CNN Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter is always decrying “misinformation” from conservative media, but extreme climate panic is never considered inaccurate.
On Sunday, he brought on two guests to describe how journalists must panic the public about the “permanent emergency” of climate change.
Introducing global warming alarmists David Wallace-Wells of The New Yorker and Emily Atkin of the newsletter “Heated,” Stelter engaged in handwringing:
Meteorologists and reporters are running out of words. They are running out of words to describe the impacts of climate change. “Unprecedented” just doesn’t cut it anymore.
From drought and lethal heat waves out West, the related fires that have been raging in California and in Canada, recent flooding in Detroit — these are just a few of the deeply troubling stories that have been linked in various ways to climate change.
He added: “But how often is that context being included in reports on extreme weather events? But how much do you know — how much do you feel you know about the climate crisis? And is there enough devoted, rigorous attention from national news outlets?”
He means is it panicky and one-sided enough?
Wallace-Wells — who is also editor of The New Yorker — advised that the media project more apocalypse, more “alarmism” in response to current events:
We can’t shy away from scary projections about the future or the scary facts as we’re living them today. I think we also need to start thinking a little harder, be a little clearer in our story-telling, that learning to live in this new future, which will continue to get worse — probably considerably worse from here…
He soon added:
Estimates suggest the burning of fossil fuels kills about 10 million people every year, which is dying on the scale of the Holocaust — in fact, larger than the Holocaust — every single year. And yet we don’t see many public health stories, we don’t see many moral crises stories addressed to that issue.
Where is this hot talk coming from? A global team of scientists issued a study estimating 10.2 million deaths from fine particle pollution in 2012 and revised it downward to about 8 million in current years.
Stelter didn’t breathe a word about how past predictions in his old employer The New York Times projecting the end of Atlantic beaches in America by 2020 didn’t turn out.
Even though journalists already repeat alarmist predictions about the future as if they were verifiable facts, Atkins advised reporters to make more dire claims about the future:
It’s not an excuse that you need to talk to a climate scientist anymore to include something in your story that says this extreme heat event was made more likely by climate change, and it’s a part of our climate change future. And what I would also argue is that you should probably have a sentence in there saying climate change is caused by fossil fuels…
She then claimed that weather disasters are being thrust upon the world by the energy industry:
…climate change is not something that’s happening to us — it’s something that’s being done to us. It’s not simply a tragedy — an act of God — it is an injustice. And it is an injustice due to a 40-year campaign to lie and prioritize short-term profit over the health of vulnerable people. So those are just basic facts.
Stelter gave no pushback to her claims. Atkins behaved as if the media weren’t already refusing to include dissenting arguments as she added:
“And in the beginning, I really approached it out of a desire to be fair as this environment science story, trying to tell all these sides. And really, when you start looking at the history and everything that’s going on right now, it’s a corruption story.”
The environmental propaganda in this episode was sponsored in part by Restasis. Their contact information is linked.
Read more at NewsBusters
Pretty WEAK to interview two “journalists” who more than likely have no scientific training on acumen on any facet of climate science. They are entitled to their OPINION, not their own facts. The really BIG lie, in addition to the climate “crisis” is the idea we are well into an energy transition to (somehow) a “100% renewable” future. There is no creditable scientific or engineering analysis that indicates this is even remotely feasible. Mean time, through short sighted & activist policies being promoted, we are in the process of de-stabilizing our reliable & affordable domestic energy systems. Media programs (like this) do our nation a complete DISSERVICE. Somehow, an intelligent, well informed debate on energy has to emerge. Otherwise, places like California & Texas give you a good preview of the road we will travel on a much BIGGER scale…
Once again the Fake News Network(CNN)Parrots big time lies to its viewers which are getting fewer since Trump is out here is hoping it gets worst for CNN
This is exactly the type of rhetoric, project Veritas said would occur in an undercover sting earlier this year. They filmed the CNN technical director Charles Chester. He said CNN wanted to ramp up the climate change fear in every single news article this year to a level not ever seen before. It’s a pity no one is watching CNN, as it’s ratings have plummeted.
Statistical weaknesses in the science dept requires linguistic innovations in the marketing dept.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/18/climate-science-vs-statistics/
‘Unprecedented’ in climate change jargon means something the likes of which have not been seen…
Since the last time it happened.
Thus, the adding of an anthropogenic climate change angle to a scientific article must also be ‘unprecedented’. The latest example I’ve seen is about a new species of moss discovered in the Antarctic. Mosses are not unknown there. Indeed, dozens of species may be found, inhabiting the right niche, but the field trip that led to this discovery was worrying because it is clear that the Antarctic is, heaven forbid, greening a wee bit.
This, of course, is due to anthropogenic climate change, which is down to carbon dioxide. Perhaps, we should just cut out the middle man and consider that greening to be directly from increased atmospheric CO2? Carbon dioxide, after all, is a plant fertiliser and down near the South Pole fertiliser is hard to come by. The new species of moss exists largely thanks to the manure from a penguin colony.
Plus, of course, carbon dioxide, a gas that has been in very, very, very short supply until recently. Thanks to fossil fuel use, it is now only in very, very short supply. In this sense, the moss is just like the rest of us. It should be grateful for that extra opportunity for plant growth.