The Guardian officially goes full climate alarmist language

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.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wim Röst
May 18, 2019 6:11 am

Josh: great!

Reply to  Wim Röst
May 18, 2019 8:44 am

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.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Greg
May 19, 2019 4:55 am

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.

Reply to  Greg
May 20, 2019 1:39 am

What is amazing that everyone talks about six million Jews. Nobody talks about the seven million Gypsies, homosexuals and disabled people that they killed.

Reply to  Wim Röst
May 18, 2019 10:43 am

I second that. Great cartoon!

May 18, 2019 6:14 am

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.

Reply to  Fred
May 18, 2019 8:46 am

Yep, they made Rachael Madcow look balanced and objective !

Reply to  Greg
May 18, 2019 4:02 pm

Ms. Madcow pulls down $7M big ones per year.
She will say ANYTHING her handlers tell her to say.
And repeat it ad nauseam.

Reply to  Fred
May 18, 2019 9:10 am

Their funding appeals seem to have worked though…

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
May 18, 2019 10:20 am

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”

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Bryan A
May 18, 2019 12:28 pm

Barnum didn’t have the advantage of spellcheck when he wrote that.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 18, 2019 2:02 pm

there is a pheasant plucker born every minute?

Bryan A
Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 18, 2019 2:54 pm

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

Reply to  Bryan A
May 18, 2019 4:05 pm

Anyone who refers their prospective clientele as “Suckers” isn’t long for business

I don’t think that includes the politicians, do you?

Reply to  griff
May 19, 2019 2:53 am

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.

Reply to  griff
May 19, 2019 3:07 am

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.

May 18, 2019 6:20 am

I felt a raindrop. Run for high ground.

Reply to  Rick
May 18, 2019 7:35 am

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. )



PS: Thanks, CTM and Josh. Great post and cartoon.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 18, 2019 9:30 am

You can create three inch waves just from paddling?
You do man.

Reply to  Rick
May 18, 2019 7:51 am

Was it acidic, Rick?

Reply to  Rick
May 18, 2019 4:46 pm

Ben Vorlich
May 18, 2019 6:24 am

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?

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 18, 2019 8:49 am

Their new approved term is “climate science denier”.

I do deny what they are presenting is science.

Reply to  Greg
May 18, 2019 11:01 pm

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.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 18, 2019 10:48 am

Changing is synonym for varying.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Edim
May 18, 2019 12:40 pm

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.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 18, 2019 1:14 pm

What is the subtle difference between varying and changing? Same shit.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Edim
May 18, 2019 2:03 pm

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.”

Jack Roth
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 28, 2019 3:16 pm

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.

May 18, 2019 6:27 am

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John MacDonald
May 18, 2019 10:06 am

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!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 18, 2019 10:36 am

That storm is overhead of us now, working SW of Fort Worth.
No hail here.

May 18, 2019 6:39 am

Haven’t they heard of the story about the little boy that cried wolf?

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  SMC
May 18, 2019 7:03 am

Only little girls count at the Guardian….

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
May 18, 2019 9:42 am

Don’t go assuming gender, you’ll be on the naughty step in double quick time.

Reply to  SMC
May 18, 2019 9:02 am

It’s happening in Canada too. Catherine McKenna is panicking! “The science is absolutely clear.”

We need help!

Reply to  Sommer
May 18, 2019 10:20 am


You could always apply to Congress to join the union… as long as Quebec wasn’t part of the deal. 🙂

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Sommer
May 18, 2019 12:31 pm

“The science…”!

Sheesh!! I bet she couldn’t even name ‘the’ science involved.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 19, 2019 12:21 pm

They use “the science” in the same way a minister would use “the word of God”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  SMC
May 18, 2019 6:58 pm

Or Fonzi that jumped the shark?

Kurt in Switzerland
May 18, 2019 6:46 am

Delingpole is spot on, again!

Rhys Jaggar
May 18, 2019 7:03 am

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, 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.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
May 18, 2019 9:28 am

Thank you, Rhys!
I was not aware for and it’s a hoot!
The Gruniad provides an endless supply of fake news to debunk, ridicule, etc.

Reply to  Myrt
May 18, 2019 11:11 am

Not sure why this guy got tossed from the Guardian it looks like pretty much the same stuff to me.

May 18, 2019 7:06 am

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

May 18, 2019 7:06 am

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 .

May 18, 2019 7:12 am

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.

May 18, 2019 7:12 am

And the CBC continues spreading “alarmism” as the new normal:

Why David Wallace-Wells is OK with being called a climate change alarmist
‘Alarmism does have a track record of mobilizing people quite dramatically,’ says journalist
CBC Radio · Posted: May 17, 2019 2:00 PM ET | Last Updated: May 17

Climate change is all-encompassing and inescapable — no matter where you live or how wealthy you are, according to David Wallace-Wells.

The New York Magazine deputy editor and columnist has been called “alarmist” and a “bad news evangelist” for spreading this message, but he believes it’s the only effective way to talk about climate change.

Bruce Cobb
May 18, 2019 7:18 am

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.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 18, 2019 10:23 am

Hell (Michigan) freezes over on a regular basis. Mainly during the time of the year that most people welcome warming.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 18, 2019 10:27 am

Q: How can you tell when a Climate Catastrophist is Lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

Farmer Ch E retired
May 18, 2019 7:18 am

Mermaid, Unicorn, Climate Denier, Centauroid – all about the same arn’t they?

Pamela Gray
May 18, 2019 7:22 am

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?!?

Jacob Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 18, 2019 9:56 am

I’m like literally shaking

Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 18, 2019 6:07 pm


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. 😉

May 18, 2019 7:34 am

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.

Flight Level
May 18, 2019 7:37 am

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.

Crispin in Waterloo
May 18, 2019 7:41 am

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.)

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 18, 2019 11:50 am

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.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 18, 2019 3:36 pm

Yes indeed. Just right.

May 18, 2019 7:46 am

Seems like the promotion had gone full circle.
1.0- Anthropogenic Global Warming.
2.0 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
3.0 Anthropogenic Climate Change.
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?
Bob the scientific skeptic.

May 18, 2019 7:46 am

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’!

Joe Crawford
May 18, 2019 7:50 am

“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.

May 18, 2019 7:51 am

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”.

Jerry Palmer
May 18, 2019 7:52 am

Use Guardian instead of Toilet Paper

Reply to  Jerry Palmer
May 18, 2019 8:56 am

I wouldn’t disrespect that part of my anatomy!

Jerry Palmer
Reply to  Andrew Harding
May 18, 2019 4:29 pm

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.

May 18, 2019 7:52 am

Didn’t do the Aussie labour party any favours.

Yuk, Yuk, Yuk……………

J Mac
Reply to  HotScot
May 18, 2019 10:10 am

Looks like the Aussie climate alarmists were thumped smartly about the head and backside!
Good on ya, Mates!

mark from the midwest
May 18, 2019 7:56 am

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!

May 18, 2019 8:01 am

Do people actually believe what they read in the Guardian? I don’t know any.
Perhaps these periodicals should be used as education tools to demonstrate how to spot falsehoods in the media.
Guardian… prostitutes of journalism.

Joel O’Bryan
May 18, 2019 8:04 am

This is coming due to panic on the part of the Green Blob. And it nas nothing to do with stopping changing climate. Newspaper editors are being given instructions from owners who are part of the green investment swindles.
Make absolutley no mistake about what is happening to them, or about to happen to their investments.

Many Trillions of dollars of investments made by the Green Blob are at risk now that the climate scam is falling apart and collapsing.
Mostly they’ve gone in deep, and long investments and leveraged derivatives on renewable energ industries and wind farms. But with the public rejecting energy mandates, and the continued boom in natural gas supplies keeping prices down it is making it impossible for them to compete much less expand to the levels their investments need to succeed.

So yes it is time to Panic … if you’re multi-billion dollar fund manager deeply invested in the Green Blob.
And the marching orders are going out to their media lapdogs.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 18, 2019 12:04 pm

Good analysis. In long term obligations states are already withdrawing. See for example today’s WUWT “Indonesia Threatens to Withdraw From Paris Agreement Over Palm Oil”. EU knows that there will be no support for biofuels in the near future. But nobody dares to say: they are to deep into the mess in which all big parties (UN, EU, US) played too big a role themselves. So far it is behind the screens that things are happening.

Another example of their being aware of being on the wrong road: GERMANY, ITALY, HUNGARY & POLAND REJECT NET-ZERO CLIMATE TARGET

My guess: top politicians are desperately in search for simple theory’s on climate that give a proof for the fact that “It Ain’t Necessarily So” with climate as has been said. In search for ‘New Insights’ that give them a reason to ‘change roads’.

Behind the screens blogs as WUWT must be intensely followed by people who are doing the political long-term planning work.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Wim Röst
May 18, 2019 2:12 pm

Basically the climate scam is failing now, not because the shaky climate science is being rejected. It is failing because the economic arguments and the economic demands made by the various implementations of the COP agreements (Paris Agreement) are being rejected by increasingly more voters and politicians around the world.

Besides the US, there is now Poland, Indonesia, Brazil, Australia that are effectively rejecting “climate action” demands from alarmists each for differing reasons.
Even Canada’s new Alberta provincial government of Jason Kenney and United Conservatives, after rejecting Rachel Notley’s Leftwingers positions, is fighting Ottawa and Justin Trudeau. Kenny will likely prevail on these fights over environmental regulations and carbon taxes.

Compare where the Climate Scam was 3 years ago to today.
In 2016:
– Paris Agreement was widely being accepted by governments around the world.
– Alberta had a Progressive government implementing emissions reduction targets from oil sands operations.
– Hillary was assumed to be on her way for continuing Obama’s climate agenda, where she would also nominate Liberals to the US Supreme Court to cement executive actions on implementing the Paris INDCs and sending US dollars to the Climate aid fund.

Now everything is in disarray for the Left. And everything is on a trajectory to continue to get worse for the Climate Scam.

All the Left has available now in more alarmist rhetoric as it is steadily losing ground to economic realities and voter sentiments.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 19, 2019 3:38 am

No worries. Our Green Party leader said that we must be a good example to the world. So it seems like we are going to take care of all climate things.

And there´s some 5,5 million of us. It´s going to take a while, but we do it.

So, problem solved.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 18, 2019 7:09 pm

“So yes it is time to Panic … if you’re multi-billion dollar fund manager deeply invested in the Green Blob.”

Electric-car maker Tesla (TSLA) made a two-year low yesterday and closed at $211, down 154 points from its high in mid-December six months ago. It’s in the midst of a perfect storm of negative news.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 19, 2019 5:26 am

zerohedge ran an item saying hes down to 3.9mil which was the fundraising capital left..
not looking so good and the cars keep going up in flames or crashing or both.
and then there was the spacecapsule kaboom

May 18, 2019 8:25 am

This is hardly surprising given that the BBC – sometimes referred to as the broadcast wing of the Guardian – has recently declared climate science to be ‘settled’ and so considers it unnecessary to invite any opposing views on to discussions about AGW.

Surely ‘Groupthink’ deserves a place on the list of approved descriptions of the alleged phenomenon.

May 18, 2019 8:28 am

“Climate breakdown” occurs in three forms:

(a) What occurs when the satellite link is on the blink and climate-change can not be detected in real-time any longer.

(b) When the supercomputer is on the fritz due to being inappropriately used to keep the coffee pot warm.

(c) What happens when a country withdraws from the ‘Paris Agreement’ global climate-derangement scam.

May 18, 2019 8:44 am

From AOC to Michael Gove to the Grauniad, our enemies are going mad. “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow).

Doug S
May 18, 2019 8:44 am

Yes sir, a couple years ago here in California the crazies were running their propaganda presses full speed. “We’re entering a permanent drought”, “this is an emergency!” Well, today we’re expecting more rain. It’s been a wet winter and our spring is off to a very mild and wet start.

Reply to  Doug S
May 19, 2019 12:38 pm

You’re entering a permanent floodrought. 🙂

May 18, 2019 8:53 am

I bristle at the “Denier” slur.
Has any forecast of the “Alarmists” ever been correct?
My question is serious.
Most readers here know many of the false prophecies made by the Alarmists;
I’d like to see a list of their correct forecasts (if any).

charles nelson
May 18, 2019 8:54 am

Yes Greta…whatever you say Greta.

Rod Evans
May 18, 2019 9:04 am

Rest assured, what the Guardian has put into printed instruction is what the BBC has told them to do.
From here on, the BBC will also be using provocative phrases to ramp up their already fever pitch cant, on human induced climate change.
Just don’t subscribe to their nonsense and don’t visit any Guardian page which gives them revenue from click count.

James Clarke
May 18, 2019 9:09 am

“Increasingly, climate scientists…”

Really? Name them! Who are they? What are their qualifications? What is their background? Who pays them? What are they paid to do? What evidence do they use to support their increasingly alarmist claims?

Every time a crisis sceptic speaks, these questions are asked immediately and answered by the questioner in the most defamatory way possible. (Except for the last question. They don’t want to ask the last question of a crisis skeptic because they don’t want to hear any evidence contrary to their belief system.)

The Guardian, and the MSM in general, never asks these questions of the climate scientists who support the crisis paradigm. Those scientists are never questioned about their evidence, much less their motives.

It’s disgusting, but never discussed.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  James Clarke
May 18, 2019 11:58 am

“The Guardian, and the MSM in general, never asks these questions of the climate scientists who support the crisis paradigm. Those scientists are never questioned about their evidence, much less their motives.”

Exactly. Talk radio here in Seattle is generally Liberal, and never questions anything democratic. There are a couple of Libertarian/conservative voices, but they are often subverted.

I write in frequently to the morning show on KIRO radio especially, asking if they fact-checked the alarmist article they just read. There is never a response.

May 18, 2019 9:25 am

Use climate emergency, crisis or breakdown instead of climate change

Because nothing shows that we are panicking more than apocalyptic language.

Use global heating instead of global warming

Because everyone knows that heating is worse than warming.

Use wildlife instead of biodiversity

Because everyone knows that are readers are idiots and don’t understand big words.

Use fish populations instead of fish stocks

We don’t want to risk our readers the idea that fish can be considered a product that man might be allowed to use.

Use climate science denier or climate denier instead of climate skeptic

We can’t permit our readers to even start to believe that there is any rational reason to disagree with what we are preaching.

They really are pulling out all the stockes. They must realize how badly they are losing.

Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2019 10:25 am

Pulling out all the stops

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2019 10:53 am

Its instructive when a propaganda outlet admits it’s a propaganda outlet. They are saying that they don’t care about the opinions of any but their true believers.

May 18, 2019 9:27 am

Everyone knows that the only reason why Hitler sent his troops into Poland was to help with the local flower festival.

May 18, 2019 9:29 am

The Guardian is extreme in diverse ways, and a first, perhaps second-order forcing of climate change, which some characterize as positive.

Craig from Oz
May 18, 2019 9:35 am

I heard they also instructed their staff to refer to Bill Shorten as ‘Australia’s Next Prime Minister’ and not ‘that idiot no one actually likes’.

Why to go Australian Labor Party. Run your campaign around Climate Action.

If it wasn’t 2am here I would be laughing pretty hard right now.

May 18, 2019 9:44 am

I have a few counter suggestions:

Use catastrophy fanatic instead of climate scientist.

Use garbage compactor instead of computer model or general circulation model.

Use climate terrorist instead of climate activist or climate warrior.

Use CO2 bull shit instead of CO2 forcing, where appropriate.

Never use the word, mitigate, but always use the word, intimidate in its place.

Readers, please feel free to add your own. I’m sure that I’ve missed quite a few.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 18, 2019 12:00 pm


Paul R Johnson
May 18, 2019 9:44 am

Double plus ungood.

David L. Hagen
May 18, 2019 9:48 am

Beware the Climate-geld
Editor Vivian must be trying to conjure up bad news out of benign news to coerce readers into paying the Guardian. In 2007, A Guardian article clearly explained: “The good news about bad news – it sells”

One of (Pew research center’s) central findings is that, over the course of 20 years, peoples’ interests have remained remarkably similar. In short, they are war, weather, disaster, money and crime.

Citing Pew (2007): Two Decades of American News Preferences
Of “19 News Categories by Decade”, Pew found for those following “very closely” in 2000-2006, the top five categories were: “War/Terrorism (US Linked) 43%; Bad Weather 40%; Man made disasters 34%; Natural disasters 37%; and Money 40%”
So Vivian’s strategy to increase the Guardian’s revenue is to rewrite its editorial policies to very clearly appeal to these fear driven interests. i.e., transform benign/beneficial “global warming” into “Bad Weather” with “Man made disasters” and “Natural disasters”, all driven by the IPCC bureaucrats, “climaste” scientists, Greens, and news editors all demanding $ trillions in “Money” (aka “Dane-Geld”). Thus transform honest skeptical scientist into “climate science denier” or “climate denier” inferring the abhorrant “Holocaust denier.”
“Dane-geld” by Kipling

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
“We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
“Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

May 18, 2019 9:59 am

Great Australian election result where the least stupid parties look like clinging to Govt.

May 18, 2019 10:00 am

Just to be clear,

I am a climate science critic

I am a climate change definitional purist

I am a catastrophic manifesto challenger

I don’t believe in Santa, fairies, elves, unicorns, leprechauns, or Big Foot. Oh, I forgot, … and wind/solar “renewable-energy futures”, unless space aliens (which I DO believe in), at an advanced technological stage, decide that humans are worth the trouble to show how to do it.

I am a CO2 sinner who denies the need to be saved. I’m made of carbon, and I’m proud of it [should I do the T-shirt?].

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 18, 2019 12:02 pm

I would add, for me anyway, I don’t believe in anything without evidence.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 18, 2019 2:13 pm

Just a simple slogan will do Robert.


Bryan A
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 18, 2019 2:57 pm

I’ll take 3 T-shirts

J Mac
May 18, 2019 10:17 am

Guardian Editorial Guidance:
When you have no verifiable evidence to support your position, call your opponents vile names and ban them from responding.

May 18, 2019 10:43 am

It’s the Graniad for gawd’s sake.
The fake news outlet that’s little more that mental massage for for hard of thinking.

Mike Maguire
May 18, 2019 10:48 am

Extreme activism being disguised as science and journalism. We are living in a time, of one of the biggest scandals in history. The blatantly biased media, abusing the freedom of the press to impose their extreme views on us with impunity…………….no entity to hold them accountable.

Mike Maguire
May 18, 2019 10:58 am

Maybe you noticed the picture and caption to the linked story/announcement.

“Melting Arctic ice forces animals to search for food on land, such as these polar bears in northern Russia.”

“The destruction of Arctic ecosystems forces animals to search for food on land, such as these polar bears in northern Russia. Photograph: Alexander Grir/AFP/Getty Images”

What they failed to mention is this:

“In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.

Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.

A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice. “

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
May 18, 2019 11:24 am
Damian Ousley
May 18, 2019 11:10 am

With the Australian Federal election now over, and with it the sad demise of Tony Abbott in the seat of Warringah. It took untold massive efforts by the ultra leftist group Getup to have him unseated. Others that had to contend with Getups targeted attacks have appeared to hold onto there seats. A complete waste of time money and resources by Getup.

But in the language of the New Gardian language guide Tony Abbott will still be current of assistance in his community As in his other roles as a surf life saver and a volunteer fire fighter. The man has great community spirit. Climate Disasters Guardian style, bring on the heavy seas, big waves and bushfires, we the comunity can handle them together as we have all ways done in this country in our own way. Tony commented he was going to assist soon with fuel reduction burns in his local area. That fighting fire with fire must be a concept alien in the new guardian lexicon and totally politically incorrect.

The new left only targeted the major city seats of a few dominant liberal coalition members with little result of only one scalp. The greens and labour will have to lick their wounds as their platform of a new climate change and high tax policies were treated with some distain by the average voter.

And Getup will not get away Scot free for their thuggish electioneering tacktics used in this election. The Big Fat Momma of the Australia Tax Office is looking at them for not paying tax on donations made to them. Which is the case for a body that does not have charity status. Any contribution to them is considered income. And can be subject to taxation. Though being free minded leftists they are crying already they don’t have to pay tax on donations to them. Being a political lobby group they cannot claim tax exemption status.

Reply to  Damian Ousley
May 18, 2019 1:42 pm

Rules are for the little people. They were never meant to apply to the self appointed saviors of mankind.

Reply to  Damian Ousley
May 19, 2019 5:39 am

i got their email tonight patting themselves for ousting TA
curiously they refer TWICE to their supporting First Nations people
hmm? AUSTRALIANS call them ABORIGINALS OR Indigenous
so what OS / American wrote their email I wonder?
I was on a site called Agmates years ago then WE got infiltrate by them after the NO Coarbon tax rally across AUS to stop the carbon tax, they took over the webpage and locked the owner out, forcd a lot of topics to sectioned off areas and allowed trolling on all topical or climate posts.
theyve hated Abbott since those days. it was a targeted vendetta they admit
and they support some shiela whos prior is skiing and not much else?
but shes a malleable believer, and thats all they require.

