Guest essay by Eric Worrall
James Murdoch has publicly rebuked his family for continuing to provide a platform for “climate deniers” on Murdoch media outlets like Fox News and News Corp during Australia’s bushfires.
James Murdoch Slams Fox News and News Corp Over Climate-Change Denial
FIDDLING WHILE OZ BURNS
Rupert Murdoch’s younger son and his wife issued a rare public rebuke of the family’s media empire and its promotion of climate-change skeptics during Australia’s bushfire crisis.
Lachlan Cartwright Senior Reporter Updated Jan. 14, 2020 5:24AM ET
In a long-simmering rift between factions of the Murdoch family over climate change, Rupert’s younger son, James, and his activist wife, Kathryn, are attacking the climate denialism promoted by News Corporation, the global media group, and also by the Fox News Channel overseen by James’ older brother, Lachlan.
“Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” a spokesperson for the couple exclusively told The Daily Beast as wildfires rage in Australia.
“They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.”
The extraordinary public rebuke from Kathryn and James—who is the CEO of Lupa Systems, a private investment company he founded—comes as Australia has been ravaged by the worst fires seen in decades. The blazes have claimed 27 lives and destroyed thousands of properties across multiple states, with an estimated 1 billion animals feared dead. News Corp Australia dominates the country’s media landscape, publishing more than 140 newspapers and employing 3,000 journalists in print, broadcast, and online.
…
Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-murdoch-slams-fox-news-and-news-corp-over-climate-change-denial
James, I hope you get your head straight about climate change.
Australia’s bushfires have nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with the catastrophic buildup of flammable material which our spineless politicians have allowed on their watch.
People who claim the fires are caused by climate change in my opinion are promoting a dangerous untruth, which if accepted would put many lives at risk, by distracting attention from the real cause of the problem. Pushing back against this politically convenient untruth is part of the valuable service your family’s media empire provides.
Building wind turbines or solar panels will not prevent fuel load from building in the Australian bush. Nothing can prevent the pyrophoric Australian bush from burning, all we can hope to control is when it burns, and how intense the fire is. If we do nothing, the result is a catastrophe like that which we are currently experiencing, as nature does what we should have taken care of ourselves in a more controlled manner.
But don’t take my word for it – come and see for yourself. Despite the scale of this year’s fires, Australia is a vast country. An enormous area of bush like the bushland I photographed above has not been touched by this year’s fire.
Bushland bristling with fuel load soaked in volatile, highly flammable Eucalyptus oil is not difficult to find; all you need to do is drive along any major motorway between the capital cities, stop where it is safe to do so, and see for yourself what our spineless politicians and out of touch academics have allowed to happen to our beautiful country.
Come and see for yourself – because once you catch the climate establishment telling one big untruth, it becomes easier to accept there are many other things they say which are also untrue.
Update (EW): Nick Stokes posted an interesting link about more infighting about climate change in Murdoch Media.
As soon as Rupert passes, the demise of all conservative media will be complete. The “boys” are Leftists. Globalists. Bloody terrifying.
Oh come on, daddy Rupert is also a globalist – the only difference is his sons are leftist – now that’s bloody terrifying .
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/08/09/murdochs-wall-street-journal-tries-to-take-over-trump-white-house-for-mcmaster-globalists/
Hmm breitbart are bunch of socialists?
I strongly recommend that both James and Lachlan divest themselves of their fathers ill gotten gains and strike out on their own. It’s time for all good Watermelons to just say no to Conservative produced wealth.
Yes Kathryn Murdoch his wife is linked to Clinton climate initiative so my respect for this couple has gone out the window.
They act like they’ve never heard of OANN.
I read the other day that a group of investor are looking to buy OANN and expand it so it competes directly with Fox. They obviously see a golden opportunity. I hope the purchase goes ahead.
Hello James Murdoch
There is also a lot of climate denial in paleo climate journals. We need to shut these guys down in light of these tragic bush fires. Please look into this. Thank you.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/01/17/miocene/
Bush fires were 10x as bad in ’75. Was that due to Globull Warming?
Extra CO2 (and wetter recent weather) caused fuel load to increase. Only way ‘ACC’ affects bush fires.
Western Australia has a below average bush fire season. BECAUSE WA STILL ALLOWS BURN OFF and hasn’t altered the old laws.
I’m a little confused, not being from Australia myself, but I thought all you got on Australian tv and in newspapers was the alarmist point of view. That’s not true? Is the coverage one-sided or is it even-handed as far as alarmist versus skeptic?
Pretty much all we get comes through Murdoch (Sr)
All of what? Nick. I just looked at the Sydney Morning Herald. Total nonsense by the writers and commenters – almost all slanted to human climate change causing fires. Good luck in stopping that.
Thats correct. The main stream media here in Oz preaches man made climate change all day long, bowing down to the noisy minority. Debate is not allowed. It was no surprise during the last election when the silent majority voted in the side that the MSM did not want. Just like in the US elections where Trump proved the polls wrong.
Polls have been wrong for a very long time!
The worry here Peter is that I don’t think that the media or even Scott Morrison himself are reading the people. The recent poll saw Scott Morrison slip back badly as preferred Prime Minister. The media and the PM are assuming that the people are angry at his lack of action regarding CC.
Scott Morrison’s silent majority are angry that he is being sucked in by the whole CAGW scam. He doesn’t seem to understand that he is being seduced by a relatively small number of activists into thinking that the majority support CAGW. Someone needs to tell him he is wrong. Someone needs to tell him that if he continues down this track then the silent majority will desert him.
Someone needs to tell him that we are only perceived to be silent because the MSM have gagged us!
(for those not playing in Australia)
The Sydney Morning Herald – aka ‘The Silly’ is part of the ex-Fairfax empire.
They are now owned by Channel Nine because basically Fairfax went woke and went broke.
The SMH and The Age (based out of Melbourne) are both ‘left of centre’. (FAR left of centre if you ask me, but that is my opinion… 😀 )
The Murdoch empire on the other hand controls over half the sales in Australia but owns about a third of the mastheads. Why? They know their market.
SMH and The Age write woke and then wonder why only woke people read their stuff in their trendy latte shops.
Murdoch owns The Australian, which is a national broadsheet and considered ‘right of centre’. Since they know that people who want to read that sort of stuff will buy The Oz, the editors on their other mastheads (The Telly, the Hun, the Tiser) know they can drift a bit woke because there is a market for that. The Tiser in my home city is basically wokeness, social pages and sports results because they know that is their market and it doesn’t directly compete with the ‘more serious’ Australian.
Murdoch dominants the market because Murdoch understands how markets work. The actual content of his mastheads varies greatly and anyone who blames Murdoch for turning Australia Right Wing is in denial.
