Climate Science Is Everywhere and That’s Deliberate


Trying to blog in the age of censorship is difficult. It doesn’t matter if you tell the truth; they still cancel or shadow-ban you. And then their compatriots among the left-wing fact-checkers demonize you. Many of the censors are in the UK. One such organization is the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, which only began in 2022 from the Reuters Institute.

They have an action unit that supplies the headlines, the studies, the stories for whatever pro-climate change narrative you want to promote.

In two years, they have sent 400 journalists and 50 climate experts to report on climate change. What couldn’t you convince people of with that kind of power? They are funded by green grifters like Jeremy Granholm and the European Climate Fund.

They tell their journalists to find a climate angle the audience is interested in for their climate journalism and extend beyond customary reports to other areas of life. They are ubiquitous. Joseph Goebbels is smiling somewhere from Hell.

Their linked article boasts of having already prepared studies ready to go to fit the narrative:

5. In case of an extreme weather event, turn to an OCJN journalist.

Until recently, editors and reporters had to wait months, even years, after a hurricane or drought to answer a simple question: was it made more likely or stronger by climate change? With the development of the field of attribution science, led by Dr Friederike Otto and the World Weather Attribution team, the wait is now often days.

The topic is still tricky. Before each one of our cohorts starts, we ask our members how confident they felt reporting on 17 different topics, from the concept of net zero to how UN negotiations worked. Unsurprisingly, extreme weather attribution regularly ranks near the bottom.

Following our course and our keynote seminar with Otto, this changes significantly. In our recent post-course survey earlier this year, members reported a massive jump in self-confidence when reporting on this topic. They are now more comfortable talking about it than about their country’s unemployment data or healthcare system, two topics we also track as unofficial “control” groups.

You can see this in coverage across the world, as our members regularly publish stories following her seminar: Emilia Delfino published a quick turnaround piece about climate change-driven drought in South America for,Tosin Omoniyi wrote an overview of the field for Nigeria’s Premium Times and Janine Peralta covered the topic for CNN Philippines.

They are always ready with spin.

One of their speakers, Saffron O’Neill, has called for fines or imprisonment for those who doubt settled climate science. Science is never settled.

6. Newsrooms can prepare for recurring climate events in the same way they prepare for elections or the Olympics. 

In much of the world, fire “season” is becoming a seasonal fixture of national coverage, lasting for months and testing the endurance of journalists on the ground. Same goes for drought, flood or hurricane season: we know it’s coming.

This year, in a closed session with Australian and Canadian journalists to compare notes on fire coverage, one conclusion emerged: you can now plan out what your newsroom should expect before, during, and after covering fires.

The same can be said for extreme heat. Journalists often say they’re caught short looking for images to accompany stories about the dangerous health risks of extreme heat that aren’t just photos of people having fun on the beach. But after a session with our speaker Dr. Saffron O’Neill, members said that news outlets and photo agencies can and should think ahead of time about how they photograph the risks of hot weather.

They also want to terrify you.

The article tells you they are anchored to newsrooms and to use culture and sports. They are everywhere.

If you think everything is now attributed to climate change, it’s because they are linking everything to climate change, and it’s deliberate, not because it’s true. They don’t report. They indoctrinate. In the case of the CDC and the pandemic, they terrified people into obedience. That was deliberate, too. Just ask Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford. Read the article beyond just the words. They tell you what they are – propagandists.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments