Reuters Are Challenged Over Partisan Reporting On Climate
February 4, 2023
By Paul Homewood
An ex-Reuters reporter challenges them on partisan climate reporting:
Read the full post here.
42 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Kestrel27 on President of European Central… David Wojick on Economic damage from climate c… Mewswithaview on President of European Central… alexei on President of European Central… Gordon Hughes on Economic damage from climate c… gezza1298 on President of European Central… gezza1298 on Economic damage from climate c… gezza1298 on Economic damage from climate c… gezza1298 on Labour and Unite go to war ove… gezza1298 on Labour and Unite go to war ove…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Obviously someone must decide on output from Reuter s, so name names so checks can be made of any connection to WEF in the interests of transparency?
Slick carefully crafted BBC climate propaganda going out on the World Service. “The Meat Paradox”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m001hf27
I heard episode episode 5 last night, it starts by gratuitously sounding contemptuous of Brexiteers, before launching into the most extraordinary rant on 4C warming that CCC Lord Debben’s review of net zero progress warned we are headed for.
It is disgraceful utterly fictitious climate doom porn.
Sounds like Radio Tirana in the Communist era. Undiluted extreme propaganda, with no subtlety.
Could not agree more. Subject to copyright constraints the recent report that Paul has circulated should be sent to Reuters viz:- “Why there is no Climate Crisis”. Similarly for the team that abridges these book-at-bedtime excerpts . I will attend to the latter unless in the next 48 hours other commentators say below that this has been done already.
After China sets cold records, USA follows.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64485092
You beat me to it Mr GrimNasty
Let Reuters explain this away, from the BBC site today.
“Forecasters say the coldest wind chill ever has been recorded in the continental US as an Arctic cold snap freezes a swathe of North America.
The National Weather Service (NWS) said the icy gusts on Mount Washington in New Hampshire on Friday produced a wind chill of -108F (-77C).”
An actual ambient temperature of -46F was recorded on Mount Washington Friday evening, a new record.
I do so hope that the guys predicting another mini-ice age are wrong. I still remember the 50s-70s with no generous nostalgia.
Just weather, as the other records are. There must be trillions of possible combinations of weather conditions for any guven locatiin at any given point in time. The idea that in the last 100 years or so we’ve experienced most of them is simply absurd. We should expect records such as this every day somewhere. Until somebody demonstrates that a bit of weather is impossible without climate change, its natural.
The comment that “Is it true or did you hear it on the BBC” becomes more and more relevant. But as it is the Ministry of Truth for the Net Zero loons in government the chances of it being stripped of its licence fee are likely to be doomed.
Tony Thomas has a fine piece over at CliScep
The BBC also gets (dis)honourable mentions.
Only slightly off topic but here is a Guardian article authored by the CEO of the RSPB.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/31/sunak-nature-save-nightingales-swifts-environment-plan
Why on Earth does she chose to pick on Sizewell C nuclear plant when government plans for zillions more wind turbines should be of more concern for the “guardian” of birds.
AND why chose to LIE? Did she really think EDF would sit back and take it?
“It is therefore surprising that the charity’s chief executive isn’t clear about its location relative to Sizewell C”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/02/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-will-not-harm-the-nature-reserve-next-to-it
Perhaps Ms Speight’s eagerness to raise additional funds for the RSPB includes receiving incentives from proponents of wind turbines. She is after all notably anti nuclear.
Birds that migrate from Africa have a gauntlet of habitat destruction, hunting, and netting on their routes to run before they even reach our windmills. The UK can set aside habitat but it won’t help without addressing the main problems.
Thanks Ray. I might write about this.
If you do chose to research might I add I am somewhat confused as to what exactly Rebecca (Beccy) Susan Speight is actually “C.E.O.” of.
Is she actually in charge of running the charity known as the RSPB or is she just involved in this private fund raising company.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02693778
Something really does not sit right with me about this whole thing.
Covering Climate Now (used by Reuters): there is no longer any good faith argument against climate science
Says who exactly? Assertions aren’t science.
That’s the height of absurdity. Science is always open to challenge and climate science is particularly flimsy. It cannot explain anything about our climate – AMO, PDO, El ninos, changes in frequency of ice ages, the LIA, MWP and all the rest. It relies on model that cannot do what they claim to distinguish man-made warming from natural variability and misuses statistical methodologies across the board. These are facts and put forward in good faith. If climate science was medicine, we’d be in about 1820.
Excellent article. Balanced and fair. Like we used to expect from Reuters.
I’m noticing a few more articles recently in the MSM that are challenging the Net Zero narrative with facts (and I read widely to ensure that I’m not just feeding my own prejudices). Net Zero is a suicide pact for the UK.
“Net Zero is a suicide pact for the UK.”
It is designed to be.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
“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.”
This is where the accepted “settled science” meets real-world reality. Rapid, forceful action…lowering of CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 will necessarily require increasing shortages and higher costs for the transportation fuels needed in the conventional ICE vehicles that are making the transition to renewables and EV transportation possible. Solar and wind projects don’t install themselves, nor can EVs help yet. That means more gasoline, diesel and biofuels, not less.
Mining for minerals is mostly fuel-powered too. Net zero is a fantasy whatever policies are pursued.
“The science” is totalist language for STFU.
My generation was in awe of science. The Left’s claim the have “the science” is BS, but effective. The Left uses what you believe in against you.
That’s when science was used to open new possibilities, now it’s used as leverage to constrain.
Science does not require belief. Greentards follow a religion.
And like all religions, the adherents have to suspend any belief in reality to be a true follower, e.g.all powerful deity, virgin birth, crucfixion followed by ressurection etc.,etc., etc.
When relgions were making their way across the planet the general population were totally ignorant of any matters further ahead than the front of their noses. These mythical beliefs were promulgated by the leaders of the religions so the ignorants were scared 5H1tless. This ensured the continuing reign of the leaders and the provision of money/gifts to keep them well fed and watered – “to avoid the wrath of god, jehovah, the prophet”.
Believing all this mumbo jumbo today just demonstrates the idiocy of the believers. The really scary thing is that the idiots hold the levers of power.
And the claim is doubly wrong – you can accept the science and say we should do nothing. The first part is nonsense -all science must always be challenged – the second part a lie.
There were many fundamental changes in news outlets and journalism in the last 35 years.
There used to be a few outlets but many stories and the junk got filtered out to fit a 30 min broadcast.
Then with cable and online news, there were many outlets and much more time to fill so suddenly access to newsmakers was key to filling out airtime. Now the newsmaker controls the script.
As the value of the news declined, networks appealed to narrow audiences that might be passionate about certain things.
News services like Reuters and AP who essentially fed stories to networks and newspapers likely saw their business decline as their customers became shadows of themselves.
Now the newsmaker and their billionaire supporters, no longer being satisfied with just controlling access become sugar daddies and owners of many mainstream media properties. They control the whole narrative.
After all this the media hopes that the public doesn’t realize journalism has turned into public relations and advertising.
As people wise up they turn off the infomercial, and the fourth estate is dead.
You forget that Reuters probably made most of its money from its business customers, for whom accurate and timely reporting can be crucial. Every City dealing desk had a Reuters screen. Reuters had specialist teams of reporters providing not only geographic and geopolitical coverage, but industry expertise and military knowledge. Impartiality and accuracy was key to their success in that market. It was a fundamental principle on which their business was founded by Julius Reuter in 1851.
Jo Nova has an interesting take on the media today.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/what-looks-acts-and-smells-like-a-global-news-cartel-and-just-got-hit-by-an-antitrust-lawsuit/
I think there was another major action that screwed up the press.
In the late 1980s, the hot idea from the business consultants was “get rid of middle management.” My corporation bought into it, reducing levels of management, and, in many cases leaving NO management on the manufacturing floor . . . the wage roll managing themselves.
It didn’t end well.
In the case of the press, they got rid of editors. Journalists lost any supervision, and said any stupid thing they wanted to. 35 years later, they still haven’t realized how stupid they are.
That quote is from 2015, catweazle.
Yes, I can read dates too, surprisingly enough.
In any case, so what?
As a statement of intent, it is at least as relevant today as it was then, more so in fact given the events of the last two or three years.
Why do you believe the 2011 UK pandemic preparedness plan – based on decades of experience – that specifically ruled out lockdown was rejected in favour of Prof “Pantsdown” Ferguson’s massively overestimated potential casualty figures, effective control by SAGE apparatchiks and invoking a lockdown that has been both economically and socially catastrophic not just in the UK but pretty well globally?
And how about Net Zero which appears explicitly designed to eradicate the majority of our businesses and leads directly into and Schwab’s “Great Reset”?
Ferguson was also involved in the predictions for Foot and Mouth, Bird Flu and Swine flu
Ferguson forecasts of deaths vs actuals: 2001: Foot n Mouth 150K vs <200 2002: BSE 136K vs 2,826 2005: Bird Flu 200M vs 616 2009: Swine Flu 65,000 vs 457 2020: Covid 500,000 vs?? So who were the idiots who didn’t ask the obvious question when purchasing a service “, tell me Professor, how accurate have you been in your previous forecasting?”
Robin Humphreys
+44 (0) 7785 222 982 robinhumphreys@btconnect.com
The Ferguson record of forecasted vs actual deaths:
2001: Foot n Mouth 150K vs <200
2002: BSE 136K vs 2,826
2005: Bird Flu 200M vs 616
2009: Swine Flu 65,000 vs 457
2020: Covid 500,000 vs??
So which incompetent bureaucrat didn't ask the logical question before signing up to the ICL forecasts – "Tell me Professor, what is your accuracy track record with your previous forecasts?"
I see the current bird flu has jumped to foxes and otters in the UK.
Modern conservation seems to involve allowing or creating artificially high populations of vermin and pest species!
It’s no wonder that disease then runs amok and climate change has to be blamed.
So you didn’t make that clear in your comment. The context was the run-up to the Paris COP, not “last week” which is what you wrote.
Lighten up, Mike.
“not “last week” which is what you wrote.”
He didn’t write it; it’s part of the quoted passage (though he failed to mark the start of the quote).
Y’all can both go to time out.
I can understand his pain after a career being guided by the Reuters Trust Principles, codified in 1941:
That Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group, or faction;
That the integrity, independence, and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
That Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters, and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals, and others with whom Reuters has or may have contracts;
That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and
That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop, and adapt the news and other services and products of Thomson Reuters so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business
Those have been steadily undermined since the merger with Thomson.
If you had bothered to read the link in my comment Mr. Jackson, you would have noticed it was part of the article.
But you didn’t, did you?
So here you go:
“06:43 PM ET 02/10/2015
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Net Zero is todays mantra, edging towards Year Zero.
There will be no family, no history, no academics, no scientists.
Nothing can be learned. Phrases just recited.
The words of The Great Leader are today’s truth.
Anything other is heresy, denial will be a punishable offence.
How very dare you to even think !
Present your digital identification.
Not Pol Pot.
More King Chaz, keeper of the multi faith now named Climate Change.
And digital currency will be the tyrants’ tool.
If the government doesn’t like you, they just turn off your money.
We have seen credit card companies doing the Left’s bidding in the US. The precedent has been established. ESG is one thing, but blocking purchases is way deeper. Controlling what you can and cannot buy. Or not letting you buy ANYTHING.
BTW, until Sen Biden helped sell us Obama, he was best known for collusion with the credit card companies, getting them favorable, anti-consumer protections.
‘Digital pound’ possible by 2030 in bid to combat falling use of cash
State-backed virtual currency ‘likely’ as Bank of England and Treasury back ‘Britcoin’ project
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/02/04/digital-pound-possible-2030-bid-combat-falling-use-cash/
So even if you haven’t got a bank account, you can have “money” on your mobile phone…
Yeah, right!
Yossarian in 2030:
Wants to buy something, but his phone is discharged, so he can’t even buy a phone charge session…