If anyone wants proof, go and look at news.com.au. The bits that aren’t woke are click bait.
Nice synopsis there 🙂
The media is a business, and whatever one might think about Rupie, it has to be admitted that he knows how to be successful in that line of business.
Sonny boy Jim is merely demonstrating that whatever acumen the old fella has in the media game, its unlikely to be genetic.
Clogs to clogs in three generations. Given that it was Ruperts dad who was the initial clog wearer (?) its entirely likely that Jimmy boy will be the one who returns to clogs 🙂
Fanakapan: “Nice synopsis there The media is a business and whatever one might think about Rupie, it has to be admitted that he knows how to be successful in that line of business.”
That’s a fallacy to cloak its true purpose, to manipulate hearts & minds; so ‘business’ is awful because most know it’s blatant bulls*it. And FOX only leads because by comparison they’re honest. If the media wanted to improve business they’d tell the truth, but soon FOX will be just like all the rest, pure globalism propaganda.
From the head article quote
” News Corp Australia dominates the country’s media landscape, publishing more than 140 newspapers and employing 3,000 journalists in print, broadcast, and online.”
It’s a long, long way from “dominates” to “pretty much all”.
Not that you have ever cared much for being accurate with your proclamations.
I was replying to
“I thought all you got on Australian tv and in newspapers was the alarmist point of view”
I was replying to your unjustified hyperbole in the first post. The already quoted “pretty much all”.
Get some facts Nick.
Gov ABC is the dominant media outlet and it is ardently Warmist.
Dominates? So how many do all the others publish/employ?
Murdoch is big in print and on line fair enough but then that is mainly from not going broke a la Fairfax ( now Nine). He is not that big in broadcast though and is up against the ABC and SBS both government run and generally left leaning ( to say the least).
I was in Sydney some years back and was due to meet my sister for morning coffee and near her place. I decided to buy the Sydney Morning Herald instead of the Murdoch Australian ( my usual hardcopy read) on the when in Rome , do as the Romans do basis. My sister is an inner city living, green-left voting lawyer, ex separatist lesbian which pretty much incentivised my to taake the action I did. So what did she do when she saw me reading the SMH? She ripped into me for reading ‘that utter crap’. Now that is why Murdoch does so well, because the competition is too woke to even recognise its own wokeness and too woke for grown up left leaning people with more than half a brain.
In your dreams, Nick. The SMH is alarmist – very – and has strong readership in NSW. (I can’t speak for the papers in other states). In a cafe not long after big bush fires in NSW, I flipped through the SMH while waiting for a coffee (there’s no way I would ever buy the SMH), and page after page was just ripping into Scott Morrison. Nothing about fuel loads. Nothing about houses being near gum trees. Nothing about anything relevant. By the time my coffee came, I really needed it!
The ABC is still a very popular source of news, and IMHO is just an alarmist propaganda machine.
Murdoch Sr’s The Australian is an essential counterbalance to other media propaganda. But “Pretty much all we get”?? No way.
But the mostly widely distributed by far is Murdoch’s daily Telegraph. And then there is the Australian.
SMH is the largest if you include read online
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7878-australian-newspaper-print-readership-and-cross-platform-audiences-december-2018-201902070454
They are also holding share better.
The Tele is a Sydney paper so in Sydney probably yes, elsewhere no way and certainly not in Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth. In Canberra? You gotta be joking.
“the papers in other states”
In some cities all you have is Murdoch. Brisbane and Adelaide for example.
SBS is also very much on board like the ABC, many CAGW stories in tonight’s bulletin
Talking out the hold in the back of your head again Stokes, eh?
You try posting a comment at the SMH that is not in support of the climate emergency. The SMH is “supposed” to be “balanced”…
Australian media *BALANCED*?
HA!
SMH seems to be adopting a policy like the Guardian or Conversation, where they will not publish any “denialist comments”. I haven’t seen it formally stated anywhere, but the balance of the comments and the comments they reject seem to suggest that they’re heading that way.
My comments do not get posted at the SMH now.
When would you estimate they stopped publishing your comments? Mine stopped being published about a month or two ago.
I am wondering if they blacklist you in some way? I am having all my comments blocked on all stories, not just things that could be interpreted as “denialist”.
“John January 14, 2020 at 10:14 pm”
Yeah, about the same time.
Murdoch owns the Australian Broadcasting Company.
I didn’t know that.
Yeah and the all the Australian guardian stuff as well.
Apparently our trolls are trying to redefine “media” to include only printed newspapers.
When the data doesn’t support your position, change the data.
Stokes spreading more untruths. The only space given to any skeptics is one single columns – Andrew Bolts. THe supposedly neutral ABC and The Conversation won’t allow any climate heresy. Stokes is full of it
Gee whiz Nick, what is in your Kool Ade these days?
The ABC is just chanting ‘climate change’, ‘catastrophic’, ‘deadly’, ‘unprecedented’ etc like a bunch of disaster happy clappers in some sort of climate porn rapture and the former Fairfax papers not much different. The Grauniad Oz is out in front of the ABC so I don’t quite know who the heck ‘we’ is.
You sometimes sound like some sort of CAGW Ayatollah sneering at Murdoch, the ‘great media satan’.
Andrew Bolt is very popular, he really upset Greta Thunberg a while ago. If it wasn’t for Murdoch media and presenters like Andrew Bolt what you say about only getting one side of the story would be true.
The rest of the Aussie media pretty much glues itself to the climate alarmist / leftist agenda.
Agreed he is very outspoken and popular. Unfortunately he has been away at least nothing on Skynews for a while.
When I started business I got a power bill of A$10k/quater to run my offices. This was at 3.5c/kWhr only ten years ago. The latest heavily discounted price offer is 21.5c/kWhr starting January 22nd, 2020. An increase of 22% from last year. Thats a compound rate of 20% per year, most of which has occurred in the last three years.
How can anyone run a large office? Let alone a factory. Bricks and mortar business is shutting down everywhere.
Who can afford to buy non-essentials from a retailer? Retail is collapsing, shopping centres are not doing well, and no, its not caused by the internet. Its plain old BIG guv management.
While our federal liberal government fiddles, the Australian economy is being raised.
Razed?
From the link:
“… News Corp columnists including Maurice Newman and Andrew Bolt have previously expressed scepticism over climate change …” (theage.com.au).
What does that sentence mean⸮
It means they have the audacity to speak out against the climate propaganda.
