Opinion by Kip Hansen – 5 May 2021
If you’ve recently read a newspaper, popular magazine, science journal or watched a major television news outlet, you have probably seen news item after news item regarding the Climate Crisis or the Climate Emergency. Story after story, covering medicine, weather, ecology, biology, psychology, emigration, international conflict and pet care, all converge on the single story-line that there is an ongoing, ever-present terrifyingly dangerous Climate Crisis, affecting every aspect of human existence.
As Dr. Judith Curry pointed out, TIME Magazine has published cover story titled Climate is Everything.
Where is all this coming from? One of the major sources is Covering Climate Now, which characterizes itself this way:
CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.
Co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation in association with The Guardian and WNYC in 2019, CCNow’s 460-plus partners include some of the biggest names in news, and some of the smallest, because this story needs everyone. In addition to three of the world’s biggest news agencies — Reuters, Bloomberg, and Agence France Presse — each of which provides content to thousands of other newsrooms, our partners include CBS News, NBC and MSNBC News, Noticias Telemundo, PBS NewsHour, Univision, Al Jazeera; most of the biggest public radio stations in the US; many flagship newspapers and TV networks in the Americas, Europe, and Asia; and dozens of leading magazines and journals, including Nature, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, HuffPost, Teen Vogue, and Mother Jones.
You may have thought the news was produced by independent news organizations and journalists. That is simply no longer the case when it comes to climate news. The most powerful news agencies and news outlets are shaping and coordinating coverage of every news beat to include “the climate emergency” in every story – whether or not there is any factual basis to do so. It is not even any longer true the journals of science – Scientific American and The Lancet are both members.
Notably, The New York Times and the Washington Post reportedly declined membership on the basis that the effort “seemed like activism”. Both of these newpapers rightfully didn’t wish to appear to be engaged in activist journalism but both have their own Climate Crisis editorial narratives. Don’t be fooled though, both papers write climate activism – they are just not guided in doing so by CCNow.
Just how slanted, just how bizarrely biased, is the coverage promoted by CCNow? Here is their “Best Practices” list:
1. Say yes to the science. There are not two sides to a fact. For too long, especially in the US, the media juxtaposed climate science—a matter of overwhelming global consensus—with climate skepticism and denialism—seldom more than thinly-veiled protections of the fossil fuel industry. The resulting implication that these positions are equal, or that the jury is somehow still out, is in large part responsible for the public disengagement and political paralysis that have met the climate crisis so far. As journalists, we must write about climate change with the same clarity of the scientists who have been sounding the alarms for decades. Platforming those scientists’ detractors in an effort to “balance” our stories not only misleads the public, it is inaccurate. Where climate denialism cannot be avoided—when it comes from the highest levels of government, for example—responsible journalistic framing makes clear that it is counterfactual, if not rooted in bad faith.
2. The climate crisis is a story for every beat. At its core, the climate story is a science story. But whether you cover business, health, housing, education, food, national security, entertainment, or something else, there is always a strong climate angle to be found. And climate need not be a story’s central focus to merit mention. Also, journalists should be sure to emphasize the human-side of the climate story. For political reporters, for example, Biden’s climate agenda obviously deserves coverage. But audiences will likely be more engaged by stories that start with how the climate emergency is seen and felt by ordinary people — and then discuss how government policy can make a difference. In the words of renowned climate author Bill McKibben, climate change is “an exciting story filled with drama and conflict. It’s what journalism was made for.”
3. Emphasize the experiences—and activism—of the poor, communities of color, and indigenous people. Environmental justice is key to the climate story. The poor, people of color, and indigenous people have long suffered first and worst from heat waves, floods, and other climate impacts. Yet their voices and stories are too often omitted from news coverage. Good climate reporting not only highlights these people’s trevails, it also recognizes that they are frequently leading innovators at the forefront of the climate fight. Coverage that focuses overwhelmingly on wealthy communities and features only white voices is simply missing the story.
4. Ditch the Beltway “he-said, she-said.” There are of course plenty of urgent climate stories to be told from halls of government. But when we treat the climate story first and foremost as a political dogfight, we give the narrative over to the same intractable partisanship that so degrades the rest of our political coverage. (One side wants to act. The other doesn’t. Looks like nothing can be done.) By foregrounding partisanship in our climate coverage, we also risk losing huge swaths of audiences that likely feel they get more than enough political news as it is. And, for those readers, viewers, and listeners whose political views are ensconced in one camp or the other, we forego opportunities to challenge assumptions.
5. Avoid “doom and gloom.” We can and must understand the epochal consequences of climate change. If our coverage is always negative, however, it “leaves the public with an overall sense of powerlessness,” in the words of former NPR reporter Elizabeth Arnold. “It just reaches this point where people feel hopeless and overwhelmed,” Arnold told Journalist’s Resource in 2018. “And when we feel that way, psychologists say, we tend to just avoid and deny, and tune out.” Indeed, for every wildfire or galling instance of denial by the powerful, there are untold multitudes of innovators and activists who are pioneering solutions. By elevating those stories, we show that climate change is not a problem too big to understand—or to tackle.
6. Go easy on the jargon. This is a tried and true tenet of journalism generally, but it especially applies here. The climate story is chock full of insider-y verbiage—parts per million of carbon dioxide, micrograms of particulate matter, and fractions of degrees Centigrade. The meanings and implications of these terms might be familiar to those who’ve been on the beat for decades, but they may be quite unfamiliar to some who are reading or watching our coverage. Always assume that your target audience is not scientists or fellow climate journalists and ask yourself: How can I help someone new to the problem understand it easily and accurately? Where possible, avoid clustering technical terms. And when attempting to quantify climate change, try to employ simple analogies. For example, when explaining how global warming contributed to the record wildfires in Australia, John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist, likened it to baseball players on steroids: a great slugger will hit plenty of home runs in any case, but a great slugger who takes steroids will hit more of them.
7. Beware of “greenwashing.” Companies around the world are waking up to public demands for eco-conscious business practices. Pledges to “go green,” however, often amount to little more than marketing campaigns that obscure unmitigated carbon footprints. So shun the stenography and cast a skeptical eye on grand promises of net-zero or carbon-negative emissions, especially from big-name companies that have historically been a big part of the problem.
8. Extreme weather stories are climate stories. The news is awash in hurricanes, floods, unseasonable snow dumps, record heatwaves, and drought. They are not all due to climate change, but the increased frequency and intensity of such extreme weather certainly is. Yet much news coverage makes little to no mention of the climate connection, leaving audiences without context and unaware that humanity is already experiencing climate disruption. (Worse still, some coverage greets this bad news with cheer. An alarmingly unseasonable heat snap, for example, is “a much welcome break from the cold.”) The climate connection need not dominate coverage, nor distract from the vital information audiences need in the face of emergency weather conditions—but mentioning it is a must.
9. Jettison the outdated belief that climate coverage repels audiences and loses money. Climate stories have a bad reputation as low-traffic ratings killers. This might have been true in the past, but demographic shifts and growing public awareness have brought increased demands for smart, creative climate coverage—especially from young audiences, for whom the climate emergency is often top-of-mind. Indeed, there’s good evidence that strong climate coverage can actually boost a news outlet’s bottom line.
10. For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists. We understand as well as anyone that opinion pages occasionally need to push the envelope with unpopular takes. But there is no longer any good faith argument against climate science—and if one accepts the science, one also accepts the imperative for rapid, forceful action. Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus, or ridicule climate activism, don’t belong in a serious news outlet.
Note: Some of the bolded intros to each section are in newspeak, in which the words used don’t necessarily mean what they say. The “Say yes to the science”, for instance, really means “only speak of science that dictates a climate crisis – never mention contrary facts or opinions”. Worse than that, CCNow recommends that if contrary science must be presented, then it should be framed as “inaccurate” and “counterfactual, if not rooted in bad faith.” It is forbidden by CCNow to report facts or opinions not in alignment with the Climate Emergency meme. This is reinforced in item 10: “For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists.” Insisting that “there is no longer any good faith argument against climate science—and if one accepts the science, one also accepts the imperative for rapid, forceful action. Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus, or ridicule climate activism, don’t belong in a serious news outlet.”
This whole CCNow effort is the very definition of the antithesis to journalism. Journalism is meant to inform the public of the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of issues facing the populace. CCNow wants to propagandize the public.
Propagandize? Yes, precisely the correct word.
prop·a·gan·dize /ˌpräpəˈɡanˌdīz/
verb derogatory
- promote or publicize a particular cause, organization, or view, especially in a biased or misleading way. Similar: advocate
- attempt to influence (someone) with propaganda.
“people who have to be emotionalized and propagandized by logical arguments”
Whenever there are demands to present only one side of any issue, and to actively denigrate opposing views and those who hold those views, one is dealing with propaganda. The rules and methods of effective propaganda have been honed over the decades:
BQ
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda. [ source ]
CCNow acknowledges that it is a propaganda effort in its own words.
Are these people just a bunch of liars? No, I suspect that many of them are “True Believers” having grown up and been (mis)educated during the Global Warming/Climate Change era since the late 1980s. They want to believe and they want everyone else to believe too. They seem willing to do and say anything to make others believe. Unfortunately, they seem short on critical thinking skills, stubbornly remaining ignorant of any opposing facts, and suffer from varying degrees of Jor-El syndrome. They’ve been trained in a type of non-journalism, in which they are all imaging themselves to be the new “Woodward and Bernstein” — exposing the evils of society and – in this case – Saving Krypton The Planet.
This article is an introduction to the story-lines being pushed by CCNow and their partners. I will be analyzing many of these stories over the next few weeks, but I start with this one simple example (out of many) from the CCNow page intended to assure their partners that there really is a Climate Emergency: “Who Says It’s a Climate Emergency?”
In early 2021, two-thirds of the world’s people think climate change is a “global emergency,” according to a new poll, the largest ever on climate.
Shocking news – two-thirds – two out of every three – “of the world’s people” (all 7.7 billion of them) “think climate change is a ‘global emergency’”. Really? Let’s see what this is really about. Let’s find out: what have they really counted?
The Guardian (a founding member of CCNow) published this:
“UN global climate poll: ‘The people’s voice is clear – they want action’
Biggest ever survey finds two-thirds of people think climate change is a global emergency”
This headline and subsequent story are based on a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) survey. Here’s what they really did (please, don’t laugh, this is serious!):
“The Peoples’ Climate Vote was conducted from 7 October to 4 December 2020 by distributing poll questions through adverts in popular mobile gaming apps to 50 countries. When a person played a popular mobile game – such as Words with Friends, Angry Birds, Dragon City or Subway Surfers – the poll would replace the traditional in-game advert. This innovative approach led to a huge, unique, and random sample of 1.22 million people of all genders, ages, and educational backgrounds. It also meant that the Peoples’ Climate Vote reached people who are sometimes hard to reach in traditional polling, such as those below the age of 18.”
“Voters were first asked two questions about whether they believe climate change is a global emergency and, if so, what kind of action they think the world should take (see Box 1). Then they were asked a series of questions about the different kinds of climate policies – across the six key policy areas of the Mission 1.5 game – that they would like their government to enact. The data were collated and processed by analysts at the University of Oxford, who used official statistics to weight the data to create representative estimates of public opinion. With such a large sample size, and rich socio-demographic information, the margin of error of the results is on average +/- 2%.” [ source – full report pdf ]
Stop laughing, please.
Having collected 1.22 million responses from kids playing silly, online video games on their phones, every one of whom gave their serious and well-considered and true answers and never ever lied about themselves having a college degree or their age, the United Nations Development Programme, after “analysts at the University of Oxford . . . used official statistics to weight the data”, concluded confidently that:
“The Peoples’ Climate Vote found that nearly two-thirds (64%) of people in 50 countries believe that climate change is a global emergency”
Not one of CCNow’s partners have mentioned the absurdity of the finding and seem perfectly happy to pass it on as a Scientific Fact. The survey results are being used by CCNow and their 460 news partners to show just how real the Climate Emergency really is – after all, a lot of videogame playing kids say so.
Watch this space for further examples of what other propaganda is being churned out, and echoed again and again and again, in the world press.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
This propaganda effort is playing on and amplifying – in a feedback loop similar to the one that occurred with Covid-19 — the Mass Hysteria surrounding the weather.
I could spend the rest of the year exposing both the subtle and the egregious lies being foisted off on the public through this pernicious effort.
I don’t hold out much hope of making a difference by doing so.
I do hope that I can offer little bits of Propaganda Fighting Tidbits to your personal arsenals.
Address your comment to “Kip…” if speaking to me.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When reporting on the “Climate Emergency” the article should include at least a 20 year history of global temperatures. If this chart doesn’t show an emergency, the article shouldn’t run.
