Media Ignore The Science & Peddle Climate Propaganda
By Paul Homewood
In a post yesterday, I accused the media of giving up all pretence of objective reporting, and shamelessly blame every flood, heatwave, drought and storm on climate change.
There were a couple of examples yesterday:
In an ITV report on Tory backbenchers rebelling against the cost of Net Zero, Deputy Political Editor brazenly claimed:
Then we had The Times leader stating that greenhouse gases were contributing to extreme weather events:
https://epaper.thetimes.co.uk/the-times/20210731/281552293898901
Mostly up until now, even the BBC has been careful to avoid saying this sort of thing outright, instead using the weasel words “while we cannot link any one event to climate change, scientists say…..”
But it is now apparent that the propaganda is being ramped up to a new higher level, in an attempt to intimidate the public, who are rightly worried about the direct cost to them of Net Zero policies.
Climate sceptics are accused of denying the “science”, yet it is the media now who are rejecting what the IPCC have been consistently saying – that extreme weather is not getting worse. There are no discernible trends in storms, floods, droughts, hurricanes or wildfires. Heatwaves may be slightly hotter than in the past, but equally extreme cold spells are a bit less cold.
Indeed, the whole idea that a tiny rise in temperature could transform our weather is utterly absurd.
The Times leader, by the way, goes on to recommend that developed countries massively increase their climate funding to the third world. Ethiopia, they claim for instance, alone needs $275 billion by 2030 to meet its green energy plans.
This, of course, is silly money. Maybe The Times would like to suggest which taxes we raise to cover such expenditure.
Ironically, on the same page, The Times is moaning about rising electricity prices. Yet they fail to mention that households are already paying over £400 a year to subsidise renewable energy, a figure which will continue to inexorably rise.
They also fail to explain that the rise in electricity and gas prices this year is largely due to carbon taxes, imposed by the UK and EU to push their climate agenda. Carbon taxes are expected to carry on increasing in years to come, putting further pressure on energy prices.
Perhaps somebody needs to teach the Times leader writer how to add TWO + TWO!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
There are less than 100 days to go until the COP26 summit determines the fate of the almost dead climate movement.
Even if the climate movement is “almost dead”, our politicians are still making us pay huge and insane financial. tribute to its very persistent errors and falsehoods.
Of course they do, that is how they signal their virtue!
What worries me is that the propaganda is starting to mirror that described in Ross Clark’s novel The Denial. Hopefully when the cost is laid bare the majority of people will come to their senses.
Facts? They don’t need no stinkin facts, they believe! You heretic!!!
Is there a case to be made at the Press Complaints Commission?
I realise the Guardian isn’t a member (can’t think why!) but the Times and others will be.
Maybe it needs a specific complaint that’ll have knock-on consequences for media climate reporting?
http://www.pcc.org.uk/
It’s IPSO these days: http://www.ipso.co.uk .
However, since this body has just told Peter Hitchens that he was naughty for saying that masks are useless, I can’t see them standing up for climate truth!
https://mol.im/a/9847621
Paul can I “Copy and paste” this one please? … and how I want to put it on my Facebook page! They hate it!!! 😀
David H Tanner
>
Yes that’s fine
Are the “Carbon Taxes” hypothecated because, if not so, they are a lie/theft/extortion/robbery, just like all costs and charges said to be in aid of climate alarmism, an unproven fear in the minds of the gullible and of politician-crooks.
Times Radio is the same. All of the presenters seem to be scientifically illiterate.
I’ve stopped listening.
At least Talk Radio invite in the likes of Benny Peiser to inject some common sense into the argument and challenge the groupthink.
Lez: Since lockdown and working-from-home, I have become a regular listener to Talk Radio. Mainly because this channel is a refreshing change from the uniformity of the MSM.
On Thursday afternoon, Iain Collins held a long discussion on an interesting question.
In my own words: Lockdown and furlough (driving massive increase in national debt) is an example of Government powers being exercised in the face of a perceived emergency. In comparison, there are many complaints that government action on climate is muted. Does this tell us the government doesn’t really take seriously the so-called “climate emergency”?
Jordan,
while some people claim the government is not doing enough to mitigate climate change, the reality is somewhat different.
We are committed to spending a lot of money, over and above what we have spent already on the so called Net Zero. The changes proposed are both draconian and extensive. Not that they can work.