Looking at the papers such as the Sydney Morning Herald, I find the vast majority of the articles either alarmist or just towing the line on AGW. They talk about “science” and knock the coal industry. But they have not considered that even if they shut all the fossil fuel, the temperature change will be insignificant. They are that brainwashed. The comments at the end of news articles about the fires show the same – 90 % of the comments complain about deniers and industry but none have thought that even if they cut all the fossil fuels the fires will never go away. It has not registered with the population that the coal industry does not start fires, but PEOPLE start most. With the mentality, they will go “down” in history.
They’ve largely stopped publishing comments that question their narrative.
“towing the line”
I’d really like to know where all these lines are being towed to. Maybe to someplace with toes?
Toeing to be a nit picker.
It refers to having an issue spelled out for you and you lining up neatly with everyone else in neat formation with your toes all touching the marker line.
That is the literal definition. The accepted cultural definition may vary.
Nit pick over 😀
Oh, and… ummm… think of the Polar Bears!!!
Those 39,000 fat over breeding polar bears that are becoming a nuisance?
Sayings such as ‘Toe the Line’ morph and vary over time.
I can imagine an unlimited number of useful idiots all with their backs hunched and their hands on a 2″ rope line pulling something, not looking back (because the line of pullers is so long you can’t even see what is back there); but they all work together and pull because someone told them it was necessary and they want to fit in. They all tow the LINE because, in reality, there is nothing substantial tied to the line and nothing else is being towed.
Let the sayings morph … I like my morph better … it indicates the true nature and active stupidity of the SJW’s, rather than my visualization of a person passively standing shoulder to shoulder in a line.
Your saying means something different. The main reason some things morph over time is due to ignorance. Like people saying “Could care less” when they mean “couldn’t care less”.
Do you think saying the opposite of what you mean is a good thing because morphing?
This is why the word “literally” now literally means figuratively. As in, “I literally shit a brick.”
“This is why the word “literally” now literally means figuratively. As in, “I literally shit a brick.””
Like, literally totally.
A significant proportion of coverage (Sydney morning herald, the age, ABC TV and Radio, etc) is alarmist. Murdoch papers (telegraph, Australian) and outlets like Sky news (right wing conservative) give a more denialist message. Some very popular radio announcers (eg Alan Jones) are denialist.
It is polarised. Very few Luke warmers.
Those of us in the middle are silent because the other two groups are toxic.
No. Neither Alan Jones nor the Murdoch press or Sky News are ‘denialist’. More ‘sceptical’ perhaps, but “The Australian” publishes articles both alarmist and sceptical. See for instance page 10 ‘This tragic fire crisis is our Pearl Harbour moment.’ by Eytan Lenko, who is stated to be a ‘technology entrepreneur and chairman of Beyond Zero Emissions, a climate solutions think tank.’
[I have corrected the spelling of ‘Harbour’ to conform with Australian and British English.] Readers letters tend to be about 80% against the alarmist position.
Fine. “Sceptical”. Whatever you want to call them.
The point is they are out of step with the mainstream alarmist/warmist narrative, hence James Murdoch and his wife (and that Murdoch employee) having their little sook about it.
“alarmists” vs. “denialists” ?
Can we please stop using language they dictate to us? It is impossible to influence people with language when we don’t use it properly.
Pls. call both sides with proper names: useful idiots vs. realists.
I’m all seriousness, what are acceptable neutral terms for each side?
I used alarmist/denialist as that’s what each side calls the other. Everyone knows who the terms refer to.
Tom, I just came inside to watch the news after working my arse off in the paddock because as of tomorrow the rains are coming! We are expecting six, maybe seven days of real rain.
Anyway, back to relevant content. Tom, most of the MSM content in Australia is in fact pro CAGW. It is mostly extreme left and also anti Australian. By the way I had to turn off the news, CC and anti government propaganda has become offensive to the extreme.
The Australian, and the Daily Telegraph newspapers are the most widely read in regard to ‘the truth’ about perceived CC issues, there are a large number of ‘local’ newspapers too, accross Australia though and local to each area. Australian Sky News is an excellent television station to cover all news in regard to current thoughts regarding the truth about CC, as in the points of view of WUWT. This site has actually put out a Skye News post about Craig Kelly, one of the few political ministers who has done research on CC and has the courage to put his views ‘out there’.
We are lucky that we at least have limited access to truth. UK Sky News is apparently a leftist network. Australian Sky News is having a break at the moment, except for Chris Smith and he is doing a good job, looking forward to the rest of the crew returning too.
The Daily Telegraph is growing in regard to reader numbers, that’s a good sign. Unfortunately Sky News is mostly in the regions so the cities are missing out and the message is likely not getting to the people who most need to hear it. The ABC is a non-stop propaganda machine, it is supposed to be balanced and for the people, absolute rubbish, that are purely left wing, anti Australian…I don’t have enough restraint to express it in an inoffensive way. And our taxes pay for them!
ABC and free to air television are pretty much all leftists, they are fighting to take away what little opportunity we have to voice our opinions.
It is definitely not in any way even-handed. Maybe James could stick it to his Dad and get a job with the Guardian.
Well said Meg ;
Most Aussie media is so far left it is laughable and sad that so many people believe it .
The Australian is definitely the best paper in Aussie .
Sky is very good and I would add Chris Kenny and Peta Credlin to the must watch list as with Andrew Bolt .
Pity Sky is not on free to air in the capitals , might enlighten a few people .
Rita Panahi on news.com is also not fooled and wrote a decent enough bit about kids worrying re the CCmyths thats still posted
and what Megs said is correct
our tiny local paper is a newscorp subsidiary
I sent about 6 articles from WUWT for the female editor to consider
she then ran an opinion piece on being trolled
so much for informed opinions or education allowing wider world views.
she wouldnt know a troll if one bit her on the bum.
some of the data I sent and asked her to consider was blatant stuffups from the Bom and our local rain reportage
as did a few others.
the alarmists by far get massive daily cover over ALL media outlets
however the newscorp papers online WILL allow dissenting opinions to be posted(earlier on their mods didnt)
when a climate panic item is posted the amount of believers might be 10 from 500 comments
which shows how the actual readers feel about the warmists myths
Well said. Combine the effects El and la Nina, and this is normal for this vast country. We are known as the land of drought and flood. Its” all perfectly natural.
Have any of the inner city Greens tried to help fight these fires, and to help the badly burnt animals that they say they are so concerned about that they fight to prevent the winter burns which can reduce the fuel load as per the photo .
MJE VK5ELL
They helped light the fires.
