4 ms·

Did the FT promote climate change denial in the past? Sky News is no longer owned by Rupert Murdoch.

by rjsw 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yeah, fairly certain they did. All media was pretty bad for a while, but I've just been looking up some stats and the happily the media generally has shifted, with only nationalist far-right media sticking with the old narrative. Glancing through their last few years of EV coverage for example, only reveals a couple of oddities, mostly written by the same US lobbyist. It is startling to glance though and see story after story about business investing in batteries and factories and EV rollout and net zero targets and then suddenly see headlines suggesting: Biden should support hybrids more (meaning support EVs less) or Switch to EVs will worsen inequality or EU emissions rules will prevent the middle class from driving or a couple of stories about EVs causing job losses or less union employment. It's a very noticeable shift in tone between the two sides but thankfully it's only a fraction of the coverage. I'd say the watershed for FT happened sometime around COP19, though they're still touting fossil fuels as cheap in 2020 > Climate negotiators are striving for a mutual impoverishment pact. It is hardly surprising that progress has stalled. While adding of course that they're not denying climate change. Just saying fossil fuels are the cheapest source of energy 5 years after the UK government had accepted and announced that wind power was the cheapest. They used to featur Bjorn Lomborg a lot, even positively reviewing his latest book in 2020, despite very well credentialled readers writing letters ripping him apart for his nonsense.
- pcrh 4y ago
  >Yeah, fairly certain they did. There's no need to be "fairly certain" when you can search their entire archive online. For what it's worth, the FT is one of the more reliable sources on matters that affect global economics.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    And there's no need to search their online archives when you remember being angry at some of the obvious lies you read in it in the first place. I did scan their online archives, but only to track their general tone over years. And while it's improved (along with most of the media) they're still condoning clear bullshit by Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Shellenberg, two individuals who also have an entire online archive of them being wrong. https://www.ft.com/content/93d6353c-9ab1-4bd9-86bb-7d77aab44dde https://www.ft.com/content/93d6353c-9ab1-4bd9-86bb-7d77aab44... They apparently aren't even very good at simple financial maths: > Lomborg estimates that it will cost New Zealand between 16 and 32 per cent of annual GDP to hit its declared net-zero target in 2050 — or $12,800 for each citizen. > Lomborg suggests that a temperature rise of 4C is possible — more than twice the 1.5C targeted in the 2015 UN Paris climate arrangement — while shedding only 2.9 per cent of global GDP relative to where it otherwise would have been. They got taken in by this comparison for example and had to issue a correction. https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/ https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/ https://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm https://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm

Did the FT promote climate change denial in the past? Sky News is no longer owned by Rupert Murdoch.

by rjsw 4y ago

Did the FT promote climate change denial in the past? Sky News is no longer owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Yeah, fairly certain they did. All media was pretty bad for a while, but I've just been looking up some stats and the happily the media generally has shifted, with only nationalist far-right media sticking with the old narrative. Glancing through their last few years of EV coverage for example, only reveals a couple of oddities, mostly written by the same US lobbyist. It is startling to glance though and see story after story about business investing in batteries and factories and EV rollout and net zero targets and then suddenly see headlines suggesting: Biden should support hybrids more (meaning support EVs less) or Switch to EVs will worsen inequality or EU emissions rules will prevent the middle class from driving or a couple of stories about EVs causing job losses or less union employment. It's a very noticeable shift in tone between the two sides but thankfully it's only a fraction of the coverage. I'd say the watershed for FT happened sometime around COP19, though they're still touting fossil fuels as cheap in 2020 > Climate negotiators are striving for a mutual impoverishment pact. It is hardly surprising that progress has stalled. While adding of course that they're not denying climate change. Just saying fossil fuels are the cheapest source of energy 5 years after the UK government had accepted and announced that wind power was the cheapest. They used to featur Bjorn Lomborg a lot, even positively reviewing his latest book in 2020, despite very well credentialled readers writing letters ripping him apart for his nonsense.

pcrh 4y ago
>Yeah, fairly certain they did. There's no need to be "fairly certain" when you can search their entire archive online. For what it's worth, the FT is one of the more reliable sources on matters that affect global economics.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  And there's no need to search their online archives when you remember being angry at some of the obvious lies you read in it in the first place. I did scan their online archives, but only to track their general tone over years. And while it's improved (along with most of the media) they're still condoning clear bullshit by Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Shellenberg, two individuals who also have an entire online archive of them being wrong. https://www.ft.com/content/93d6353c-9ab1-4bd9-86bb-7d77aab44dde https://www.ft.com/content/93d6353c-9ab1-4bd9-86bb-7d77aab44... They apparently aren't even very good at simple financial maths: > Lomborg estimates that it will cost New Zealand between 16 and 32 per cent of annual GDP to hit its declared net-zero target in 2050 — or $12,800 for each citizen. > Lomborg suggests that a temperature rise of 4C is possible — more than twice the 1.5C targeted in the 2015 UN Paris climate arrangement — while shedding only 2.9 per cent of global GDP relative to where it otherwise would have been. They got taken in by this comparison for example and had to issue a correction. https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/ https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/ https://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm https://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm