ECOworld: a website officially unconcerned about accuracy

authordefault
on

We make no representation, explicit or otherwise, about the completeness, accuracy, or consistency of the data on our website, of the integrity of the services we provide, or of those with which we may interoperate. โ€“ ECOworld Disclaimer

Donโ€™t say you werenโ€™t warned.

The โ€œenvironmental publishing companyโ€ ECOworld promises to keep โ€œnature and technology in harmony,โ€ but the content of the website and the clear bias of editor Ed (Redwood) Ring shows that Ed would be more forthright if he adopted a nickname that demonstrates more clearly his leanings, say Ed (We Need More Freeways) Ring.

In a recent, strident and extended editorโ€™s note, Freeway Ring complains that climate change denial has fallen into humiliating disfavour in the mainstream media. He complains that people who want to continue arguing about global warming are โ€œbranded as ideological fanatics and corporate shills.โ€

Well, if the shoe fitsโ€ฆ

If Freeway Ring is NOT a corporate shill, we invite him to share the details of his funding and prove the point. (That would, of course, leave the possibility that he is still an ideological fanatic, but I suspect he might adjust his ideology pretty quickly if the money ran out.)

But the sweetest part of Freewayโ€™s entreaty for confusion in the climate conversation is this:

If there is a โ€œdenial industry,โ€ who would benefit? A handful of underfunded think tanks?โ€

A reasonable answer to the first question might be โ€œExxonMobilโ€ โ€“ the largest and most profitable corporation in the history of the world. But the second question โ€“ rhetorical, surely โ€“ is flat-out hilarious.

Spend 10 minutes at ExxonSecretsECOworld and ask yourself why any legitimate information source would โ€œmake no representationโ€ about โ€œthe integrity of the services we provide, or of those with which we may interoperate.โ€

Freeway Ring doesnโ€™t want to defend the integrity of his services, or of his collaborators, because they are indefensible.

The concluding paragraph in this editorโ€™s note begins:

Many conscientious people, relatively free of biases, simply feel climate science is beyond them.โ€

Quite so, and Freeway Ring and his buddies clearly plan to take full advantage of those people. There appears to be no room left for shame.

Related Posts

on

Bjorn Lomborg has for years promoted the idea that fossil fuels are crucial for humankind through syndicated newspaper columns, best-selling books and appearances on TV shows including HBOโ€™s Real ...
on

Former BBDO Creative Partner Polina Zabrodskaya: โ€œItโ€™s devastating to know your work causes real harm, so people suppress that knowledge.โ€

Former BBDO Creative Partner Polina Zabrodskaya: โ€œItโ€™s devastating to know your work causes real harm, so people suppress that knowledge.โ€
on

Danone, JBS, Mars, Nestlรฉ and PepsiCo net zero plans marred by โ€œpatchy and unsubstantiated targetsโ€ say campaigners.

Danone, JBS, Mars, Nestlรฉ and PepsiCo net zero plans marred by โ€œpatchy and unsubstantiated targetsโ€ say campaigners.
on

Newly in power, Nigel Farageโ€™s party is testing its anti-climate playbook.

Newly in power, Nigel Farageโ€™s party is testing its anti-climate playbook.