A 5 word comment – but brilliant. Nicely set up by Michael, superbly finished by Scissor
i popped a bit from the Bom in the tips section yesterday , its a total giveaway on why the lack of rain n the fires, heres the link for general reads and see how the IOD and antarctic weather plus the pacific all went agin us simultaneously.
https://www.eldersweather.com.au/news/rain-on-the-horizon-for-eastern-australia/530887
This week’s seemingly abrupt change in weather, from exceptionally warm and dry conditions in December to widespread rain and storms in January, follows the breakdown of two dominant climate drivers that influenced Australia’s weather patterns towards the end of 2019.
The first driver was the strongest positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) event in at least 20 years. A positive IOD refers to a pattern of sea surface temperatures across the tropical Indian Ocean that often result in below-average rain and above-average temperatures in parts of Australia between winter and early summer.
The other dominant climate driver in 2019 was a negative Southern Annular Mode (SAM) episode, which persisted from mid-October to late December. Negative SAM occurs when the belt of westerly winds surrounding Antarctica shift further north than usual. When a negative SAM occurs in spring and early summer, westerly winds increase over Australia’s southern and eastern states. This pattern helped cause unusually warm and dry weather in eastern Australia, along with enhanced bushfire weather, during late spring and early summer last year.
“The first driver was the strongest positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) event in at least 20 years.”
We have an ENSO meter on this website. Sounds like we could use an IOD meter, too.
James Murdoch World’s # 1 celeb phone hacker.
Screwed-up and cost the family hundreds of millions.
What a piece of work he is . . .
Climate change: Both the excuse for past Progressive policy failure, and the excuse for more bad Progressive policy.
Here’s a little social science experiment for somebody: Compare and correlate attitudes towards the climate change agenda between those who built wealth and those who just live off of it.
Progress, past. Progress, present. Imputed positive perceptions, notwithstanding, it’s all progressive (i.e. monotonic). Great leaps, wicked solutions, etc.
John I think that everyone here gets that none of this really has anything to do with CAGW. Isn’t it after all an abstract concept that is difficult to prove and in the minds of believers disprove? At least for those who have fallen for the propaganda, and sadly that number is growing. Therefore it is the perfect vehicle to create new and outrageous scenarios for as long as it takes to establish a new world order.
Trying to simplify it down to the haves and have nots doesn’t really work. Wealth can be inherited, gifted, stolen, scammed. The majority of ordinary people who have achieved a level of wealth that enables them to enjoy a level of independence are educated and have worked hard for it, and some of those came from a place of poverty.
On the other hand, people can be born into crushing poverty, or may be robbed of what little they have. They may have been wealthy at some point but gambled it all away. They may have experienced divorce or separation and lost most all they had worked for in the settlement.
There are of course those who choose to take a handout when they don’t really need too, who feel that it’s their right. But worse than that are the idealists who stand next to them demanding that right or wrong the handouts continue.
It’s complicated, the climate change agenda is about redistribution of wealth. If you liken it to a pyramid scheme then the people who benefit most are those at the top. Of course those people at the top promise fabulous wealth to those who sign up, insisting it’s a win win for everyone. All they have to do is buy into the scheme. Pyramid schemes have been around for a long time and as we know they eventually collapse. But the people at the top know that if they can just persevere for long enough then they can make a lot of money.
The people at the top of the CC pyramid have to promote their product, they need to travel, they need to organise conferences to reassure each other that they are on the right track, they get used to a particular lifestyle and the money just doesn’t seem to end up helping the people it was intended to. The longer it drags on the more likely they are to lose sight of their original intention, they need a marketing tool to reignite the sense of urgency to reinforce the scheme. The Australian bushfires were a gift, the money and the emotional investment is right on track again, for the moment. MSM make sure of that.
Hopefully this pyramid scheme will collapse in the not to distant future. Some of the things they have been coming up with recently to bide time have been nothing short of ridiculous.
The people who were promised benefits still don’t have any reliable power. We need to go back to basics, teach people what they need to do to empower themselves. There has already been more than enough money spent trying to prop up the pyramid scheme. It could have been spent on educating people, improving their basic living situations with reliable power. Knowledge and hard work will get you what you need. The person who lives off others wealth will never expect anything to be any different. They don’t know how.
Of course in reality the people at the top of dubious pyramid schemes, socialist regimes or totalitarianism don’t care about the bottom feeders. The only real interest they have is in themselves.
Give up your cars, jetset lifestyle, beach front properties multiple annual holidays using air travel I might listen otherwise you are just like the rest of the alarmists.
Hypocrites.
From peasant to peasant in 4 generations.
I learnt it as clogs to clogs in three generations.
Shirt sleeve to shirt sleeve in 3 generations.
James Murdoch is unfortunately severely ignorant about the lack of science behind ‘Climate-Change’ and his wife Kathryn Murdoch is involved in the Clinton climate initiative which accumulates huge mountains of money.
If you haven’t figured it out by now you need to know that the media, MSM or not. has bought into AGW. If you don’t believe, you are a heretic. This is flat world and the sun revolves around the earth thinking.
I fear Australia is about to cave in completely. The knives are out for ScoMo. His own Science Minister is quoted as saying “climate change debate is an unnecessary distraction” “the science is settled” and so on. A round table of top Aussie scientics is gong to advise her. Guess what that will produce. https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6122670832001.
It would be interested to know what people secretly believe. I would never ever tell people what I believe unless I trust them. It is too dangerous. I am a lukewarmer but that is treated as denialism by the alarmist side, and people smear and damage you if you identify that way. I know for example that much of my family would shun me if I identified as such. It would damage the family. Similarly it would damage my career if I was labelled a “denier”. I only tell very close confidantes. I suspect there are many people like me, but I don’t really know how many.
You don’t need to hear their words, just watch their actions. Tells you everything you need to know.
Could you elaborate? Unless someone is a figure whose action can be easily interpreted (e.g. a politician approving/rejecting a coal mine), how can you tell? How can I tell whether say Jim at work or my aunt Maude believes it?
In my small circle of friends not a single one has expressed any support for global warming, climate change or any other manifestation of this madness. Very few of these friends make any public comment though. Australians are generally a politically apathetic lot. Which is both good and bad. It takes a lot to get them stirred up but then all hell can break loose. We are seeing that now for perhaps the wrong reasons. Hopefully the silent majority will stand up.
I was surprised when in a group of 5 people in an adult education class, French as it happens, when I said that the claim made by one of the group that the Bush fires were a result of climate change wasn’t true the other three agreed with me. It didn’t stop him asking me for a couple of minutes if I thought the Earth was flat rather than listening to what I was saying. Only when I said the Earth is an oblate spheroid, Neil Armstrong was first on the moon Eugene Cernon was last off, but not last on and Cernon wrote his daughter’s initials in the dust before leaving did we move on to a sensible discussion, by that time he’d lost all credibility.
