James Murdoch has publicly called for stronger policies on climate change. Photography: David Cheskin/PA(Briefly) last week looked to MMR conspiracy theories advanced for age of autism following international news scandal. Not to be less, climate progress waded in with a devious plot of their own News Corp link to hacked at the University of East Anglia climate change messages.
His theory is more or less like this:
We do not know that hacked the courtyard of mailsScotland e UEA, who investigated, had links with News Corp InternationalNews not as climate scientistsNeil Wallis, an international journalist for ex-noticias with links to the Met, also made PR of UEA after 'Climategate' WE need to investigate NEWS CORP on CLIMATEGATE!
Things is pretty desperate, that does not provide any real evidence or logic to link the facts in a coherent argument.
The idea that the Murdoch coordinate an editorial stance against climate science fails pretty quickly when you look at the work of the team of Mark Henderson in The Times science. Then there are the views of James Murdoch, who has publicly called for stronger policies on climate change, and if you think that it is purely positions then consider that his wife, Kathryn Murdoch, was a senior in the Clinton Climate Initiative director, and both serve on the Board of the foundation of Kew.
In summary, there is nothing to suggest that the behaviour of individual enterprises of News Corp reflects the broader policy and little evidence of that exhibited attitudes by, say, Fox News are currents of thought in its parent company. A profile of the New York Times "Murdoch in waiting" in February even suggested: "James Murdoch views raise the question of whether it can interfere with coverage of Fox News if he ran the News Corporation".
Aside from all that, the e-mails were not in a publication by News International, nor any other body of mainstream media, but in the blogosphere. Eccentrics were there pushed by HDD thinking internet like James Delingpole, even journalists adequate finally took notice and began to cover the news. It seems a way to fairly tortuous to break a story, as the wait to get Telegraph documents of the expenses of the members and the delivery to Guido Fawkes.
The debate on the climate is of course full of conspiracy theories, with varying degrees of merit. The denialists arguments (unlike 'skeptical', genuine brush denialist climate skeptics is wrong tar) almost inevitably degenerate into conspiracy theories when he challenged. As the Denialist blog says:
"This is because the denialist theories opposed to well-established science need to claim deception by his opponents to explain such things as why each scientist of renown, a newspaper and an opponent seem to be capable of operating on the same page."
It is disappointing to see the climate defenders get drawn in the same game. Grouping do not coincide and dubious "facts" in a dark narrative with characters sinister and devious plots is not useful. It just makes people look a bit silly and undermines serious points about corporate responsibility and climate change to be made. There are enough fiction in the climate debate as it is.
