The Guardian’s editor has just issued this new guidance to all staff on language to use when writing about climate change and the environment…and it is full-on alarmism. No holding back punches now, because it’s a crisis, so let’s start writing like one! Josh helps us understand the real message.
HT/Willie Soon via Leo Hickman
Josh has interpreted this new policy:
James Delingpole notes:
There is, in essence, no such thing is a ‘climate science denier’ because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of ‘climate science’.
Even more problematic is that use of the word ‘denier’, which implicitly invokes the Holocaust – and in doing so, weirdly and irresponsibly puts ‘being sceptical about anthropogenic global warming’ in the same category as ‘denying that Hitler murdered six million Jews.’
In recent years, climate alarmists have tried to backtrack on the origins of the ‘denier’ slur by pretending that they never intended to invoke Holocaust denial.
But here is Guardian environment journalist George Monbiot writing in 2006:
Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.
Maybe Ms Viner should pay more attention to Thomas Sowell on this subject:
The next time someone talks about “climate change deniers,” ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.
Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called “climate change deniers”? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of “global warming.”
There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.
Sowell’s point is well made – and goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Guardian‘s new lexicon for its climate change reportage.
The Guardian is tacitly admitting that this is not an argument it is capable of winning on the science or indeed the facts. Therefore, it has decided to ramp up the rhetoric instead.
Josh: great!
pretty sick that a paper where half the staff ( including chief editor Viner ) are Jewish , they are so quick to devalue the Holocaust to provide cheap insults for those who challenge their “climate” agenda.
100%. Agree.
Only a few years ago, drawing a parallel between the actual Holocaust and anything else, would have caused huge uproar and objections. It holds a particular value in our history and to this day, it’s horrific treatment of its victims, should never be forgotten. It is therefore so disgusting to attempt to draw such a parallel with the phony climate crusade, it deserves, not just the ridicule, but severely dealt with in the law courts. Just as some terms or labels have become recognised as hate speech, so should this. First and foremost because of its deliberate intention to make the false association. Second, it is not even accurate. If anyone is in denial of something, it is the Alarmists. They are in denial that the climate has a 4.5Bn year history of changing.
What is amazing that everyone talks about six million Jews. Nobody talks about the seven million Gypsies, homosexuals and disabled people that they killed.
I second that. Great cartoon!
Guardian journalists are not true journalists, their zealots and a disgrace to journalism. I laugh when I read their funding pleas on their E-articles…figure the odds Guardian! People aren’t as stupid as they think they are…look at tonight’s election results in Australia where the key Labor issue was cataclysmic climate change, the end of the world in 10 years, 50% renewables now, kill the evil Adani coal mine in Queensland…and they got slaughtered…lost the election that was ‘impossible to lose’. Again, people aren’t as stupid as they think they are.
Yep, they made Rachael Madcow look balanced and objective !
Ms. Madcow pulls down $7M big ones per year.
She will say ANYTHING her handlers tell her to say.
And repeat it ad nauseam.
Their funding appeals seem to have worked though…
And P. T. Barnum might have accurately surmised the situation over 150 years ago (it is unclear if he ever stated the phrase though it is often attributed to him)
“There is a sucker born every minute”
Barnum didn’t have the advantage of spellcheck when he wrote that.
there is a pheasant plucker born every minute?
Barnum might not have coined it or even said it, although he probably believed it. Anyone who refers their prospective clientele as “Suckers” isn’t long for business
I don’t think that includes the politicians, do you?
It’s a climate apocalypse it doesn’t matter how much funding you have Griff.
The zombie polar bears will hunt us down .. we are doomed.
Thr Graun has cut its losses by diminishing the actual amount of journalism in the paper. More and more opinion pieces, less and less real news.
I felt a raindrop. Run for high ground.
Eeek, Rick!!! Not a raindrop ! Oh no!
I was just out paddling on the lake, and I noticed three-inch waves beating against the shore. Sure sign of a disaster in the making. (Ooops. That was my wake. Note to me: Do not repeat this comment; they’ll ban kayaking because of the environmental damage. )
Regards,
Bob
PS: Thanks, CTM and Josh. Great post and cartoon.
You can create three inch waves just from paddling?
You do man.
Was it acidic, Rick?
I would say I’m a Climate Change Denier, it’s not changing it’s just doing what it’s always done, varyi g within the range it’s always varied. How can that be described as changing?
Their new approved term is “climate science denier”.
I do deny what they are presenting is science.
I like climate emergency denier. If they are going to call it climate emergency then calling me a climate emergency denier is more accurate then climate denier. Since accuracy is what the claim to be aiming for.