Nothing is going to happen with either side of parliament as any polling of the party membership shows little has changed. Albo has been talking about shift but he knows well he can’t do a thing because the right with unions and faction leaders like Joel Fitzgibbon will crucify him if he goes to far.
The principle is if you sprout bs often enough people will invariably buy into it.
However don’t underestimate people who never speak but think differently, of course they are the reason we have this govt.
I really don’t think scomo is under any threat. We can always have better leadership in Australia but the absolute swamp that is opposition hasn’t changed and is unlikely to anytime soon. Sure Scomo can do better and he is, the alternative is what?
There have been ten major droughts ( now eleven) in Australia over the last 150 years.
(Source: M.J. Couplant, 1986: “Drought in Australia.Natural Disasters in Australia.” Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering).
Some of the droughts lasted a decade, some are in clusters and all had a severe effect on rural Australia.
Drought has been,along with flooding rains, and will continue to be a major feature of Australia.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics and Bureau of Meteorology document the major Australian droughts-
Major Droughts: 1884-1886, 1868, 1880-1886, 1888, 1895 – 1903, 1911-1916,1918-1920,1939-1945,1958-1968,1982-1983, 1999-2009,2012-2015 and now 2019-2020.
Less severe droughts occurred – 1922-1923,1926-1929,1933-1938,1946-1949,1951-52,1970-1973,and 1976.
Droughts occurred where most Australians live i.e. in SE Australia as follows- 1988,1902,1914-1915,1940-1941,1944-1945,1967,-1968,1972-1973,1982-1983,1991-1995,2002-2003,2006-2007,2013-2015,and now 2019-2020.
I am indebted to Professor Ian Plimer for this summary.
Frankly anyone who says global warming causes droughts in Australia is a charlatan.
Not to mention that global catastrophic warming models rely on positive feedback of increased water vapour with increased temperature. Droughts should be evidence the opposite is happening and contradict the model assumptions.
More Murdoch ructions here.
Thanks Nick.
Sure Nick. She was disappointed because she did not want to print the facts about the fires. She wanted to emphasize climate change and downplay arson. She “claimed” News Corp was misrepresenting but in reality that is what she was trying to do. Sort of like you are doing here.
She was “filled with anxiety and disappointment” in other words she is a typical snowflake who needs to drink some concrete to harden up princess.
She couldn’t stand the lies.
Nick I’d be very interested to know (in your educated opinion) what bad thing will occur in 10-years then 50-years then 200-years from now if the CO2 concentration continues to increase at roughly the current rate?
OR
What bad thing will likely occur when we get to 500 ppm?
What bad thing will likely occur when we get to 800 ppm?
Will anything good likely occur at any of the above junctures?
Ah yes the “Old Stokes” let me define the truth … is there anything you won’t redefine to push an argument?
I should probably ask do you send in letters to the editor and complain to the press council about all the “climate lies ™”. You are about the right age and obsession level.
Why do you consider anyone with a different point of view to your own to be a liar? Do you consider everyone who writes on this site to be liars? Would you wish all people who disagree with your point of view to label you as a liar? I would think not and they would be wrong to do so. So have the courage to debate this vastly unproven subject for what it is. and not try to win your arguments by labelling different views to your own as lies.
“Do you consider everyone who writes on this site to be liars”
Not at all. But the Australian is supposed to be a newspaper of record, and I think their manipulation of fact is unconscionable, and I think that is Emily Townsend’s issue too. There was the very obvious search for scapegoats – the claim with no evidence at all that the bushfire damage is due to Greens preventing controlled burning. Then, when the actual firefighters wouldn’t come at that, there were the stories about arsonists. Particularly the big headline about “Bushfires: Firebugs fuelling crisis as national arson arrest toll hits 183”. Now that is a lie, and people working for the paper know it is a lie. That is destabilising for organisations, as I think we are seeing.
Anything that doesn’t support the left wing narrative is defined as a lie.
The Australian overemphasised the arson factor.
The leftist media (smh, abc) overstated the raw scale of the fires, calling it unprecedented.
”Now that is a lie”
As per usual we only get the cherry pick from the story. If one reads on you can get the grip of the usual MSM sensationalism.
”These offences include discarding lit cigarettes, setting off fireworks and failing to comply with a total fire ban.”… Which of course is not arson but also not a ”lie” just typical sloppy journalism we read these days.
“As per usual we only get the cherry pick from the story.”
It is the front page headline, and it echoed around the world and through places like WUWT (see downthread here). Even Donald Trump Jr used it as the basis for a tweet.
Nick:
**She couldn’t stand that the lies about climate were not printed**
Fixed your incomplete sentence.
Now now Nick, I’m only telling it how it is. How ever you want to gloss over it, the fact remains it was pure and simply sloppy sensationalist reporting. There were no lies.
”These offences include discarding lit cigarettes, setting off fireworks and failing to comply with a total fire ban.”…Even though these OFFENCES are not by definition considered as arson, they still have the potential to start a major wild fire. If any of those OFFENCES did create a wild fire, which more than likely could have happened, would you still call it a lie????
Maybe doing something stupid as such should be considered on the lines of potential Arson, same as potential manslaughter. The consequences could end up with the same result.
She was just another random uninformed alarmist accountant who could have been working in any organisation.
This story only got legs in the leftist media because she worked at Newscorp Australia.dummy-spit
Otherwise, her dummy-spit because of her perceptions about her employer’s political leanings would have been totally ignored.
Yeah. I’d love to see how much traction it’d get in SMH if I worked in their accounts and spat the dummy about their alarmism bias.
Not a single lie or incorrect fact in the list.
Just more whining that Murdoch doesn’t agree with the alarmists.
One would think, given James’ connection to the news/publishing industry, that the ability to fairly present ALL sides of a controversial subject would be of primary importance. Free speech and all that stuff.
I guess not!
You make a good point, NW Sage. At least it would have been a good point if climate change were not an EMERGENCY.
You may not be aware that 11,258 scientists have declared a climate emergency that requires that the precautionary principle must be invoked.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/23/climateemergency/
I’m sorry I click baited. I however read IPCC in the first sentence and realised my mistake. It’s ok I’m just human!
“11,258 Scientists” ??
Read their job descriptions again.
Does this number include Mickey Mouse or exclude him, just asking?
Unlike the 30,000 plus who have called BS on the whole thing. Checked and verified.
To the alarmist, scientist is anyone who agrees with me.
By definition, anyone who doesn’t agree with me isn’t a scientist.