When reporting on Natural Disasters, a column chart showing the last 100 years of these disasters should be provided to underscore the alarmism (or not).
If the articles can’t provide context, are they communicating any knowledge?
The goal is not to communicate information but to misinform and disinform, ie spread Big Lie propaganda.
That’s all explained in Critical Lying Theory.
its all explained in the Bible. Not pushing religion down people’s throats. Just saying that even oral tradition times they appreciated that real evil started with someone hissing in your ear, pretending to inform but with no intentions of doing any real good. Its not even necessarily a deliberate scam, just not caring if its for real.
To Bed B ==> No need to be shy about a source of wisdom as dependable as the Bible. It may not be a science textbook, but it containssome of the wisdom of the ages.
Honestly JRR Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ makes exactly the same point.
And which came first?
Brilliant!
This just proves the saying that, if you repeat a lie long enough, and LOUDLY enough, that peolel will start to believe it! The Climate Changers have had what, 40 years or so, to keep REPEATING the lie that the Earth is dying from warming. Ones personal observation and intelligence have no bearing on them. So, now we have almost everyone, including the media, swearing that it’s TRUE and we should all follow the science! Especially the ‘settled science’! Never mind that NONE of it is based on any known FACTS or truth!
IAMPCBOB ==> One of the primary rules of propaganda — repeat repeat repeat — endlessly.
The bigger the lie the better. Paradoxically, the bigger most audacious lies repeated endlessly are easier for people to accept than little lies.
Yes that’s true!!!! Didn’t some fella in 1930s Germany write some book called “My Struggle”, (Mein Kampf for those clever boys & girls…..err sorry clever Girls & boys, don’t want to upset anyone!), in which he said ,”the mass of the people will rather believe a really big lie, rather than a small one!”. I suspect it’s based on the idea that if something sounds so incredible & almost unbelievable, it must be true on the grounds that no one could ever make up something so fantastic!!!! Yeah, as if some one would do such a naughty thing???
If somebody tells me that my house is warming and I will soon die I can judge for myself. BUT The world may be warming even if I know my house is not.
Global warming actions in a country are a measure of the corruption of it’s government.
1/ Fear. The people pushing AGW have allies that can control election results. And careers. Aussie PM Rudd, as an election approached, reneged on a promise of a carbon tax.He lost his job in 6 weeks.
2/ Donations. The AGW gravy train is RICH.
We can save our planet by removing the BDOT’s (brain dead Oxygen Thieves) journalists plus extinction rebellion plus a few of our so called expert celebrities to achieve this we only need to remove 7Billion and that would achieve an annual CO2 saving of 7Billion Tonnes
One of the primary rules of propaganda — repeat repeat repeat — endlessly.
We’ve been seeing quite a lot of that lately, and seeing how effective it is.
CLT originated with the little weasel National Geographic photographer who photo’d the polar bear on a small iceberg completely out of context.
There’s no TASS in PRAVDA, no PRAVDA in TASS, and neither in climate reporting.
https://powerfulconfused.wordpress.com/2021/03/11/there-is-no-pravda-in-tass/
Ralph ==> Thanks for the link.
For lazy readers: “There’s no TASS in PRAVDA, no PRAVDA in TASS, ” means ” “There is no news in the truth and no truth in the news.”
Correction: Your translation is correct but it’s ‘Izvestia’ not ‘TASS’.
Or so I was taught.
“For lazy readers”
Kip, i represent that(!)
fonzie ==> I do sometimes state things a little too bluntly.
Whilst many are noticing the religious element within this climate nonsense ie: CO2 as the Satan and the threat of Hell, a man God made Universe and World and the idea of Salvation if we just obey and follow the Lord’s of the New Church (same as the old Church as in the adage about bosses), in case you are unaware the word propaganda itself it’s from an age old department in the Vatican.
congregatio de propaganda fide
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Congregation-for-the-Propagation-of-the-Faith
As a young man challenging the teachings of a young priest I was listening to, we gave him a rather tough gig, questioning everything he said! He countered by saying that when he was a young trainee novice priest he had similar questions for his mentor, to which his mentor replied, “Never criticise the wisdom of the Church, it’s the only tyranny that’s lasted for 2,000 years!!!!”.
;-))
No the real goal is to make money.
Stephen Mueller ==> The goal of all businesses is to “make money”. However, historically, every media outlet (think Ben Franklin’s printing shop) has also engaged in the promotion of the political and social views of the Owners and Editors . This used to be mostly confined to the Opinion Page and he Opinion Section — and through the bias involved in hiring and directing the work of its journalists.
Thus some newspapers were slanted right and some slanted left. There were, as well, those that were wildly slanted one way or the other.
“Newspaper just want to make money” is a falsely simplistic view.
Kip
There was also a time when newspapers didn’t pretend to be unbiased or hide their bias, they proudly announced them in their names.
TonyG ==> Yes, but there was also a time when the NY Times was considered a Paper of Record, whole reliable as to facts, even if also considered on the conservative side politically.
It now stands disgraced in the eyes of those who are real journalists, like Bari Weiss.
The LA Times as well as many other news outlets, are losing money hand over fist.
MarkW ==> The NY Times, however, is making more money than ever. . . . . mostly digital subscriptions.
On the good side; scrolling down as far as it goes (171 comments), for this thread I find not one of the climastrologists squeeking up today. They are obviously too embarrassed to flog their lies attached to an articles detailing their modus operandum. This must be some kind of record!
paranoid goy ==> The trolls ony post as long as they can goad someone into paying attention (replying to them) . When the excitement of that dies down (it never should have started) they move on to another thread where they can get someone going.
At least 120 years. One climate (i.e. 30-year period) is a coincidence. Two climates is an anomaly. Three climates may indicate a trend. Four climates to discern attribution.
A Climate… sounds like it should be a unit of measure, with a calibrated standard somewhere. How many Climates in an Ice Age? How many hurricanes does it take to make one Climate? You get the picture.
Jim, John, scissor, and n.n ==> John Tillman has it right — the CCNow crowd have no intention whatever of communicating the real situation with the climate. They are intentionally pushing a single — mostly false — message and do not care an iota if it is mis- or disinformation, as long as it is “on message”.
as I said elsewhere climate ‘scientists’ are not only ly ing to the people they are also helping badly informed (i.e. majority) to fool themselves into believing that the ‘science’ is telling them the truth. Tried and tested methodology practised by communist for a century.
The sad thing is ,this will encompass other branches of science, eg im disgusted with the medical profession and the coercion with government and big pharmaceutical industries.
Its a time bomb waiting to go off.
Academic physical science departments (physics, chemistry, and all the rest) are going for diversity, equity and inclusion in a big way.
It won’t be long before they’re thoroughly politicized, mediocre, and fall into the narrative line.
Pat Frank ==> As you may already know, many of the geophysical and atmospheric sciences departments have already declared their alliegence to the Climate Emergency. The AGU is a member of the CCNow cabal.
It’s really awful, Kip. I don’t understand how so many otherwise hard-minded scientists just rolled over.
Pat ==> It is not just scientists, it is highly regarded professional journalists and scientific organizations and even science and medical journals. It is a bastardization of science and journalism.
Pat ==> It is also highly-regarded professional journalists, media editors and owners, science and medical journals — all abandoning their callings and joining in the forces of disinformation.
It is simple, their salaries depend on being members of the true faith.
Any heretics will be burned at the stake.
StephenP ==> Read Bari Weiss’s Resignation Letter from the NY Times: https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
Thank you Kip for bringing this sad resignation letter to my attention. It does summarise so much that is so wrong with social media which has become Big Brother in today’s world.
I feel sad because the letter probably didn’t even get read in full but has ended up in the waste bin.
I always wonder who these ultra woke individuals are who create/originate such a poisonous atmosphere.
One can’t turn the tables on them because it ends up with you being banished to outer darkness.
Now that would be a good piece of investigative journalism for someone to do. To find the hierarchy leading from the originators, via the editorial boards and through to the people who are so intimidated that they knuckle under.
Thank goodness for WUWT and some other blogs in providing platforms for discussion of these matters.
StephenP ==> Bari Weiss’s resignation letter was carried in full in many media outlets and described as some as “Bari Weiss departed the NY Times and burned it down as she left.”
I presume the Times didn’t publish it in their paper or online.
Then once you internalize the faith- you convince yourself that it was because you found the true faith- in order to not be aware of your hypocrisy and self interest.
It’s a combination of laziness/trust, and fear.
I’ve talked with a number of otherwise intelligent engineers/scientists who have stated that they don’t have time to research the issue, but they find it impossible to believe that a true scientist would support something that they knew to be untrue.
They have also seen what happens to the career of anyone who bucks the consensus.
MarkW ==> “a true scientist would support something that they knew to be untrue.” They don;t “know” its untrue – they have fooled themselves and been fooled by their need to get along/go along, bandwagon, not buck the system, etc etc. Judith Curry has written quite a bit on this — they are her colleagues.
vuk and b clarke ==> The desire to believe — thank you Fox Mulder — warps perceptions and justifies what would otherwise be easily seen as traitorous to the foundations of true science.
Clearly, they are killing Greta.
Too bad that scientist are people, first. They have the same agenda and interests as any other stereotype, and for the most part have their feet firmly planted in academia — one of the primary targets of political corruption. History shows that scientists are just as susceptible to group think, influence, greed, corruption, favoritism, and ego as any other group. Just like the Chinese government is dominated by engineers and scientists claim, it is nonsense to imagine that technical education is anywhere close to being canonization. And don’t think that the label of scientist is somehow holy — any that deviate from the political message are just as susceptible to the same kind of ostracization and ridicule as any other percieved opponent.
Two key factors:
1) The end of the Cold War.
2) The rise of the internet.
Factor 1 greatly reduced academic funding. It was no longer an arms race where everything could be justified to beat the Red Menace. A new menace was needed. So every field grabbed the available new threat and thus, in the process endorsed it.
Factor 2 greatly reduced advertising funding. The media hit a crisis. Pre-packaged news stories from campaigners were cheap and easy to use. This was especially useful where journalists needed expensive technical knowledge to make a story (like science). An intern can turn a press release around. And when the intern becomes the Environment Correspondent they are committed to one side of the story. They dare not look at the costs of what they are committed to or their whole role might disappear. I’m sure the Guardian has more Environmental Correspondents than all the rest of science put together.
So they built an intellectual ecosystem where faith in climate doom is self-supporting.
But it has no relevance to the majority who are not academics and watch the news just to judge the economy and see who needs charity at the moment.
It’s all a House of Cards.
I’ve made a similar argument many times.1. “The science” doesn’t “tell us” anything because 2. There is no such thing as “the science”. Science is a process not a thing so can never be “settled”.
Sooner or later the weight of evidence — the latest example I have seen relates to trees evidently growing in locations in the past (altitude, for instance) where they no longer grow today — will undermine the “climastrologists’” so-called scientific proof. Whether it will happen in my lifetime I don’t know but it will happen one day.
Any “news” group that would accept the Grauniad as a member is seriously not serious about news. Why not include CounterPunch? or Alex Jones?
Alex Jones has been right for decades…
The propaganda ministries of the USSR and Nazi Germany couldn’t hold a candle to the climate emergency maniacs. This must be resisted. Look at the long list of partners at https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/
This lunacy is the real danger to the Earth and mankind. The real emergency.
So much to dislike but one is:
“Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus, or ridicule climate activism, don’t belong in a serious news outlet.”
Any serious news outlet should discuss the reality out there- and the reality is that there are many smart people- scientists and non scientists- who are highly skeptical of a climate emergency- so to say that there opinions should be ignored is really, really dangerous to a free society. And, oh, one mustn’t ridicule our superiors! They are soooo smart and wise- they just can’t be ridiculed. I suspect the next thing they’ll do is make it illegal to ridicule them. We know what happens in dictatorships when you ridicule “leaders”. And in the Middle Ages you didn’t dare ridicule the Church and we know what happened to that Dutch cartoonist for ridiculing Mohamed. Don’t be surprised when an inquisition gets started to wipe out climate emergency skeptics.
Ah, yes, the pursuit of capital, control, and secular lucre. The inquisition is in progress, albeit with diverse distributions in time and space. That said, I suppose that all’s fair in lust and abortion. The new old… ancient deal. How very green.
But, but.. how do you NOT ridicule these people?
?resize=940%2C627&ssl=1
RH Shark ==> They ridicule themselves by being ridiculous.
“Divest” apparently doesn’t apply to petroleum derivatives. I see plastic, lots of plastic.
JZ ==> The Columbia Journalism Review originally was an ethics watchdog for journalists. Now it is encouraging them to abandon all journalistic ethics and be propagandists.
Wrote about this here 5 years ago now:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/01/climate-communications-strategic-use-of-climate-uncertainty-in-media-education-and-politics/
Jim
Jim ==> They’ve settled on straight-forward, time tested, propaganda methods now.
Oops – 6 years ago:
math is hard –
https://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/17/obama-consoles-students-after-failing-to-answer-math-problem/
Gee, I don’t see Fox News on that list – I wonder why – Maybe they just don’t like Facts.
Found the DailyKos reader ^ ^ ^
What facts are those Jon?
(This should be fun)
Fox prints the news that the rest of the media ignores.
For that they are called liars by the far left.
Interestingly no BBC. And no Pravda.
A good list to refer to so as you know what not to read, watch or listen too. Very handy. It’s remarkable how many organisations have now become infected.
Thinkingscientist ==> Not being on the list doesn’t mean that a media outlet isn’t onboard with the messaging from CCNow, like the NY Times, they may have their own internal Editorial Narrative that agrees with, and maybe is even more biased than, CCNow.
Yes, indeed Kip – lately we do notice a very pronounced increase in climate-alarmism on our media. It is sure to be orchestrated somehow.
Might this not be just a desperate last-ditch effort to save the whole climate-panic business from collapsing. Governments all over the world are simply not going along with all that “net-zero” nonsense – and that is simply because it is a physically and economically impossibility..
Andy ==> I don’t think it is a last ditch effort — it is a conscious intentional international propaganda effort to bolster the whole climate emergency == bigger government == world government == etc.
I think the Climate Alarmists think they are on a roll, especially with Biden pushing the agenda, and they are maximizing their efforts with this conspiracy among the news organizations and others to push the climate change narrative.
It remains to be seen whether their efforts get any large number of people to start clamoring for climate change action.
Past history has not been kind to the climate change movement. Climate Change does not poll very well. And the climate change propagandists have been working on it for many years without any good results, but maybe their maximum effort will make a difference.
We shall see.
Meanwhile, we will amuse ourselves by ridiculing their ideas.
Cop26 in October. They are working themselves up into a frenzy.
J
Yes, the upcoming climate change meeting has a lot to do with the propagandists ramping up the climate change propaganda. The scarier they can tell the tale, the better, they think. Fear would be condusive to getting people to do what they want.
But, there’s no scary weather out there to panic over. it’s difficult being a Climate Alarmist.
Interesting report in the London Times this morning:
“The environment secretary George Eustice is under pressure from Downing Street after a leaked memo revealed that his department still had no plan to meet its carbon emissions targets.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/environment-ministry-has-no-plan-to-meet-target-for-lower-emissions-5f2p30c5x.
Mrs N’s reaction: “they don’t really believe a b****y word of it, do they!” No, dear!
Kip,
I think you are out of touch with the changing demographics of mobile gaming. Most people with a smart phone play games and in fact that most rapidly growing segment of the mobile gaming market is seniors. More than 3 billion people own a smart phone and hence are likely to have downloaded and played a mobile game. Hence putting ads in mobile games allows you reach almost 50% of the world’s population which seems like an excellent choice if you want to poll a random selection of that population.
Rubbish most gamers play on a phone or Internet, and a lot of them are stoned ,I don’t know one adult who plays games on the phone,your just trying to persuade readers that adults have nothing better to do than play games on thier phones, just because 3 b own a smartphone does not mean they all play games .
Doing the daily crossword, jigsaw puzzle, word scramble etc. Those people aren’t stoned. I should do some current puzzles to see how much in the way of climate lies are embedded in the clues and images.
Which people young old? Never seen a bunch of teenagers get together at a mates house for gaming , drugs and booze a side dish, stop over man your too stoned to drive, never seen adults doing a cross word on there phone while there out and about ,maybe you have ,what % would that be in relation to the given states claimed?
Were i do see obvious climate propaganda is in films and television series, ffs it was even in some star trek episodes in the 90s ,indecently st has always pushed a not so hidden message/agenda, as for films and TV series I doubt thats had any effect on anyone ,1 min or less of a subtle reference not likely to be remembered the next day.
Izaak ==> Did you check the list of games used? I’m with B Clarke, I don’t know any adults that play games on their phones., and none of my kids or grandkids do either. I do know some serious online gamers — but that’s an entirely different field. The UNDP brags that they found a way to connect with the “under 18s”.
You would have to present some pretty serious evidence that in-game adverts on kids apps for mobile phones reach almost 50% of the worlds population.
Kip,
Have a look at
https://www.statista.com/statistics/293304/number-video-gamers/
there are apparently 2.7 billion people playing games on their mobile phones. Most of them are going to be adults simply because kids can’t afford smart phones. Taking one example Candy Crush has been downloaded over 2.7 billion times since 2017.
Your claim that you don’t know any adults who play games on their phone is almost certainly wrong. They might not admit it but it probably just doesn’t come up in casual conversation. We are not talking about serious gamers but just people who might waste 5 minutes on a bus in the morning playing a game on their phone.
Izaak ==> Video Gamers does not equal the number of people/kids who take surveys on four distinct mobile-phone app games.
Like university based psych experiments of the late 1960s, a survey like one UNDP one is surely full of spoofed and prank answers, especially self-identifying demographic data. Anyone who thinks that they survey could be accurate is fooling themselves.
Kip,
Firstly it is likely to be trivial to eliminate multiple responses since iPhones and android devices provide unique identifier tokens to advertisers. Secondly, given that you spent the first half of the essay complaining about the propaganda as you call it being distributed by the world’s media, why are you surprised that 2/3rd of people think there is a climate emergency? If the survey results are false then the propaganda isn’t working and there is nothing to worry about.
Izaak ==> Feel free to study the full report on the UNDP survey, including all their stated methods, and draw your own conclusions. If you do so, and write an honest report/essay on it, I will be glad to see it published here. You can contact me via the Tips and Notes page.
1.22M is not “2/3 of people”.
Jim ==> Ah, you have left out “analysts at the University of Oxford, who used official statistics to weight the data to create representative estimates of public opinion” Magical official statistics . . . . .
Izaak, the issue of the “survey” in question being false, has no bearing on the propaganda. Of course the propaganda is successful, you are a prime example of their ‘education’. So yes, we all do worry, because the Izaaks in the world are so emotionally invested in this nonsense, you are petitioning governments, threatening politicians, bribing journalists, corrupting academics and trolling all “dissenters”. And it all is paid with our taxes…
But to put the statistics for this “survey” in perspective; even if every participant answered every question truthfully and honestly, you are still basing your evidence on the word of children and adults who answer stupid, weighed, biased and open-ended questionnaires for the privilege to play stupid childrens’ games.
So, yes, within that demographic, they managed to claim 80% consensus, but it is a consensus of children. Because, let’s face it, they cannot get their consensus from any STEM educated adult not part of the climastrology cult.
This is also the exact kind of maffs they used to ‘prove’ their “93% of scientists agree” bullshit. Ask a million people, and the three who agree with you are the only ones to answer, so you claim 100% consensus?
I expect you are now going to bend my ear with tales of the superior wisdom of youngsters, “from the mouth of babes” and all that. I say again, boy, you’ve lent your ears to the devil. Come to the Light Side… Where we never demand belief, only honesty, to yourself, to your own intellect. Science is NEVER about belief, it is about doubt, the intipode of belief.
G’Day Izaak
Read the full report, especially the countries that this “Poll” was conducted in. The entire report consists of percentages, the only actual figures shown: 30.7 million “invitations” issued, 1.22 million responses, of which 550,000 were under 18 years of age.
There’s no indication of just how many responders were 60+ years old, but the percentage given for that group is 58%. Meaningless.
Download the report and have a read – it makes the US political pollsters look really good.
Hmm, 2.7 B “gamers”, and 1.22 M responded. Boy, that is a great survey.
Retired_Engineer_Jim ==> Much of psychology in the 1960s was skewed by the belief that college kids, paid to participate in psych experiments, were valid test subjects. At my university, one could get that much needed $20 (a lot more then than now) to spend an hour in the psych labs — usually, unknown to the researchers, under the influence of one or more psychedelics. or just spoofing the psych geeks for the fun of it.
Imagine the fun of a group of giggling 15 year old Valley Girls all taking the survey — laughing their heads off at their answers.
Funnily enough, it reminds me of the celebrated “97% of Climate Scientists” survey.
Kids can’t afford smart phones” you mean like they can’t afford x boxes, its the bank of mummy and daddy who buy them for the kids.
Yeah I chortled at “can’t afford”..Izaak is not very bright.
I bet he thinks they cannot afford two hundred dollar sneakers, too.
B Clarke ==> Gads, don;t I know it — mine are grown and still use the same bank.
I’m a teacher. Every single child in my school has a smartphone. Their parents bought them. It has nothing to do with kids being able to afford the phones themselves.
There might be 2.7 billion people palying games on their phones, but they didn’t all answer the survey (but then you knew that, didn’t you)
1.2 million people is just 0.15% of the global population. they do not represent the opinions of the whole of humanity. I’m starting to see why you think a gas that occupies just 0.04% of the atmosphere has the power to control the global climate in its entirety.
I think a question that needs to be considered is: Who exactly is it who responds to these ads?
I play SOME games on my phone. Usually while dealing with insomnia. I ignore almost EVERY ad that I see, and certainly would not respond to an ad for a survey. Just like I don’t respond to pollsters who call my house.
Response demographics can make a pretty big difference.
The average kid has access to several devices, and any of them that play games have likely downloaded the ones they like onto each device.
They are also replaced regularly, and each new device must have the games re-downloaded.
And if they borrow moms or dads phone or tablet or laptop, they download them onto those too.
“simply because kids can’t afford smart phones”
Kids can’t but their parents can. A large percentage of kids even in elementary school have smart phones, and almost ALL of my son’s HS acquiantances did (as I’ve seen with several other high schools).
Do kids get Christmas and birthday gifts where you are from, Izaak?
When I was a schoolkid, I could not afford bus fare, but somehow, they always made sure I was on that bus.
they found a way to connect with the “under 18s”. Goodness gracious me, they’ve found a way to get to the children first, how quaintly totalitarian, Adolf, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Polpot would be so proud of their middle-class propaganda techniques!!!!
I let my 8 year old niece use my iPad for a day when we were all together for Christmas, and when I got it back it was loaded with games.
Those are the people downloading games.
Nicholas ==> Even my four year old nephew downloads free games if no one is looking….
Kip,
I was thinking it could not possibly be just the kids I know.
The funny thing is, I know adults who have never used a computer and probably do not know what “download” means, and probably will never find out.
Kids take to new gadgets like a fish to water.
Nicholas ==> I know college professors who can barely using a PC. I have to prepare digital posters and videos for their classes for them on occasion.
I still remember walking into the living room one holiday, to see my 5yr old showing her great grandmother how to program the vcr.
I do not recall anyone ever having to show them even the first thing about how one uses these devices.
They seem to be born knowing it.
If you try to tell them anything, they look at you like you are the caveman on the Geico commercial.
And every time a new version is put out, another download on each device.
I may have erased all those games five times that week, and the next day when she borrowed it again, she downloaded them right back onto it.
That is how you get 2.7 billion downloads, or whatever the number is.
I have watched kids that barely know how to walk and talk, pick up a device and are instantly a ten fingered wizard with the thing.
It is literally jaw dropping.
By the time they are five, they ask every adult the see with a device if they can use it, many times a day.
That is why they all have their own, in case anyone was wondering why so many parents would get them such expensive gadgets.
Besides for that aspect, not getting them something that literally all of their friends have, would be like not letting them trick or treat on Halloween. Only it would be like doing that 365 days a year.
And the fact they have their own, does not diminish in the slightest their overwhelming need to have a go with every new one they see someone using.
Jeez Izaak, you present as much evidence for your comment here as the CCNow cabal do for the schist they drool.
Walton
Yes, unfortunately, senility is often a consequence of growing older.
Wishful thinking on your part.
I recall in January 2019 I think many news outlets ended the ability to comment on articles. It looked very coordinated
If they can’t control the narrative, they bury it.
Scissor ==> Exactly.
It was several years ago when the Boulder Daily Camera discontinued comments, as it was clear that conservatives made more intelligent and convincing arguments. The editors couldn’t have that. I quit my subscription when they silenced my voice.
Such comment boards need to be moderated, or all kinds of things happen that no one would like.
And once everyone has not just tablets and laptops and PCs, but always in hand smartphones that are in use at every opportunity, meant that the volume of moderation needed for each of the eleventy gajillion articles published every day simply became overwhelming.
Michael ==> Yes, generally the media, in conjunction with the CCNow crowd, quit allowing comments on climate stories, because too many skeptical voices would show up and establish the facts and present reasonable skeptical arguments. It diluted the message.