Changing is synonym for varying.
My English teacher taught that using the same word several times in a sentence or paragraph was to be avoided. Particularly when you wanted convey nuances in meaning. The great strength of the English language is its huge vocabulary with many words which are synonyms but subtly different. Pity the French whose language with a far smaller lexicon and the same word has a multitude of meanings which only become clear when taken in context.
What is the subtle difference between varying and changing? Same shit.
Changing can be used as in: “I’m changing from being an asshole into having toxic masculinity.”
Varying can be used as in: “I’m varying my alcohol intake in proportion to the twittiness of the comments I’m reading.”
The great strength of the English language is its very simple structure and minimal rules, compared to Romance languages which are much more complex with many more rules, tenses and modes. The flip side is that it is hard in English to build complex, lengthy sentences, something that is considerably easier with Romance languages.
Oh no! Doom and gloom! Climate change is ruining my day!
Wait, that’s true for me right now in Oklahoma City…severe t-storm complex with tornado watches, heavy rain, lots of lightning.
My motorcycle is drenched. I will stick with Motel 6 for a few hours.
I won’t pass the time reading the Guardian.
There are five tornado warnings active right now in Eastern Oklahoma. One of them about five miles north of me.
I don’t know how strong they are yet.
The Storm Chasers are giving chase!
That storm is overhead of us now, working SW of Fort Worth.
No hail here.
Haven’t they heard of the story about the little boy that cried wolf?
Only little girls count at the Guardian….
Don’t go assuming gender, you’ll be on the naughty step in double quick time.
It’s happening in Canada too. Catherine McKenna is panicking! “The science is absolutely clear.”
https://twitter.com/cathmckenna/status/1129555973180448770/video/1
We need help!
Sommer,
You could always apply to Congress to join the union… as long as Quebec wasn’t part of the deal. 🙂
Sheesh!! I bet she couldn’t even name ‘the’ science involved.
They use “the science” in the same way a minister would use “the word of God”.
Or Fonzi that jumped the shark?
Delingpole is spot on, again!
The first thing people should question is Viner’s basis for having any authority to judge the climate issue.
1. Does she have any qualifications whatsoever in science in general and climatology in particular?
2. Has she ever worked in any job where climate significantly impacts outcomes e.g. farming, shipping, snow clearing, water management etc etc?
On a more pragmatic note, no one is obliged to believe anything the Guardian prints. I gave up reading the Guardian long ago, switching to reading the blog off-guardian.org, set up by those banned from commenting at the Guardian for disagreeing with editorial lines (ditto yours truly) and generally not giving any kind of stuff as to whatever nonsense they happen to be churning out now…
Moreover, the more people they alienate, the less solvent they will be. Having said that, parallel universes often attract fervent believers.
Thank you, Rhys!
I was not aware for off-guardian.org and it’s a hoot!
The Gruniad provides an endless supply of fake news to debunk, ridicule, etc.
Not sure why this guy got tossed from the Guardian it looks like pretty much the same stuff to me.
Morrison has won in Australia. I reckon Australians are sick and tired of the AGW scam especially in Qld where the Liberals/nationals have made huge gains. Of course MSM will not mention this
The Guardian is fake news , a media outlet that has so few subscribers and advertising it has to beg at the bottom of the page .
The idea that being a skeptic is a ‘bad thing ‘ in science can only come from those that known f-all about science which only advances through the asking of questions of and the analysis of claims.
And the CBC continues spreading “alarmism” as the new normal:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/why-large-scale-activism-is-the-most-powerful-path-out-of-climate-despair-1.5139075/why-david-wallace-wells-is-ok-with-being-called-a-climate-change-alarmist-1.5139082
Q: How can you tell when a Climate Alarmist is telling the truth?
A: When Hell has frozen over.
Q2: How can you tell when Hell has frozen over?
A: When an Alarmist dies, their skates go missing.
Hell (Michigan) freezes over on a regular basis. Mainly during the time of the year that most people welcome warming.
Q: How can you tell when a Climate Catastrophist is Lying?
A: Their lips are moving.
Mermaid, Unicorn, Climate Denier, Centauroid – all about the same arn’t they?
Climate breakdown IS happening! Like today, there were patches of clouds here and there, and worse! Sometimes the Sun came out from behind the clouds. Even more worse, I thought it was going to be most cloudy but it turned out to be mostly sunny! How breakdownish weird is that?!?