Including Mickey Mouse who is registered as one of the 11,258
Ah yes, the random petition that anyone could sign that magically transformed into “11,258 scientists”
A bit like how “97% of scientists agree global warming is real, man made, and very dangerous”
Any actual scientist actually even pushing the “precautionary principle” isn’t a scientist. In Australia you can’t invoke the “precautionary principle” it is illegal at law it got tested all the way to the High Court.
Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council set the initial judgement they wanted to block a phone tower based on rough science and the “precautionary principle” and it was rejected as a valid argument legally and at science.
Next to chance their arm was an Anti-GMO who wanted to use the “precautionary principle”, Sorry I can’t remember which one you can look it up. It likewise was struck down.
Under Australian law to be able to use the “precautionary principle” the risk must be immediate and the risk unambiguous otherwise you just trade one set of risks for another. For example it was shown in the Telstra case even if RF was dangerous and cost a few lives you may well kill another set of people who had no access to phone service. So there is no clear way for the law to decide which is right, that is a political problem.
Climate Change would have the same problem under Australian Law even if you concede you may save one group of people you put another set at risk by changing the technologies. The risk is not immediate and the risk ambiguous and any use of it would be struck down.
Temperatures rising by a few tenths of a degree is an emergency?
Not on this planet.
That’s twice in one article Chaamjamal,
Not seeing this type of sarcasm from you in the past, I am wondering if someone hijacked your name???
yeah free speech and allowing an opposing view?
hmm?
not at the abc or most outlets and if the fullon warmist ones get their way NONE bar their opinin will be heard or seen
we have today opinions expressed than any on the Liberal/coalition team with non approved pro warming ideology should be shut up/removed.
the gentleman above who expressed his fear at making hid non crowd views known is sad, what worth personally do you hold if your feelings and opinions and the right to have n hold such make you scared to speak even to family?
might be surprised how many others would agree and suport you really.
I speak out loudly and daily and ridicule the crud from media and present the other views
not ONE person has had the guts to speak up OR even explain why their warmist faith is correct, or even be able to satae names and research they hold to be valid.
oh and that annoying pompous git the mannikin is here in Aus on “sabbatical” stirring the shit presently as well
what amazing timing huh?
hes stated Aussies will be climate reffos soon due to the dry n heat
shows how little the ignorant bastard knows about Aus!
To the left, free speech means that there is no cost or consequence for anything they do.
Free speech does not mean that those who disagree with them have any rights.
Absolutely. I don’t mind these Global Warming fanatics holding their personal viewpoints on the GW issue, even though people like James Murdoch never practice what they preach, but it is when these people feel, with unbelievable arrogance, that their point of view is the only one to be considered, and to a degree that takes in no consideration for the very negative effects that their demands for an imagined ‘cure’ will have on society, that I take issue with their intelligence. To sack all those who don’t take his viewpoint in News Corps would be minor in relation to the rest of the imagined cures that they advocate, such as closing down all oil companies, closing down all coal mines, banning the use of gas, taking all cars and other vehicles off the roads and using a cycle to travel whatever the distance, culling all cows and sheep to make us all vegans etc., etc., etc. Do these people ever consider the catastrophic, almost end- of- the- world effects on life as we know it, if their outrageous demands were met? I ask Nick Stokes, seriously, who is one of those fanatics who is prepared to blog on this site, and who is usually happy to give thought to these matters, to perhaps ponder these issues and let us have his answers.
I don’t think it occurs to to them there might be a downside to shutting down the “dirty corporations” and ending fossil fuels.
Same as it didn’t occur to the left that there could be any downside to shooting the parasitic bourgeois.
I mean, dirty corporations, fossil fuels, and the bourgeoisie are bad things right? How could it not be right to just get rid of them?
Some reading material for Nick:
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/record-breaking-heat-in-the-east/#comments
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/new-video-climate-judge-jury-and-executioner/
There goes your inheritance James Murdoch.
100% correct here. I lean uber-liberal but on ‘clurmate bange’ as I call it, I find myself agreeing more and more with the ultra-conservatives like Watts Up With That!
Yes, the world is warming. However that is normal when coming out of a period called “The Little Ice Age!” where the world was known to be cooler than it should be.
2006 to 2008 I had a consulting gig with a smartphone maker whose lunch was eaten by the iPhone. My boss, a Brit flying in from London, was a big alarmist (also big Richard Branson fan), as was the company policy of climate alarmism. “An Inconvenient Truth” posters lined all corp HQ walls and they had numerous private showings of the film there. At a team dinner one evening the boss led a discussion about the grave future of global warming. I couldn’t hold back and gave them a brain dump of all I knew of the “denier” side. From that night on things changed with my boss and I. A few months later by contract was terminated. I always harbored the suspicion it had something to do with that dinner. I once discovered a denier among my peers there and he warned me that I had best toe the line about global warming. That was Sillycon Valley 2008. You can imagine how crazy it is now there. And don’t get me started about my millennial kids and my in-laws.
“comes as Australia has been ravaged by the worst fires seen in decades. The blazes have claimed 27 lives and destroyed thousands of properties across multiple states, with an estimated 1 billion animals feared dead. ”
See! Who needs more proof of catastrophic climate change! /sarc
Eric,
Good luck with trying to change young Mr & Mrs Murdoch’s minds – I think this chart ‘Thinking vs Feeling’ in this Jungian character analysis site explains it well:
https://preludecharacteranalysis.com/explore/thinking-vs-feeling
People with ‘Feeler’ personalities just don’t care about facts, truth and logic – they rely on feelings and subjective ‘values’. No doubt you know some of these! And a person’s personality is almost impossible to change.
If the Cultural Marxists understand this and focus their pro-AGW messages in ‘Feeling’ terms rather than ‘Thinking’ terms, knowing that they then don’t have to worry about facts, truth and logic, then we Thinkers have little hope of winning the argument.
Any thoughts?
I tend to see those kinds of classifications as a bit of a blunt instrument.
The odds are none of the Murdochs will ever read my appeal, but something very important I learned when I spent a little time helping Amnesty International; you just can’t know in advance whether the next letter you write will be the one which makes the difference.
“Kathryn and James’ view on climate are well-established.”
Pass me the sick bag please.
“James, and his activist wife, Kathryn”
Well, those few words tells us a lot, don’t they.
Me thinks James should get into gardening. Maybe plant a fruit tree…
Wow, projection fast and furious. Denial is a National Socialist concept… selective, opportunistic, pro-choice for social progress. Catastrophic anthropogenic cooling… warming… change is a conflation of logical domains, which requires regular injections of brown matter, inference of missing links, and an ideology to force a consensus (i.e. sociopolitical agreement). In Stork They Trust.