I cannot believe that Oxford University missed the opportunity to inflate 64% to 97%!
“Weight”a minute. I am sure they have a model that can help with that.
Teddy Lee ==> Are you sure your are not speaking about the London School of Economics? . LSE might have found 125% of people think there is a climate emergency…all based on a survey of kids playing games on cell phones.
You’se guys are dissing Penn State, Penn Sate is the berries, Penn State hosts the Holey Profit himself, truly Penn State is the abode of the Son of Mann.
Heretics!
The holey profit? I know his theories are full of holes, but I didn’t know Mann was as well.
…and verily I say unto thee: Thou shalt know the tree by its fruit…
The amazingly cynical moral preening the alarmists do, as they use fossil fuels every day!
You can send your thoughts on the matter to “Covering Climate Now” by addressing email to:
editors@CoveringClimateNow.org
I know they want to hear from you.
______________________________
P.S.,
Kip-
Thank you for bringing this to WUWT. It is horrifying and disgusting. These people make Edward Bernays and Josef Goebbels look like rank amateurs.
John G ==> The CCNow campaign is very well planned and very well thought out — based on the most successful propaganda campaigns throughout history. It is not some amateur effort but very professional.
The important thing is: Will the readers here save that little list of theirs, and use it to fight back? While we allow every Izaak, Loydo and Tryingtoplaynice to state their Truth, They just don’t allow us to speak. Time to play nice is over, They have developed a sharp set of tools, so walk up to that little clique of pissies, and take their tools from them!
Never let a chance go by to ridicule them, never allow them to finish a sentence if you can help it, never let anyone within earshot tell anyone else scary bullshit, call them out, look at them and snort, go as load as you can “under your breath” and snigger “oh ye gods, a climastrologist scaring the children again!”
The wife will beg you to stop, the children will pretend they do not know you, your circle of friends will shrink, just like the Bolsheviks have (en)trained them, but it is your duty as a free and thinking human being to fight back. You may have to find a new wife and friends who can think for themselves, though.
Pushing the stories is one thing ….
Corporate editorial guidelines and manipulation are another.
Looking at Gannet Media (USA Today) – they own a fleet of dying local papers across the UK (200 of them!) – if a climate emergency story takes a critical pasting via the comments – they’ve started removing the item from the main body of the web presence (and “stats”) – and only making it accessible via a direct url – it doesn’t show in their internal searches …
Near all climate articles are obviously cooked up in association with activist groups and are as formulaic as to be farcical on occasion – no balance is sought and no NGO claim however batty / deluded gets challenged.
Of course the ‘effing BBC leads the charge.
tomo ==> I have written about Editorial Narratives here before at WUWT. CCNow supplies a unified Editorial Narrative for all 460 member media outlets. They even help local journalists and Editorial Boards write articles and editorials.
Automate them with AI… !
Kip
Do you have any insight on where the funding is coming from to support this activism?
Clyde ==> I will include some of this in future essays on CCNow.
And what does CBS say, through Al Ortiz, their vp Standards and Practices
leonardo ==> “Let us tell you what to write ….”
Kip, excellent post. Look forward to the rest.
I knew this propaganda stuff was coordinated. But had no idea how fully in such an organized manner. Eye opening.
The best antidotes may be ridicule and time.
Make the ridicule personal and watch the Mann like reactions. Brear Rabbit tar baby and briar patch approach.
Time is now revealing two things that ultimately cause the climate ‘religion’ to fail.
First is all their failed past predictions. I posted on that a few days ago, big picture only. If they go long, we go ridicule.
Second is that their proposed solutions don’t work. Renewables are intermittent and provide no grid inertia, nevermind they are more expensive—before remedying those two inherent deficiencies. Stop consuming beef and dairy (methane) calls for more ridicule.
What is needed is more voice reach to counter shrinking media like the Guardian or WaPo. I believe that is now happening as a result of related communication spheres like fake political news. Twit got countered by Rumble. YT got countered by Frankspeak.com.
Rud ==> We can only hope to make a difference — I occasionally run out of steam and take a few months off. I do promise to make a series out of this exposé.
Me too. More frequently, more often, less steam now. Can still get inspired to an occasional general battle post here.
Got utterly exhausted tracking for near a decade all the academic misconduct papers exposed over at Judiths. Last was, if I recall correctly, EAIS Tottam Glacier.
Highest regards.
“First is all their failed past predictions. I posted on that a few days ago, big picture only. If they go long, we go ridicule.”
Sounds good to me! 🙂
The Alarmists have not made a prediction yet that has panned out in all these years.
Yes, we need to hold their feet to the fire about their past predictions. Why are Alarmists always wrong in their climate change predictions? Shouldn’t that tell us something?
Thank you kip for a very informative article, I think many of us guessed the outline, but having such detail in this brainwashing scandal has been very informative.
Excellent article Kip, a really shocking state of affairs.
My question is how the hell do we get out of this situation?
Yours pessimistically CB.
CB ==> If you have any outlet on which you can disseminate your opinions and knowledge, use them to promote the truth and counter the lies. Even if it is just the chatter at the coffee shop or barber shop.
I seem to be one of the very few in this group that is routinely taking climate articles on SciTechDaily.com to the wood shed for re-education.
Even the politest and most fact-based of disagreements to a Climate Crisis article in The Graun will get your post immediately moderated (ie, censored).
Do it enough, and your IP will be banned from commenting altogether.
So what does CCNow want people to do? Promote some vague “climate action”? People are not willing to do anything if it costs them money or degrades their life styles. I think after so many years of listening to climate alarmism most people just tune it out and turn the channel.
John ==> CCNow wants people to believe that there is a true Climate Emergency or Crisis, and thus allow the governments to take drastic, nation-killing actions to cut CO2 emissions — like forcing people to stay home, banning gasoline automobiles, banning fracking for natural gas, banning gas cooking stoves in homes, and a long list of other totally crazy stuff.
I think the reason this is coming into focus now, is that the over-hyped pandemic is beginning to wane, and there is need for a new “scare” to keep the lockdown regiment going for as long as possible. They will argue that lockdowns worked for saving us from disaster with the Covid-19 pandemic, now lets unite all together under Biden’s leadership and save the planet by enduring just a little while longer (like flattening the curve for 2 weeks, that lasted more than a year)
sailor76 ==> You are not the only one to hold that opinion == time will tell.
