Reuters Takes Sides on Climate Change

In any event, the rest of the world isn’t eagerly jumping on board the CO2 reduction bandwagon. Earlier this month at the G8 summit, all the rich and developing countries could agree on was “only to ‘substantially reduce’ global emissions by 2050,” with no concrete goals. This result led Peter Glover of the Energy Tribune to predict that very little will be accomplished at the United Nations-sponsored Copenhagen conference on climate change in December. In fact, Glover opined, “all the signs are that Michael Jackson has a better chance of recording new material than Copenhagen has of delivering a meaningful international accord.”

The reaction from Paul Taylor of Reuters to the summit’s lack of results was not nearly as humorous:

So the planet is saved after all. Before you crack open the low-carbonated champagne, consider the weasel wording of the Group of Eight summit communiqué. …

Are such carefully hedged words worth the paper they are printed on? What are these politicians committing themselves to do during their own term of office? Most will be dead and buried by 2050.

There’s your clue to why the three fundamental untruths I noted at the beginning still have popular currency.

That the press in general is sympathetic to the tenets of global warming and environmental alarmism in general is nearly beyond dispute. But Reuters, the wire service that U.S. news outlets heavily rely on for international news, has taken its environmental bias further and has crossed the line into open advocacy.

Consider a few graphics I captured at various Reuters reports during the past week. Here are the first two:


On the top is a link I have frequently seen that tells the world that fighting global warming is a Reuters cause. It links to the wire service’s related Facebook page, called “Help Reuters Fight Global Warming.”

Reuters has decided as a company that global warming is “settled science,” even though there is plenty of evidence that the seriousness of the issue, or even its existence, is far from settled. Though the page clearly has many members, it just as clearly doesn’t have many who are willing to put their money where their mice are.

Nonetheless, Reuters has clearly taken sides. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that commentary like Taylor’s above would spew forth in such a corporate culture, or that the following would be considered worthy of carriage:


Can they possibly be any more blatant about it?

No wonder we learn so little of the growing opposition to radical environmentalism run amok overseas. The open global-warming advocacy at Reuters, which we should recall was the originator of Palestinian-supporting fauxtography in 2006, is disgraceful and should stop. Short of that, news consumers need to aggressively look elsewhere for the truth.