Comments are closed.