The Guardian pledge to be a non-stop propaganda sheet for the climate industry

I admire The Guardian’s honesty. If the sun drives climate change and a foreign unaudited UN committee is grossly exaggerating, at least we know that The Guardian will be the last commercial news outlet on Earth to report it.

The Guardian helpfully puts this message on all the pages we read — just in case we forget for a moment and think it might be pursuing actual journalism and full fearless investigations.

The Guardian’s pledge is to pursue “Guardian journalism” whatever that is. Apparently the editors are experts in radiative atmospheric physics, even moreso than Prof Richard Lindzen. Why does the government bother to fund more scientific research – The Guardian already knows all the answers.

For the third time this year, they are broadcasting their approved mangled language for use in climate news. Presumably they are hoping their version of Climglish will catch on.

The Guardian Guide to mangling language:

A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment

In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper:

They want to be scientifically precise which is why they will stop using partial ambiguous hyperbole, and opt for pure hyperbole instead:

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”

Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.

Apparently when fewer people die from natural disasters, less wildfires occur, more rain falls, and more food is produced, “it’s an emergency”.

As for climate breakdown, it sounds like the climate is disaggregrating into lots of little pieces, or perhaps Earth’s run out of gas and has stopped by the side of the orbit? How accurate is that…

Petty namecalling — the first resort of losers when they’ve run out of reasons

Climate denier is a religious term of pure denigration and insult. You have the brain of a lizard, your opinion is worthless. That means The Guardian does not have to ask deniers opinion. It helps to scare off “journalists” from interviewing half the population lest they hear something they can’t un-hear, which is important when your religion is paper-thin glass bubble of nonsense. The last thing the politbureau wants is journalists being exposed to ‘dangerous” information.

In making this a blanket advisory, The Guardian is effectively claiming there are no climate sceptics left on Earth — the term is to be replaced. They don’t offer examples where “skeptic” can be used. Everyone who isn’t an XR wing commander is practically a denier.

It’s a lame projection of their own religious certainty. But in reality, the only people who have already arrived at a definitive predetermined conclusion are the believers — and the only people seeking the truth are the “deniers”.

2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”


The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.

Dear “The Guardian” — just name that overwhelming scientific evidence skeptics deny, and then skeptics’ll explain what scientific evidence is and how it doesn’t come from a simulation. As for scientific accuracy, go on, name that person who thinks there is no climate, or that climate science does not exist.

Climate, Science and Denier are all simple words with well defined meanings in English. It’s pretty obvious what they should mean, and pretty obvious that there is nothing scientific about this definition.

Next, The Guardian can explain what accuracy means — now that it’s no longer something exact, precise or correct.

3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”

‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.

How is heating “more scientifically accurate” than warming? The atmospheric blanket the Guardian mentions is “an insulator” not a heater. Thus, if scientific accuracy mattered, The Guardian would be talking about increasing global insulation. Greenhouse gases don’t add heat, they add insulation, eh? But obviously heating sounds so much more scary than warmth.

And once again The Guardian chooses PR — not news, not evidence and not accuracy. It’s just the Greens Left Weekly, but on a daily basis.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait... Rating: 9.8/10 (112 votes cast)