May 18, 2019 11:21 am

Was anybody aware that a few climate scientists disagree strongly with this alarmistic language ( see some twitter accounts…)? Perhaps this can trigger a backfire: The “code” used by the Guardien will find some copyists around the world and many real climate scientists will defeat it. Or the other way around: who not defeats it is not a climate scientist. It could be have a positive outcome.

May 18, 2019 11:29 am

Shame on you sceptics for scoffing at the evidence of climate change. The sea near us has risen some 6 feet in just a couple of hours. What is that if its not clear evidence of rampant and dangerous sea level rise?

What? Its just the tide coming in? Denier!.


May 18, 2019 11:38 am

Climate solutions
Taking psychotropic drugs and rebuking the carbon demon on twitter to ward off impending climate nervous breakdown

May 18, 2019 11:40 am

Climate science denier. Not accidentally, this is what voices of sanity like Judith Curry, Roger Pielke jr, Bjørn Lomborg, and John Christy are called by climate alarmists.

This resembles every day more and more the seventies where people were divided to right-minded progressives (socialists or communists of various atheist flavours) and regressives (West minded market-oriented businessmen and Christians).

Today, many hateful words have replaced ‘regressives’. One of them is deniers, others include misogynes, racists, white, privileged, homophobes, *phobes, Republicans, far-right, conservatives, hate speakers, nationalists, you name it. But the intent is the same. To paint ‘regressives’ a group of people one should not listen to, a group that should not be heard, not have a voice at all. In some yet extreme cases, the audience applauds when they call impeachment and death on people they tried to frame guilty to treason.

Reply to  Hugs
May 19, 2019 3:12 pm

Of course, like most lefty labels, the opposite is the reality. It’s the so-called progressives who want human civilization to regress back to a state that greatly resembles feudalism, albeit with modern-day amenities for the lords of the manor.

Mike Maguire
May 18, 2019 12:00 pm

Interesting article:

George Orwell Explains How “Newspeak” Works, the Official Language of His Totalitarian Dystopia in 1984

“In other words, Newspeak isn’t just a set of buzzwords, but the deliberate replacement of one set of words in the language for another. The A class contains “everyday life” words that have been mutated with cumbersome prefixes and intensifiers: “uncold” for warm, “pluscold and doublepluscold” for “very cold” and “superlatively cold.”

Mark - Helsinki
May 18, 2019 12:32 pm

Viner was installed at the Guardian by the powers that be after the Greenwald Snowden debacle that embarrassed the intelligence agencies.

The Guardian was threatened by the UK gov, and then it’s editor was replaced a year later, with Viner.

Since then the Guardian has penned propaganda pieces about the white helmets, fabricated stories about Assange meeting with Manafort and several propaganda pieces where they painted Al Qaeda as victims of Russia and Assad in Idlib.

Viner serves the UK establishment, she was placed to make sure the guardian never stray ever again and allow another Greenwald to wander off the reservation.

Mark - Helsinki
May 18, 2019 12:33 pm

Never click a Guardian link, ever.

Harry Passfield
May 18, 2019 12:35 pm

Please, Anthony, get this delay in posting comments sorted. It never used to happen. Has your site been ‘got-at’ to try and dissuade posters coming her? It’s beginning to work…

May 18, 2019 1:37 pm

I recall reading where people are being reported to the police for all sorts of nonsense, like referring to a transexual using the wrong pronoun, and the police investigate it as a hate crime (safer than investigating knife crimes, I guess).

I think if anyone in the UK were to call me a denier, I would feel obligated to report it as a hate crime.

May 18, 2019 1:44 pm

The Guardian, the National Inquirer of environmentalism?

Willem post
May 18, 2019 1:49 pm

Thé Guardian should be closed down.
Cancel all your subscriptions.
Deprive them of income.
Eventually, it will sing a different tune.

Can you imagine an Editor writing such a memo.
It is sheer mind control of the staff and then of the readership.
I would fire her on the spot.

May 18, 2019 3:51 pm

Brexit; Trump; now Aus.

Who’s next?!

The proles are revolting!

May 18, 2019 4:09 pm

Yes indeed. Just right.

