#Frackinggate – which major news outlet still holding back?

Posted on 20 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

When the BBC – or at least BBC world service – finally covered #frackinggate,  it seemed we skeptics had finally got all the press to cover this story.
That mainstream news outlet is WattsUpWithThat.com
And to rub salt into the wounds – even the warmists like grist are starting to cover the story.
And whilst I would love to comment as to why Watts will not be covering it – it wouldn’t be ethical.

This entry was posted in bbc, Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to #Frackinggate – which major news outlet still holding back?

  1. Bob MacLean says:
    21 June 2014 at 07:01

    I’m intrigued as to why WattsUpWithThat isn’t covering it and why you don’t think it would be ethical to comment on that omission. Couldn’t you even give us a hint?

  2. TinyCO2 says:
    21 June 2014 at 09:16

    I could see good reasoning why WUWT wouldn’t bring it up. Whether my imagination matches reality is another thing.
    I find the claims that the anti frack campaign might be funded by Russian oil stimulates a fair bit of schadenfreude but personally I can’t get too excited about people who clearly hold a view, being funded by people who would benefit from those views being more widely spread. OK, it allows a message to be disseminated but it doesn’t necessarily make it more persuasive. Look how the green movies have tanked.
    The public view of fracking is actually less negative than I expected. If I was Russia I’d want my money back. The appetite for the likes of Greenpeace is not increasing in the UK and concerns about fracking are more likely to have been spawned by some celeb on TV than any drive fuelled by anti fracking funding. Those celebs are as likely to be at the heart of the group than someone contacted in a drive to attract high profile converts. Vivienne Westwood needs no money to spout her pet beliefs. I’m not even sure she could be paid to be less swivel eyed scary while she does it. Did you see how few people were at the Manchester meeting she was speaking at recently? It looked like nobody really gave a frack about fracking.
    At the moment the claims about funding are just that, claims. They amount to little more than ‘I know some people who know something’. It’s not even clear if the ‘knows something’ is first, second or even third hand. So to repeat it is basically gossip, albeit delicious. Is there value in Anthony Watts snubbing tattle tale? Could be. Especially when everybody already knows about it and will casually bring it up whenever someone mentions Big Oil funding sceptics. WUWT might have another reason but those would do, yes?

  3. Scottish Sceptic says:
    21 June 2014 at 10:58

    After all these years and their lies about us being “oil funded” – it was just so sweet to see the tables turned on them … and now I think about it, it’s not just “Russian funded” but I think the actual accusation is “Russian BIG OIL funded”.
    Surely what they have done amounts to treason?

  4. TinyCO2 says:
    21 June 2014 at 12:25

    Nah, just business. As far as I know, it’s not illegal to accept money for a stated cause, no matter how conflicted the source. If I was the charities commission I’d be looking at most of the green organisations for their political intereference but they all seem to get a lot of leeway on what, and what doesn’t break the rules.

  5. Scottish Sceptic says:
    21 June 2014 at 15:11

    Interesting question – I’m not sure “I only did it because I was paid to” is a defence against treason. Treason: the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.

  6. TinyCO2 says:
    21 June 2014 at 21:53

    No, their argument would be ‘we were just expressing our real concerns about fracking and we are in no way influenced by outside forces. It is merely coincidental that our goals coincided.’ Of course you first have to prove that a) the money did come from Russia and b) they knew that was the source.

Comments are closed.