Tuesday, May 28, 2024
HomeClimate WatchThe climate scaremongers: We are being fed propaganda by a leftie cartel

The climate scaremongers: We are being fed propaganda by a leftie cartel


EVER wonder why, whenever there is a hurricane, a flood or some other weather disaster, the coverage across the media is almost identical, often down to the exact wording and specific claims made?

One of the reasons could be a little-known outfit called Covering Climate Now (CCNow), an initiative by the Guardian and other outlets with left-liberal leanings, to which some very high-profile news organisations such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the Daily Mirror and Newsweek have signed up.

CCNow was formed in 2019, and its website boasts: ‘CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom – from politics and weather to business and culture – and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.’

The website also makes clear that CCNow is interested only in propaganda, not facts. Its Guide To Making The Climate Conversation,  a Goebbels-like instruction on how to spin the news, instructs media to link extreme weather with climate change, even when there is no evidence, and to use emotive terms such as ‘stacking the decks’, ‘supercharging normal weather patterns’ and ‘human-caused climate change is consistently making hurricanes more intense’.

The whole thing is transparently a political endeavour, as the Guide makes clear: ‘Emphasising the human impacts of extreme weather can help drive home the significance of climate change. If you’re covering how an extreme weather event is affecting marginalised people especially, be sure to also note that this is characteristic of climate change, which evidence shows will impact the poor, communities of colour, and Indigenous groups first and worst.’

What makes this concerted effort to con the public particularly insidious is that agencies such as Reuters and AFP have signed up, so the lies will reach a much wider audience than the handful who read the Guardian. Indeed CCNow brag that their partners (they claim 500-plus in more than 50 countries) have a reach of 2billion people. It should therefore come as no surprise that CCNow is funded by the usual collection of progressive US foundations who are out to change society.

Meanwhile, we have the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), set up in 2019 by the BBC to counter ‘disinformation’, particularly relating to climate, Covid and elections. The BBC is of course an expert on disinformation, which it peddles daily! The TNI brings together major media outlets and Big Tech to discredit and de-platform the myriad online publishers who are contradicting the official lines and reducing trust in big media, along with its ad revenues.

The BBC seem to have been especially interested in the US 2020 presidential election, as they expanded the TNI’s global network to the US just a few months before. Quite why the BBC should have any interest in the outcome of that election is not clear, unless it was to ensure that the right candidate won. Possibly as a result of the TNI’s interference, the Hunter Biden laptop story was deliberately hidden from the American public by a corrupt media and Big Tech in the run up to the election, and dismissed as ‘Russian disinformation’.

Given that Big Media and Big Tech are so powerful and wealthy, one wonders what they are so scared of?


How are Defra’s climate projections working out?

IN 2009 the Environment Department Defra, in conjunction with the Met Office, published their UK Climate Projections, forecasting how the climate would change up to 2080, complete with graphic images of floods, wildfires and the rest. The projections were compared with a 1961-90 baseline.

How have those projections worked out so far?

1)    Summer rainfall – forecast to decline by 13 per cent by 2080. The actual figure so far:

The clowns in the Met Office could not even get the sign right! Since 2009, summer rainfall has risen back to the level it was at for most of the 20th century. Long-term averages are clearly very stable, and there is no evidence that rainfall will decline as projected.

2)    Winter Rainfall – forecast to rise by 23 per cent:

Although winter rainfall has risen slightly since the 1980s, it is barely any higher now than in the early 20th century. Again there is no sign of the massive increase projected.

3)    Summer Temperatures – forecast to rise by 4C

Summer temperatures are only 0.4C higher than 1931-60. It is plainly absurd to extrapolate a 4C increase in the next 60 years.

4)    Sea Levels – forecast to rise by 360mm by 2080

Actual sea levels have not risen since 2006 at North Shields, and the long-term rate of increase is just 1.84mm a year.

These 2009 climate projections still form the basis for the latest ones, published in 2018, and are used for government planning and decision making. As such, policy is being set on the basis of a seriously flawed report. It is time that Defra dropped the make-believe, corrupt advice from the Met Office, and employed a team of independent experts to advise them who are not tainted by self interest.


The amazing mega-battery that would keep the UK going for seven seconds

ASK any proponent of wind farms how the grid will cope with their intermittency, and they will say ‘battery storage’.

Sky News recently broadcast a puff piece for a new battery park in Liverpool run by a company called Zenobe, which is claimed to be Europe’s biggest. Sky glowingly refer to it as a mega-battery covering an area of two football pitches, along with claims that it is the first step in saving billions of pounds off bills which will enable lots more wind power to come on to the grid.

The claims are absurd.

The battery park has capacity of only about 75 MWh, which would be enough to keep the UK power grid going for seven seconds!

Put another way, if wind farms were forced to provide two weeks’ worth of storage at their own cost, something which is essential, a 1,000 MW wind farm would need 1,792 Liverpool battery parks! Clearly the wind farm would be uneconomical.

In short, the battery park will do nothing to address the problem of the days and weeks on end when the wind does not blow.

As for the supposed savings, battery parks like this one will help to balance the grid on a minute-to-minute basis to manage the problems involved with wind power, which will be well paid for by the National Grid. Indeed Zenobe have won a nine-year contract for this, something which energy users will have to pay for ultimately.

Without intermittent wind power in the first place, these additional costs would not be necessary.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood is a former accountant who blogs about climate change at Not a Lot of People Know That

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.