James and his ‘activist wife’ have bought the man-made ‘climate change’ baloney hook, line, and sinker! It is precisely the buildup of undergrowth, i.e. ‘fuel load’ that makes these fires grow out of control, whether in Australia or California! Ridiculous rules from radical environmentalists prevent the clearing of the old growth and as soon as temps rise they become tinder boxes just waiting for any spark. I am sure we will hear this Leftist trope continue until summer is gone in AU. It doesn’t seem to matter that almost 200 people have been arrested for starting the fires themselves, after all, who are you going to believe, the climate change mob or your own lying eyes! Look for this same garbage analysis to pop up again when summer hits the U.S. and ‘wildfires’ hit Cali again. smh
Nick Stokes,
I’d be very interested to know (in your educated opinion) what bad thing will occur in 10-years then 50-years then 200-years from now if the CO2 concentration continues to increase at roughly the current rate?
OR
What bad thing will likely occur when we get to 500 ppm?
What bad thing will likely occur when we get to 800 ppm?
Will anything good likely occur at any of the above junctures?
Warren,
Generally in what I write here, my position is that AGW is really happening, and we need to come to terms with that. I write less on the bad things, and what should be done in mitigation, because I think that is something for governments to work out, once the facts of AGW are accepted. The key thing is, IMO, that unless we do get our act together, GHGs will go on increasing. We could burn ten times as much as we have already. So the difficulties we are seeing a little of now, will get a whole lot worse.
I do think that fires will be the first really bad thing, and yes, will be a lot worse at 500 ppm. I think there will be difficulties for agriculture in places like India. Plus, of course, sheer heat. I think there will be problems with storms and flooding. Sea level rise should at that stage be manageable.
800 ppm, I don’t know. But it will come, if not avoided. It requires us burning 4-5 times as much C as we have to date. There is enough available for us to do that.
Of course there could be benefits too. Northward expansion of agriculture (but also fires in what we now see as cold forests). There will be winners and losers.
You are certainly all in.
Might even ward off the next Ice Age glaciation, with luck. Or do you deny we are due one, Nick, in the next 3000 years?
Facts of AGW… stop it, I’ll crack a rib.
CO2 doesn’t have enough affect to ward off the next glaciation. The best we can hope for is delaying it by a few centuries.
“… that is something for governments to work out, once the facts of AGW are accepted.”
Is this an honest response. Do you really think that the government(s) should hold off on mitigation (that will change and maybe even cripple economies) until the facts are clear and accepted?
I think the facts are clear and should be accepted. Policies, even expensive ones, are never made on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is expensive to act; it will be expensive not to act. And soon enough (as Au is finding) something just has to be done..
Thanks Nick.
Don’t agree with most of what you believe; however, it’s interesting you see 800 ppm as a reality.
It’s a certainty to anyone familiar with population and energy projections.
Adaption is the only solution and always has been (although no serious problem will arise in my opinion).
But Nick that’s not the game and I believe you know it. The game and fanatical aim of the green masters (the monetizers) is ‘a price on carbon’.
They’re scrambling to downplay adaption as a solution. You just needed to watch The Drum (ABC) last night to see that . . .
I always considered the Murdoch media empire as evil. It is now in danger of becoming double evil.
So, what ever the U.N Followers say is right? The earth is dying, ice is melting, polar bears are all gone, etc etc, Greta is the new jesus and she will save the planet herself while she enjoys all the finer things in life, But if you go against they say, We are deniers and fools and we need to be shut up 😐 Are the greens the new nazis?
And WHAT a paragon of virtue James Murdoch is.
Murdoch would not survive a proper investigation of his behaviour and would be presented as the worst of the Trust Fund Baby wastrels were the media actually interested in reporting the truth.
Why should we listen to one word of that sleazebag??
And what in God’s name was Harvard doing allowing him to study there??
It’s not just the media where we have minimal sceptical coverage but all big businesses, institutions, the public service and all educational facilities are infiltrated with alarmists. Its
infuriating that we had the climate election last year and the alarmists lost . They are just becoming more and more feral and manipulative. It is similar to Brexit and Trumps election. The left behave like spoiled brats who don’t accept the umpires decision. They throw tantrums so incessantly until they get their way. The way governments and corporations give into the demands only emboldens them. Alarmists look at the fires as if they represent some sort of proof. My understanding of the scientific theory as they claim it , Is that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 which causes warming , which causes drought , which causes fires to be more intense. When Andy Pitman , probably the most eminent expert on droughts explains that despite what you don’t expect to hear there appears to be no indication that CO2 causes drought you should listen to him. Rather than accept the science the warmists intimidate and embarrass Pitman ( an author on drought for the IPCC ) to retract his comments such that he suggested he was taken out of context and should’ve said there was just no direct influence ( presumably there is some indirect influence which he didn’t really bother to explain). If as there own expert testifies ( before his attempted retraction) there is no link from CO2 to drought , the link to fire falls at the first hurdle. Like with the data from the BOM ,when the science is inconvenient to their narrative just change it, no one bothers to quote anything scientific anyway. It’s just a belief system. It’s actualLy been quite interesting that amongst there host of experts on climate change Andy Pitman seems to have been excluded from commentaries as a go to expert at the ABC.
It’s off-topic, but in Nottingham, England, the city council is planning to make the city ‘carbon neutral’ by 2028.
Here’s a link to their current document on the subject (it’s a pdf) on the subject:
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Nottingham’s%202028%20Carbon%20Neutral%20Charter%20(1).pdf
I’ve only just had had a quick look through it. There’s a lot of corporate waffle, but I intend to take a closer look at their claims. I’d welcome any comments and links to data contradicting what they say.
Are any other cities in other countries coming up with this sort of thing?
Sorry everyone – the Nottingham council pdf link doesn’t work. Try this and follow the on-site directions:
https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/cn2028
If they can become carbon neutral by 2028 (and remain so for another 30 years … long enough to have needed to replace road surfaces) while still remaining ‘sustainable’, I’ll jump on the bandwagon as well.
I don’t think that there is any way community can do it without regressing, or somehow acquiring a large influx of some type of resource that can be converted to mitigation activities.
Having been an NWS shareholder for a bloody long time, I’ll have Rupert and the rest of you can have piss weak Lachlan.
It is a race between Lachlan and James Packer to the bottom – it’s a tight race at present.
John I think that everyone here gets that none of this really has anything to do with CAGW. Isn’t it after all an abstract concept that is difficult to prove and in the minds of believers disprove? At least for those who have fallen for the propaganda, and sadly that number is growing. Therefore it is the perfect vehicle to create new and outrageous scenarios for as long as it takes to establish a new world order.
