The Economist, which I read, unfortunately pushes propaganda about climate change (as they do about some other issues too). For example, many years ago they pu

The Economist, which I read, unfortunately pushes propaganda about climate change (as they do about some other issues too). For example, many years ago they published an article[1] saying that a recent conference led by John Bolton[2] came to the same climate-denying conclusion as an earlier conference led by Bjorn Lomborg.[3] The Economist claimed that Bolton's results were independent corroboration for Lomborg's, saying the "conclusions were strikingly similar". The Economist omitted a few things that made the similarity less striking: 1) The Economist co-sponsored Lomborg's conference; 2) Lomborg co-chaired Bolton's conference; 3) Bolton's conference was in fact marketed as the sequal to Lomborg's (Lomborg's was "Copenhagen Consensus 2004", Bolton's was "Copenhagen Consensus 2006", and a third was planned); 4) Former Economist writer Clive Crook co-chaired Bolton's conference. I pulled those details from an email I sent to The Economist at the time. The article author responded professionally, but dismissed my concerns. [1] "How to save the world: Bolton v Gore", June 22nd 2006 http://www.economist.com/node/7086861 http://www.economist.com/node/7086861 [2] Bolton is a prominent US diplomat, whose career included being Ambassador to the United Nations, and a very outspoken neo-conservative. [3] Lomborg is a leading climate denier, trotted out as a academic expert. His PhD is in political science and, at least at one point, he taught statistics at a business school. (My anecdotal observation is that few climate deniers have expertise in climate science.)