Why The Daily Mail’s Climate Change Headlines Are Misleading & Irresponsible

Last Updated On

We may collect a share of sales from items linked to on this page. Learn more.

As policymakers around the world feverishly design measures to mitigate the catastrophic effects of long-term global warming, some media representatives stand out for their curious denial of the whole affair.

A couple months ago, the Mail on Sunday, an affiliate of British tabloid media conglomerate the Daily Mail, claimed scientists admitted they had fudged the facts when it comes to global warming.

The article, entitled “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said“, penned by journalist David Rose, was in response to the latest report on global climate change issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the the IPCC. Every six years, the IPCC publishes a massively peer-reviewed expert assessment on the state of the biome amid rising global temperatures caused by carbon-intensive economic activities.

Rose goes on to condemn prevailing computer climate models for having “exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.” Top computer science colleges, the private sector and the government have helped expand the use of computer-driven predictions of Earth’s future climate, but opponents say computer climate models are inherently unreliable.



The problem with the Daily Mail‘s ‘scoop’ is it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, the latest IPCC report expresses confidence in its evaluation of a warming planet facing threatening changes, from loss of Arctic sea ice and ocean acidification to multiplying extreme weather events and the collapse of vulnerable species.

The thousands of scientists who contributed to the report say they are more certain that ever climate changes are driven by unsustainable human practices.

Climate change ‘hotspots’: why they matter and why we should invest in them

In the lead-up to the report’s release, the Guardian’s Michael Mann says “claims that members of the IPCC have downgraded their scientific confidence have been plentiful among the usual purveyors of climate change misinformation: Fox News, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and various conservative tabloids…”

The Daily Mail seems to have jumped onboard this bandwagon, with Rose at the helm dramatically declaring that “A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.”



The Daily Mail is the oldest of the UK’s sensationalist tabloid press, which is known for giving disproportionate credence to unsubstantiated gossip, conspiracy theories, and hoaxes. Despite its tabloid status, the outlet has the world’s twelfth largest circulation among English-language dailies. This reach often means its claims inspire instant controversy.

At the heart of the conflict is public support for programs designed to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2008, the world’s first legally binding climate change target—the Climate Change Act—committed the UK to reducing its GHG emissions by at least 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.

But the law has encountered continual controversy from the beginning, with the latest opposition arising from the Treasury and now the tabloid press. Rose’s efforts are an attempt to frame the IPCC’s reports as wildly exaggerated and a tool used to “justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.”

The problem with this slant is that fact-twisting and misrepresentation are needed to give it an air of legitimacy. Despite climate change’s clear and immense dangers to people, the economy, national security, and the environment, the Daily Mail tries to trick readers into believing the threat is nothing but a hoax and mitigating measures are part of an ongoing conspiracy to extract taxes and raise prices.

Psychology of Green: What's Driving the Green Initiative?


Yellow Journalism

Positioning people’s short-term economic concerns in opposition to their long-term interests in a healthy environment intentionally confuses the issue. It dampens public support for critical policies on the basis of false premises.

Publishing unreliable figures, lifting comments out of context, and re-making data to fit an underlying political agenda all count among the most unethical journalistic techniques.

For a veteran reporter like David Rose, these reporting methods are, at best, negligent. For a sensationalist rag like the Daily Mail, it is perhaps par for the course. The Mail has a history of remaking issues, including climate change, to suit its yellow style of ‘journalism.’

Yet the stakes are higher than usual. The potential victim is not merely a single politician or celebrity, or even a single issue. Climate change affects every issue across the spectrum. The victim here is not only the Mail‘s readership, but all of humanity and the sensitive ecologies that support its existence.

For this reason, the application of misleading modes of reporting to the unresolved complexities of climate change is incredibly irresponsible. This ongoing problem shows deep disrespect to the planet, journalistic integrity, and the ordinary people to whom this false ‘news’ is pitched.

11 thoughts on “Why The Daily Mail’s Climate Change Headlines Are Misleading & Irresponsible”

  1. The Mail is the only paper which dares to tell the truth in my opinion although it is only a tacky tabloid! The ONLY reason for global climate change is the secret agenda which is going on in all the UN countries to spray our skies with chemicals and use HAARP facilities to shift the resultant ‘weather’ around – probably all part of a plan to control the weather for whatever purpose… Stop them playing God and the planet has a chance! And don’t talk to me about the IPCC – the vast majority of them were from the USA handpicked to spread the propaganda!

    • Jesus – where does this paranoid garbage come from. “Secret Agenda” …. maybe you should look around the streets of London for the past 50+ years – don’t you smell the petrol? Have you not seen any of the massive burns used to clear forests? Acid rain not ring a bell? Hmm… maybe take a look at the Black Forest?

      It is always amazing how people can ignore important issues yet come up with comments or agenda’s that have no benefit.

      The article clearly stated facts that the author felt were damaging – you replied with nothing more than a tabloid induced answer with zero credibility – and of course “Facts” have no place in you reply — “yes – Elvis is alive and having tea with the wolf boy”.

      • How rude Greg – I have spent over a thousand hours researching the subject and taking daily photos and videos. Yes we have all those things you mentioned but the water vapour and Cos2 from all of those things dissipate quickly. The trails produced by these spraying planes contain nano-metal particles which cause them to linge rall day – my facebook is open if you wish to view thousands of photographs in my timeline album. You can also find a government admission to solar radiation management (geoengineering/chemtrails) in the Hous eof Commons Report on the Regulation of Geoengineering 2010 – page 40 in the margin! Wake up! http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf

        • And I do not appreciate ignorant statements with zero facts being thrown out – you consider it rude – I consider your statements irresponsible and full of half baked ideas.

          Maybe you will impress a few ignorant people who do not question how you leap from one set of questionable facts to a statement that is science fiction at best.

          This was a serious article dealing with the misinformation provided by a news agency – not a soap box for your unrelated views. – If you want valid responses then write a proper article and publish it.

          • You obviously haven’t read the 116 page government document I gave you the link for Greg – too much for you maybe or over your head perhaps? I can be rude too! That Geoengineering is happening IS a FACT and there is plenty of information out there to prove it! Go to http://www.uk-skywatch.co.uk – plenty of info there for a start – or the http://globalskywatch.com/ website. You are the ignorant one to criticise when you obviously haven’t done your own homework!

          • I have read many such reports and also seen all the scare mongering sites regarding con trails. Again you are still off topic as to this post. In addition – you quote the document as if it backs up your “Secret Agenda” statement – hardly … maybe I would take you seriously if you actually presented a valid argument with some actual reason why such activities would take place.

            Looking at engineering the environment has been around for a very long time – You are twisting this into some conspiracy, ignoring facts and over stating what facts there are.

          • Greg – you are so full of your own importance! Do you honestly think it matters to me whether YOU take me seriously or not? Who do you think you are? What matters to me is that others with more open and enquiring minds might take note and do some research and not fall for the IPCC’s propaganda! We can discuss this all night and neither of us will agree – so why don’t you go do some research and leave me to mine and let people make their own minds up!

          • Again you ignore fact or a sound argument – the Internet is a wonderful place for people to express ideas and information but as shown most of it is a waste of time, wrong or misleading and bias.

            I have no issue with eating crow when arguments are presented showing facts, reasons and why apposing views are not correct.

            This unfortunately is a discussion that is completely off topic – I agree with the author for too many times news agencies simply quote what they want to hear or the ignore apposing views. It is now very hard to find a good article that tries to show both sides fairly. That of course would not be entertainment.

            Anyways – you are right – we do disagree but not as to the issue of the environment – we have not had a discussion on that – I simply do not agree with your reply which does not add anything to the original post and only attempts to serve your own agenda.

            I guess my comments were rude – but I am tired of the brain dead comments that liter the internet. You just happened to hit a nerve after I had read a clearly written post – nothing too dramatic but some nice bits to check out.

          • But I can’t see how my comments were ‘off topic’. The article slates the Daily Mail for questioning the ‘global warming’ myth. I am defending the Daily Mail because I believe it is right and this article wrong! None of the scientists I speak to believe in ‘global warming’ yet it is on school curriculums indoctrinating our children – as it seems you yourself have been indoctrinated. What I do believe is the cause of all the freak weather we are having is deliberate intervention by man in a bid to control the climate – geoengineering. If this is all over your head or if it disturbs you too much then carry on believing what you want to believe – just don’t try to argue about something you obviously know nothing about – do some real research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz8fjHQqlpE&feature=share

  2. there is global change happening everyday,and the goverment needs to own up to it and start thinking of pogramsto assist in changes being made for our planet.


What do you think? Leave a comment!