[LINK TO CREATIONIST AND ANTI SCIENCE SITE REMOVED AS PER THIS BLOG POLICY DON’T DO THIS AGAIN YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED]

It presents a different viewpoint that would provide an interesting basis for a debate among Christians.

But yes, I say, “piss them off” and move on. There is a larger responsibility here. They can’t call it journalism if it is really a popularity contest (a phrase also uttered by Paul during his talk, IIRC).

Do the people running the news shows reasonably believe that the 30% of their audience that would allegedly disappear would cost the station significantly in advertising revenue? If yes, then I can understand (although not approve of) their position. If no, then they have nothing to lose (and perhaps much to gain) by telling the truth.

I understand that Fox News gets a disproportionate fraction of their audience from the elderly (70 and older), who are not the most lucrative audience. If the viewers who would be upset by having global climate change called real is drawn mostly from the regional Fox News audience, then the station might be able to afford letting them go. If a substantial minority are in the prized 45-54 age group, then their reluctance is understandable.

Thirty percent also sounds suspiciously close to the well-known 27% crazification factor (that being the fraction of the vote Alan Keyes got in his senate race against Barack Obama in 2004).

This recent article provides clear evidence that they’re engaging in willful avoidance, if not actual negligence:

Canada’s Arctic ice caps melting rapidly since 2005, according to documents.

Regarding climate change – the major news outlets seem to accept that it is taking place, but rarely associate economic matters with environmental concerns, it is as though they inhabit two distinct worlds.