Guardian Hacks Told To Use Scary Language To Describe Climate Change
May 17, 2019
By Paul Homewood
h/t Willie Soon
Breaking news from Leo Hickman:
“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
uwe.roland.gross on Monsoon rebound prepares groun… Ivan on Comparing The Heatwaves of 199… uwe.roland.gross on Great Barrier Reef Is In Much… Stonyground on Comparing The Heatwaves of 199… Ivan on Leaked Report Points To Wind F… Nial on Public Pays Wind Farms £… Nial on Public Pays Wind Farms £… Pancho Plail on Comparing The Heatwaves of 199… Charles Pickles on Climate Change Killing Forests… Phillip Bratby on Comparing The Heatwaves of 199… 
Congrats folks – you’ve all been promoted from ‘climate sceptics’ to ‘climate science deniers’ by the Guardian’s groupthink promoters.
. . . as if anyone is sceptical about climate let alone denies that there is such a thing as climate or a study called climate science!
Thank God nobody reads the Guardian.
“…nobody reads…”
You might be surprised!I
One former Canadian friend assures me, in an Email, that he reads the Guardian on-line, first thing every morning; hence he knows what Brexit is really all about (a sort of vile “Trumpism”), and passes the message on to less-informed people in Toronto, who lap it up because they are all agreed that Trump is only second to Climate Change in the competition to literally destroy the whole world.
Stories in outlets such as the Guardian are really only lighted matches being thrown into a house already filled with gas.
Turnabout is fair play, or something. Let’s produce a list of words helpful
in describing this newspaper.
Here’s one: Abomination
It was a great newspaper many years ago. Now abomination probably over-estimates its openness and fairness in reporting.
Nah. Andrex.
You are too kind. At least Andrex leaves me feeling clean after use.
Here is another one still: PRAVDA
There is probably more truth in Pravda these days than the Guardian
When your official government paper is called ‘truth’, you know that truth is the last thing it will contain.
All this hysteria is taking place at a time when, if you had a time machine and could travel from 2019 to 1919 and back again, you would be hard put to it to identify any change at all in the climate. I used to think that enlightenment values would become increasingly widespread with the result that humanity would approach decision taking ever more rationally and rely on empirical evidence. It seems, unfortunately, that my optimism was a delusion. Instead it is people like me who are treated as fantasists.
A suitable term to add to John F. Hultquist’s list above, ‘Climate fantasists’.
I commend this motion to the House.
Rueful laughter-ridicule-is merited, but it is sad to see newspapers unashamedly becoming agents of tendentious opinion more than reporters of news with fair comments.
Unbelievable. What can we next expect from these idiotic people? She might just as well write her journalist employees articles for them, she can then refrain from sending out such silly edicts and come up with some stories which we might find interesting.
Should not the starting point be one of always distinguishing whether or not they are talking about CC, or GW, wtih the ‘A’ in it or not? AGW – ACC.
Whether we agree on how much ‘A’ there is in GW (thus possibly resulting in some ‘A’ in CC, I would imagine that the alarmists think (or should be) that they are trying to stop AGW, or ACC – not GW or AGW.
You’re not listening, it’s AGH and ACE. Sorry couldn’t resist.
Great !
Or just total BS?
Surely Paul Holmewood is a climate science promoter?
Business as usual: Lying. Leave shame in a dressing room.
So is this putting on “spin” or what? Why not ACCURATELY report what real scientists say? The fact they, journos see their place to sex up the language should be a clear sign to anyone who has been sucked in to the Reverend Gore’s Church of science free Climate Doom. Question is….. they cannot go any further. They have devalued and devalued their currance of inane alarmism….how more extreme can they get before even the dullard zombies currently occasionally attending school on both sides of the pond will wake up?
So, what happened to, “…it’s worse than we thought”?
Perhaps, “We haven’t a f’ckin clue.”?
It’s hilarious that they think that the vague, meaningless term “climate emergency” is “scientifically precise”. The imbeciles are getting more and more desperate and ridiculous.
The first IPCC report came out in 1990. They’ve had 29 years to sell the scam and indoctrinate the youth and it still ain’t working! Alarmists are really dumb people, but you gotta give them credit for being steadfast stubborn suckers.
Maybe the near $2 trillion ‘industry’ hanging off its coattails has something to do with it.
Sure, but the real objective was political/social change through economic means and they have failed miserably in achieving that objective. The reality is their scheme to totally subjugate the people will only work if the worlds developed nations with significantly large economies take part, and that isn’t happening. In general those countries that bought into green the deepest relative to their respective GDPs, are and will continue to suffer the most economic damage and will either have to back off or see their economies shrink to new lows. Lows that will most likely be unsustainable politically. The headwinds continue to grow for the greens and the industries their policies have fostered.
Do you still believe that “Global Warming” being a scam is just a conspiracy theory?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
So, how do you spin the truth that the temperature in the Arctic is EXACTLY where it is “supposed to be,” for the time of year? Oh, silly me!. You do not report it at all.
I enjoy the Grauniad web site (where I go for cricket scores – they don’t seem to be able to spin those) so that I can metaphorically give them two fingers when they beg for donations.
‘Seams’ fair to me.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
As Guardian climate alarmaholics find less and less to shout about, they decide their best option is to shout louder anyway.
Well it hard to imagine, after these latest propaganda terms have run their course, what the next set of terminology will be. Anybody is welcome to come up with the next terminology and suggest it to the Grauniad.
Which scientists are talking about a “catastrophe for humanity”?
I have not seen a slew of properly researched and replicated “science” that proves that. Even in Alarmist terms.
Yes, a few scientists make vague claims when interviewed and there are some totally extreme scenarios but that does not make a catastrophe science. Just double standards, using extreme views as if they are mainstream.
As Paul has noted, the alarmists are regularly contradicting their ‘bible’ the IPCC reports in the current deluge of propaganda. It is getting so desperate that they fear something is coming to end their scam.