Kip ==> Alinsky Rule #8
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
https://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html
sailor76 ==> Thanks — we all here at WUWT do try.
Kip ==> and I do appreciate that very much! Always look forward every day to reading this site.
In America anyone that questions the MSM narrative is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist, or extremist, or anti democratic, or racist, or. or……… and either censored, cancelled, shamed, or all of these. Republicans are now a dirty word to the MSM. The depth and breadth of the propaganda/attacks are astounding and anyone that believes they aren’t coordinated is naive. America is under attack by Marxist ideology from within. AGW is just a small part of it. Time to circle the wagons.
“Republicans are now a dirty word to the MSM.”
That’s been the case for many years. Long before Trump showed up.
When the Mainstream Media is on one side of the political spectrum, you can expect the other side of the political spectrum will be villified to the maximum extent, for political purposes.
Have to agree with this – you only have to look at shows like ‘the Simpsons’ to see how Republicans have been portrayed as “evil” for decades.
Judith Curry writes:
No that’s not the point. That’s not the quintessence!
The quintessence is: climate is an earth system that is triggered by two things:
– things that happen to the world
– things that happen in the world
Things that happen to the world: the sun is shining … there’s cosmic radiation … etc. etc.
Things that happen in the world: tectonics … volcanic activity … the tilt of the earth’s axis … etc. etc. … and: Life on earth.
So we can do two things: squat on our haunches and be silent – and nothing will happen to the climate – or we can be the living organism we are foreordained to be, and in doing so being a natural part of the things in heaven and earth.
I have a library of books and a computer full of files that say there was plenty happening with the climate every single day, week, month, year, decade, century, millennium, age, epoch, and era…from long before there was even insects until right up to a minute ago.
Actually, that is a bit of an exaggeration.
The truth is, I have very little regarding the last hour and a half.
Nicholas ==> Thanks for coming clean on that. However, I suspect it only for lack of looking…..
Or updating
They are getting some results of sorts……
TV And Online News Audiences Declined During Biden’s First 100 Days: Report (yahoo.com)
ResourceGuy ==> There is always some good news ! Thanks.
Not just agenda news but orchestrated, agenda news and jobs in the new administration in the case of MSNBC.
The longer alarmists call for a climate emergency and the longer observations say there is no such thing, the sooner the credibility of doomsayers will fall.
Yes, the propagandists are not going to make much headway if the weather doesn’t cooperate, and especially if it turns off cold like it seems to be trying to do.
And John Kerry has only given us Nine more years until Climate Armegeddon, so the alarmists are going to need to produce some results, some valid predictions come true to keep their credibilty.
Of course, we hope it doesn’t take nine more years for people to wake up to the fact the we are not in danger from CO2, otherwise it’s going to cost us $Trillons of dollars in wasted spending on windmills and other such craziness.
Let’s wake up before we waste all that money.
The weather is not cooperating today in Wales its snowing at my place, chap who was supposed to work with me today ,lives 30 odd miles away cant get out because of the snow , I have never seen snow on the 5th of May before,, only once many many years ago did I see it snow on the 1st of May.
B Clarke ==> Thanks for weather report from Wales . . . it is a lttle late for snow.
Where are you ?
In Anglesey we have wall to wall sun & a few clouds, it’s 12°C at 16:00
I don’t tell people exactly were iam. We have sunshine now around 10c
“6. Go easy on the jargon. This is a tried and true tenet of journalism generally, but it especially applies here. The climate story is chock full of insider-y verbiage—parts per million of carbon dioxide, micrograms of particulate matter, and fractions of degrees Centigrade……For example, when explaining how global warming contributed to the record wildfires in Australia, John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist, likened it to baseball players on steroids: a great slugger will hit plenty of home runs in any case, but a great slugger who takes steroids will hit more of them.”
Texas State Climatologist has egg on his face about Texas weather. Unfortunately, he is from my alma mater, after the Oceanography and Meteorology Department split, nonsense not tolerated in my day. The problem is that metaphors/similes, etc. are seldom very accurate or instructive. https://climatexas.tamu.edu/ “Aggies can change the world. Geoscientists lead the way.” Texas Aggies used to be known for saving the world in several wars. Some still could, but US now more important.
So measurements are now “jargon–verbiage.” It seems like bigotry to suggest that readers can’t understand especially Centigrade. Of course, they are behind on the Celsius, but centigrade is easier to understand, for most of the world anyway.
“10. For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists.” Well at least we known they are religious, fundamentalist types.
H.D. ==> Aside from the blasphemy, #10 is a direct dig at the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, which have carried more centrist and the occasional skeptic voices on Climate issues on the Op-Ed pages.
The CCNow rule is to silence such voices altogether.
CNN’s Jake Trapper has vowed that he will no longer permit any Republicans on his show.
Sounds like Jake can’t handle the truth.
I read an article today that claimed Texas oil and gas operations paid 54 times more taxes to the State of Texas than did the windmills and Solar.
Brainwashing is a word that comes to mind.
Anyone have a connection at Fox News? This would be a hot one for them
I believe Fox News covered this story in the past, but no mention since that time. The extent of the conspiracy was not so evident back then, about a year ago.
9. Jettison the outdated belief that climate coverage repels audiences and loses money.
The only way that one can be true is with nontraditional funding like campaigns (Obama lead up to Paris Agreement signing) or special supporters (Mike Bloomberg, Laurene Powell Jobs, Bezos). Otherwise the readers are leaving the scene of the staged accident.
Because the idea that it’s an “outdated belief”, like everything else CCNow says, is based on objective evidence. Oh, wait, no it’s not. In fact, as news organizations have discovered and polls have consistently shown over the last 3 decades, “climate change” is massively unpopular except with the progressive, leftist minority or with government elites (who are also progressive or leftist). In fact it’s so unpopular it ranks dead last by a wide margin on the now disappeared “My World 2015” UN poll of the priority rank of 16 issues like “a good education”, “better job opportunities”, etc.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200728091358/http://data.myworld2015.org/
stinkerp == Re-read Brave New World and 1984. The CCNow effort it to make the Climate Emergency so ubiquitous, appearing in every news story, that it will be accepted, just the public accepted that there is a magical Covid-19 virus that can attack people if they stay in a bar after 10 pm or that could infect them in a barber shop or beauty salon but not in a WalMart.
I’m watching a series on new discoveries in planetary science on Discovery+.
Twice now they have made the claim that because of climate change, the Earth may soon be uninhabitable.