I’m like literally shaking
Pamela,
I hate it when that happens. Don’t know whether to wear the partly cloudy sunglasses or the partly sunny sunglasses. Most times I just wear the ones with a missing lens. 😉
The meaning of a climate change skeptic should be changed to mean those who are skeptical that the IPCC has the legitimacy to establish what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports, Owing to their conflict of interest requiring support for the agenda of the UNFCCC, the contents of those reports has been drifting farther and farther away from the ground truth, and it’s only getting worse.
It’s actually good news when the ennemi tries to get big bangs from damp squibs. Who needs science, words is all they have.
Back in 2009 world leaders were united at “the bedhead” of the dying climate. So if it was dying back then, it should be now referred as “zombie” or “resuscitated”, mysticism is the new green future.
Temperatures and weather events of convenience have been selected from time to time to support the claims of impending catastrophe. Please note everyone, the ENSO meter on the right side of every WUWT page. The needle is creeping down again, after a long, weak positive position, signalling the end of another era.
What follows, with the impending weak solar cycle, is a lengthy period of net heat loss from the planet’s oceans similar to the one 1940-1976. Gentle cooling will continue as the CO2 level continues to rise, 800 year behind the MWP’s peak circa 1250 AD – the time of the largest empire the world has ever known.
The idea that, “the climate is broken and it is our fault” will come to replace the “CO2 is driving global heating” story line. So be it. The silly-solution-brigade will wither from destruction to distraction.
In the meantime, the marketing of “renewable power as cheap” will continue, presuming incorrectly that cheapness was the reason behind generating technology selection in the first place. With nuclear power now being claimed to be “more expensive that wind” we can look forward to a new argument: “It is worth paying more for power that stays on all the time.” A new marketing campaign based on fear-mongering about the mismanaged and antiquated Japanese plant at Fukushima has commenced. So together with the claims of “it is an emergency” and “wind is cheap”, expect “atomic power stations are too expensive.” Unless you want a lot of CO2-free power day and night, of course.
(PS I’ll bet Monbiot wishes he hadn’t said that in 2006.)
Every year someone says it will start cooling dramatically “soon”. I believe those about as much as I believe the mainstream alarmism. The fact is, no one knows.
Yes indeed. Just right.
Seems like the promotion had gone full circle.
1.0- Anthropogenic Global Warming.
2.0 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
3.0 Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Now:
4.0 Anthropogenic Climate Emergency, Crisis, or Breakdown instead of (2.0)
5.0 Anthropogenic Global Heating instead of (1.0)
I’ve used the number system, particularly with the 2.0 that the almost terminally anxious adore.
Now, Anthony will this new style guide be required on WUWT?
If so, can we use the number ID system I’ve outlined?
Respectively,
Bob the scientific skeptic.
I firmly believe that the climate changes on a recurring basis. I have an Excel chart I put together covering a 600,000+ year period that shows EXACTLY that. It also shows that the warm periods are, almost without exception, shorter than the coldish periods. That implies (in an unscientific way) that THIS warm period can definitely be coming to an end.
And then there’s that “wobble” that the planet makes that changes its angle of rotation, plus the amount of hemispherical exposure to the Sun’s radiation.
Oh, dear me – wouldn’t that all confuse the Greenbeaners and Ecowarriors and Followers of GT? Just askin’!
“There is, in essence, no such thing is a ‘climate science denier’ because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of ‘climate science’.”
Guess I have to differ with you on that. I am a ‘climate science denier’, I am not a ‘climate change denier’. Since the so called ‘climate scientists’ don’t accept or follow the scientific method what they, the ’97 percent’, do isn’t science. Granted, there are a few actual scientists out there that follow the scientific method and study the climate, but their reputations suffer, occasionally to the point of getting fired, they are ostracized by their peers and they can rarely publishing in the leading journals.
I have a hunch they’ll be pilloried early and often with the “global heating” ‘nomenclature’. Now every out of season cold front or polar surge will be the product of “global heating”.
Use Guardian instead of Toilet Paper
I wouldn’t disrespect that part of my anatomy!
Actually, I’m going to retract that.. it’s already impregnated with so much excrement that it is ineffective for the task and will just make matters worse in that area.
Didn’t do the Aussie labour party any favours.
Yuk, Yuk, Yuk……………
Looks like the Aussie climate alarmists were thumped smartly about the head and backside!
Good on ya, Mates!
The Gaar-D-Anne is pessimistic about just about everything, but they have a solution, turn the keys to the whole shootin’ match over to a bunch on elitist pessimists whole will insure that they tax everything to the point that no one can afford it except for a bunch of over-paid elitist pessimists. I we do this right we can be just like 18th Century France, only this time we will have solar powered guillotines!