Trying to simplify it down to the haves and have nots doesn’t really work. Wealth can be inherited, gifted, stolen, scammed. The majority of ordinary people who have achieved a level of wealth that enables them to enjoy a level of independence are educated and have worked hard for it, and some of those came from a place of poverty.
On the other hand, people can be born into crushing poverty, or may be robbed of what little they have. They may have been wealthy at some point but gambled it all away. They may have experienced divorce or separation and lost most all they had worked for in the settlement.
There are of course those who choose to take a handout when they don’t really need too, who feel that it’s their right. But worse than that are the idealists who stand next to them demanding that right or wrong the handouts continue.
It’s complicated, the climate change agenda is about redistribution of wealth. If you liken it to a pyramid scheme then the people who benefit most are those at the top. Of course those people at the top promise fabulous wealth to those who sign up, insisting it’s a win win for everyone. All they have to do is buy into the scheme. Pyramid schemes have been around for a long time and as we know they eventually collapse. But the people at the top know that if they can just persevere for long enough then they can make a lot of money.
The people at the top of the CC pyramid have to promote their product, they need to travel, they need to organise conferences to reassure each other that they are on the right track, they get used to a particular lifestyle and the money just doesn’t seem to end up helping the people it was intended to. The longer it drags on the more likely they are to lose sight of their original intention, they need a marketing tool to reignite the sense of urgency to reinforce the scheme. The Australian bushfires were a gift, the money and the emotional investment is right on track again, for the moment. MSM make sure of that.
Hopefully this pyramid scheme will collapse in the not to distant future. Some of the things they have been coming up with recently to bide time have been nothing short of ridiculous.
The people who were promised benefits still don’t have any reliable power. We need to go back to basics, teach people what they need to do to empower themselves. There has already been more than enough money spent trying to prop up the pyramid scheme. It could have been spent on educating people, improving their basic living situations with reliable power. Knowledge and hard work will get you what you need. The person who lives off others wealth will never expect anything to be any different. They don’t know how.
Of course in reality the people at the top of dubious pyramid schemes, socialist regimes or totalitarianism don’t care about the bottom feeders. The only real interest they have is in themselves.
James will hve a nice pile of green investments hes out to boost id say.
always look for the money trail;-)
Even if you’re a true believer James what if we in Oz went back to the ancestor’s or aboriginal’s ways to scratch out a living how would that make any difference to China causing ever more of our devastating bushfires supposedly?
https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/old-king-coal-fuels-chinas-new-tech-revolution/
Are we going to pull Furphys around with horses and throw buckets of water on them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy
What Furphys are you spreading James and why would that be?
https://www.afr.com/technology/teslas-appointment-of-james-murdoch-was-a-surprise-but-heres-why-it-did-it-20170718-gxdd9b
It would seem that like ex UK PM David Cameron, and Bank of England chief Mark Carney, cherchez la femme.
Actually, I don’t necessarily think it’s anything to do with gender. We all love cuddly baby polar bears, penguins, and koala bears. It’s probably just “the other half” realizing they are in a position of power and feeling the need to be seen to be doing something useful. The bigger problem is that so many people still see environmentalism as a ‘safe’ non-political topic where they can safely mouth-off without consequences. Hence the BBC…
Quick scotch the red tape and we don’t want no trailer trash around here-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/state-caravan-law-an-obstacle-for-homeless-bushfire-victims/ar-BBYY03F
You gotta love the Iranian plumber offer. LOL.
Meanwhile in Melbourne running the Australian Open Tennis with players having to pull out due to bushfire smoke the weather turns-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/melbourne-lashed-by-torrential-rain-and-damaging-hail/ar-BBYYpzh
But naturally now we have to fear flash flooding and landslides in the burnt out areas. Doomed I tell ya. We’re all doomed!
“James, and his activist wife…”
And there’s the clue. A whipped little trust fund boy.
OT…
I really do hope that younger Murdochs will decide to educate themselves.
I was further convinced that this is all a scam when I looked up the glaciers studies. They use 40 glaciers out of 100000 to proclaim we, the human species, are causing death and destruction to the Earth and to damn our actions as vile and evil. Glaciers are one of Earth’s most life destroying objects. Why in the hell would we want to keep them around. It also tells me we never fully came out of the last ice age, we are only in an interglacial pause. I hope they also look at some before and after photos of where some glaciers have disappeared. Life returned to those places. Not that glaciers are devoid of life but more life for more species when they are gone.
Addendum, the only constant about the environment and climate is CHANGE. The Change is not to be feared. It is to be welcomed as it helps us and all life evolve.
Could it be that 180 arsonists have been nabbed setting the fires in oz. That would have a serious impact on the existence of fires; don’t you know:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/07/australian-police-arrest-180-arsonists-over-bush-fires/
Do arsonists get bail during high fire warning days?
I’ll have Rupert.
You guys can have James and Lachlan – the dumb, lazy loafers.
Spoiled little prince.
Here in the U.K. we’re going to get a year of propaganda. Starting with this gem https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51123638
The average used is from the 1951-1980 land temperature data.
And this, I bet the debate in the summer doesn’t include anyone other than the extreme warmists https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51104776
An off topic question and possibly been asked before… what was Michael Mann doing in Australia?
Who funded the trip? Who organised the interview on our ABC? Who decided he should be brought over here and why? When was the plan hatched, it seemed very much impromptu, opportunistic even.
After losing the Federal election the left wing loonies went very quiet, plunged into a state of depression for some months. Crikey, The Conversation, Our ABC, CSIRO the Labor Party, Greens, all melancholy. Then they sparked up and unleashed an avalanche of ongoing propaganda. The bushfires have filled them with self righteous glee. Or are they nearing their end, revving up like a blowfly with a lungful of mortein before flaming out, plummeting and hopefully a final and very permanent death spin?
Wouldn’t it be great if Fox News were to host a legitimately scientific debate on climate change. Take a leaf from the BBC and spread it out over several weeks or months and cover a wide variety of topics.
Make each debate genuine with appropriate moderators who don’t have an agenda.
It would be a huge benefit for society, could generate a great series of monograms for use as educational tools, and shift the tone away from the angry blind statements of faith that consume so much of climate change oxygen.
Perhaps James Murdoch and his wife might learn something along the way. If nothing else, it might force him to engage with the science instead of just preaching at Fox.
Under the leadership of the Murdoch brats, Fox News is descending to the levels of CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, PBS, etc. Increasingly FNC is focusing on important news such as the Kardashian Bikini and Butt Battle or the plight of Harry and Meghan. The best part of Rupert Murdoch dribbled down his leg.
There are plenty of places to get information these days, FNC is increasingly not one of them. Anymore I spend almost as much time checking sources on FNC stories as I do with the NYT or Alex Jones.