I would not consider that as ‘muted’.
I don’t know what the greens want or how they expect to see things change in an instant, which reflects their total ignorance of technical matters and indeed their lack of understanding of climate science in general. CO2 to them is them only factor in an extremely complicated system.
The article is about a Tory backbench rebellion to challenge the costs of Net Zero and I have asked my M.P. if he intends to be apart of it.
The media are at the behest of the goverment/green advocates and know they have to double down on CC because….what’s coming is not HOT. If they can get the msg across now they are toast. The agw scam is in the ER.
(Postex on wring thread originally)
The UK emits 1.02% of the worlds CO2. The temperature has risen 1.2C in 150 years. If the UK goes to net zero it will reduce the temperature by 0.00816C in 100 years time.
1.02% of anthropogenic CO2 which is 4% of total CO2 emissions and CO2 makes up 400ppm of the atmosphere. 0.000064%
Temp. Reduction 0.00000816 C. 3 orders of magnitude LESS.
It was down to 0.989% last year.
The Times have no intention of adding two and two, but two minus two – netzero.
I thought the answer is supposed to be NWO.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but prove me wrong. MSM has been bought and controlled by the same cabal pushing the UN, AGW, Socialism, Marxism, and Globalization.
Absolutely spot on. Well said
I will call you a realist.
You are correct. That is why you and the rest of us must be silenced for their own good.
Is there anyone who like me thinks that there seems to be much more green growth now than years ago? May be the evil CO2 is causing it! Has any honest research been done on this? May be it has and the result is being supressed.
Try a search for “Global Greening”, and skip past the hit pieces, google has one as its first result.
Exactly! There was a report from NASA, iirc, which used satellite imagery. It showed that the world is considerably greener than 30 – 40 years ago. The area added is equivalent to about twice that of the contiguous US. 70% of the effect is attributed to rising levels of CO2.
On a personal level, I would certainly agree that stuff is growing thicker and faster these days. I have shrubs which used to need one trim per year; now it’s two or three times per year.
I have an ash and a walnut, both have flourished in the last coupe of years and need costant pruning.
Meanwhile the Taishan EPRs are in trouble:
An excellent write-up from Kathryn Porter who delves down into the detail of what might be going wrong, and the wider implications for UK nuclear policy, which is now plainly in a mess.
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison”
Richard Lindzen
Strange how the Times newspaper states that Ethiopia needs £275 billion pounds from the western democracies to battle climate change but apparently has no problem with finding money to fund their side of the civil war in Tigre Provence.
Media ‘shamelessly blame every flood, heatwave, drought and storm on climate change.’
Empty vessels make most noise.
The humans and the climate
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/27/modern-humans-climate-change/
Reportedly about 100 countries have “increased their ambition” leading up to COP 26. All these developing country climate plans are contingent on our funding them, so no wonder they gleefully want to do more. Free money!
And, going by the situation here in South Africa, I would guess that any money going to these ‘third world’ countries will end up mostly in he pockets of politicians or their friends!
Regarding this: “Mostly up until now, even the BBC has been careful to avoid saying this sort of thing outright, instead using the weasel words “while we cannot link any one event to climate change, scientists say…..””
They no longer say it because it is no longer true. We now have “rapid attribution” shops that claim a specific degree of AGW causation, in time for the news cycle.
For example they claim that the recent Western US heatwave “could not have occurred” without AGW. And they call it science!
AGW is an acronym for human-emitted CO2. Recent heatwaves are unrelated to that CO2, but are to natural variability…
“Summer heat extremes in northern continents linked to developing ENSO events.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3514578
Actually AGW refers to around ten different supposed human causes, of which CO2 is just the largest. I agree about natural variability, but obviously the attribution shops do not.
Here is the IPCC list of “forcings” in AGW, including the supposed amount of each since 1750! There is also just one natural forcing, direct solar variation, which is insignificant. This is what the models are required to use so the only causes of change are human. That is, AGW is assumed. This chart first appeared 20 years ago, but it used to have wide uncertainties shown. It was originally developed by Hansen, the great alarmist.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/summary-for-policymakers/figspm-05/
Hard to make sense out of our obsession with doom. Maybe just our post war eco wacko worrywartism where humans are not part of nature but an everpresent threat to the integrity and survival of nature.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/27/modern-humans-climate-change/