Mike Maguire
May 18, 2019 5:48 pm

According to this, The Guardian is only left-center on the political scale:

I worked as chief meteorologist for the local CBS station for 11 years(1982-1993) and am familiar with the media bias towards the left from having them as co-workers. I was pretty liberal myself in those days.

Actually, there’s nothing wrong with being liberal if you have ethics, sincerity, objectivity and justification for good policies, including authentic facts to back them up.

The liberal mindset of a few decades ago, however is being left farther and farther behind. And along with it, in the media, professional journalism has been discarded on most political topics, especially this one and replaced with activism.

This is not breaking news.

However, when it gets to the point of this open declaration in the Guardian, it’s diabolical thinking. They are so trapped in this climate crisis activist mindset that it blinds them from seeing the complete contradictions that their new verbiage policy causes with their commitment to provide their readers with truthful, honest, 2 sided coverage of news.

They are, in essence saying there is only 1 side to this issue, their side and their policy is to promote that side in ALL articles on this topic and discredit the other side by referring to them with a term that’s associated with Holocaust deniers.

Whats new here, in this age of escalating media leftist activism and bias, is not that it exists or is getting much worse but that its so bad, that they are just making it known publicly because of arrogance and knowing that there are no entities that can hold them accountable to following ethical standards.

How does this thing happen?

Blatant abuse of freedom of the press and again, no entity to hold the media accountable for telling the truth, stating accurate facts or telling 2 sides of any story.

michael hart
May 18, 2019 6:37 pm

“The original terms are not banned, but do think twice before using them.”

Which translates from newspeak into English as

“…because you’d hate to find yourself suddenly unemployed, wouldn’t you?”

Snarling Dolphin
May 18, 2019 7:18 pm

Use “fear mongering fish wrap” instead of “Guardian.”

Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
May 19, 2019 3:22 pm

Wrapping fish in Grauniad print is an insult to our planet’s piscene denizens.

Gary Palmgren
May 19, 2019 6:49 am

At least they seem to be going back to the one way, temperature goes up with carbon dioxide hypothesis. After a decade of lectures on global warming and greenhouse effect, the “climate change” phrase was used to indicate any change, hot or cold, was the result of increasing carbon dioxide.

I got a laugh out of bystanders when I asked, “Does the ‘climate change’ phrase mean we can now refrigerate our food in a greenhouse?”

May 19, 2019 11:48 am

They want to be “precise”. Interesting choice of words since scientifically, “precision” means that a measurement shows little variation and is not he same as “accurate” which means that the measurements is close to the actual value. A “precise” measurement can be totally incorrect and that is what they are aiming for: a consistent warming apocalypse message.

May 19, 2019 12:49 pm

“…please check with the audience team.” What in thew world is “the Audience Team” — who is on that team, and what do they do? Sounds a .ot like the “Office of Social Propaganda”

Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 19, 2019 12:50 pm

typing not my strong point today…..”What in the world is “the Audience Team” — who is on that team? and what do they do? Sounds a lot like the “Office of Social Propaganda”

Steve O
May 19, 2019 5:54 pm

More guidelines.

Apply hysteria instead of science.
Use feelings instead of thought.
Use rhetoric instead of argument.

May 20, 2019 12:21 pm

So much for freedom of the press . This just confirms what a piece of propaganda garbage the Guardian is .
There is something seriously wrong with the ownership and senior management of the Guardian .
Who do they owe ?

May 23, 2019 11:45 pm

I’ve received a few emails from Mozilla recently. They’re going on about the online misinformation issue and how they’re doing their bit to combat it.

In one email, they praised The Guardian for their part in fighting misinformation and even made a short video of a Mozilla guy presenting a big ‘thank you’ card to The Guardian:

I’m not that familiar with The Guardian and so I didn’t think much of Mozilla’s gesture, but after I saw that guidance note on language from the editor, I became suspicious.

In another email, Mozilla takes the anti-vaccination movement as an example of misinformation. At the bottom of the email they say “Other bad actors are using the same tactics on issues from climate change to political unrest.”

Seems to me that on the climate issue Mozilla are at risk of becoming part of the problem they’re wanting to defeat.

Mozilla needs to be set straight on climate change before it starts weighing in too heavily on the issue and before it starts campaigning to censor climate emergency deniers online on the grounds of ‘misinformation’.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights