Accuracy in Media

What’s a tree-hugging news organization to do when global warming “science” has been exposed as the work of conspiratorial intellectual shysters right before an international conference on climate change? Conspire with like-minded news organizations, of course.

As the Copenhagen climate summit opened today, 56 newspapers in 45 countries that publish in 20 different languages all screamed in unison: “Heck of a job, climate alarmists!” The editors at the papers buried their heads in the sand so they wouldn’t see the evidence that global warming is at best a suspect theory and instead published a joint editorial declaring that “humanity faces a profound emergency.”

Like all emotional appeals without reason, the editorial started with an ominous warning: “Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security.” Ignoring evidence to the contrary, the editors looked down from the world’s ivory towers and proclaimed to the peasants that “science is complex but the facts are clear.”

Then came the big ask, laced with a heavy dose of guilt for the “rich” nations of the world, presumably including the recession- and unemployment-plagued United States:

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level. …

Social justice demands that the industrialized world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

And thus continues the Big Media Lie about global warming.

Reactions from the blogosphere:

  • TigerHawk: “If the most challenging public relations problem for ‘your side’ is that you have conspired — either to suppress science or to suppress the news of suppressing science — you might want to reconsider responding with, well, a conspiracy. Would it not be smarter at least to pretend that there are small differences of opinion between the newspapers, suffusing different editorials with faux qualifications?”
  • Michelle Malkin: “Someone should translate the phrase ‘Hide the Decline’ in all the 20-plus languages editorial has been printed in and stamp it across their front pages.”
  • Instapundit: “Your free, fiercely independent press at work.”

Only one U.S. newspaper, the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald, joined the global hype brigade. But that doesn’t mean their editorial writers aren’t in the environmental tank; it just means they are wise enough not to talk like parrots and expect anyone to take them seriously.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

Comments are turned off for this article.