Focus lies are selling poorly

Or so says KLIMARETTER.INFO. Here is the google auto-trans from the German:

Provocative it is, but apparently it is not enough: the issue of the conservative magazine, Focus on the benefits of global warming is only a little German kiosks have been sold to the. The booklet, entitled "Great atmosphere!" is , according to the Hamburger Abendblatt 84 000 times over the counter moved only - that is the worst result in the entire year 2010.

Just in time for the world climate summit in Cancun, Mexico made the Focus a frontispiece with, the polar bear with sunglasses showing a. For this, the headline: "New thinking: Global warming is good for us." In the summary, the claim into perspective: Climate change conferred no damage, but it is in many regions a blessing for man and nature. The The article itself is "new studies" spoken of, which showed that heating also) ADVANTAGE (! - but actually it is a truism, which is known since years.

In retrospect, the high density of a notorious facts not worth it for the Focus: The kiosk was selling about 25 percent below the average for the previous year.

So, denialist lies aren't selling well - though you'd need to compare it to other GW issues to see if it isn't just because people are bored with the whole topic.

More like this

Translation by a native speaker:

It is provocative, but apparently that is not enough: The edition of the conservative magazine Focus featuring the advantages of Global Warming sold poorly at German newspaper stands. The issue with the title "Topnotch Climate" found only 84.000 buyers, according to the Hamburger Abendblatt - the worst sales figure of the entire year 2010.

On time for the World Climate Conference in the Mexican Cancún the Focus opened with a cover picture featuring a polar bear wearing sunglasses. It was accompanied by the headline: "Rethink: Global Warming is good for us." In the table of contents this claim was toned down: Climate change would not only cause damages, but would be a blessing for man and nature in many regions of the world. The article referred to "new studies", which showed, that the warming would entail advantages, too(!) - which is a truism, known for many years.

In hindsight, hyping a well-known fact of the case did not pay off for the Focus: sales were 25% lower than last year's average. This can be seen from reference data of the Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung der Verbreitung von Werbeträgern (IVW) (roughly: Information Assosciation for Circulation of Advertising Media). According to their data, during the first nine months on average 113.000 papers were sold in retail, figures for the fourth quarter are not yet available.

[Thanks. But I thought google's version was funnier :-) -W]

How can "climate change would not only cause damages, but would be a blessing for man and nature in many regions of the world" be a denialist lie if "that the warming would entail advantages, a truism, known for many years"?

How can a magazine that does not deny global warming or it's causes be called denialist? Does mere disagreement on regional effects merit the denier label?

What does this have to do with a carbon tax?

By Paul Kelly (not verified) on 10 Jan 2011 #permalink

Paul Kelly: "Global warming is good for us" is a standard denier lie. And no, I do not accept the "it's just a headline" defense. It's the only thing most people will ever see. Besides, we do not know how much BS could be in the article.

Not to put a fine point on it, but that was the hook, the article was really about how Focus is losing out to der Spiegel (which as Eli remembers also had its interesting takes on much of the climate news) and is in economic trouble. Focus was set up as sort of the libertoonian, ain't entrepreneurs great answer to the vaguely left Spiegel, and this may be saying more about the fall of the Free Democrats than anything else

As far as I know, there is no global warming denail in our German media.