{"id":245724,"date":"2023-02-26T18:36:38","date_gmt":"2023-02-26T17:36:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=245724"},"modified":"2023-02-26T18:36:45","modified_gmt":"2023-02-26T17:36:45","slug":"reuters-editor-comes-clean-about-co2-hysteria","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=245724","title":{"rendered":"Reuters Editor Comes Clean About CO2 Hysteria"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Neil Winton disavows his uncritically adopting global warming belief in his Daily Skeptic article:  Covering Climate Change for Reuters, I Thought CO2 to Blame for Rising Temperatures. I Was Wrong.<\/strong><\/a> Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you wonder why much of the mainstream media seem united<\/strong> in accepting that the world will soon die unless humans don hair shirts, freeze in winter and walk instead of driving, you need to know about websites like Covering Climate Now (CCN).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reuters and some of the biggest names in the news<\/strong>\u00a0like Bloomberg, Agence France Presse, CBS News, and ABC News have signed up to\u00a0support CCN<\/strong>, which brags that it is an unbiased seeker after the truth. But this claim won\u2019t last long if you peer behind the fa\u00e7ade. CCN may\u00a0claim to be fair and balanced,<\/strong>\u00a0but<\/strong>\u00a0it not only won\u2019t tolerate criticism,\u00a0it brandishes the unethical \u2018denier\u2019 weapon<\/strong>\u00a0with its nasty holocaust denier echoes. This seeks to demonise those who disagree with it by\u00a0savaging personalities and denying a hearing, rather than using debate to establish its case.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

CCN advises journalists to routinely<\/strong> add to stories about bad weather and flooding to suggest climate change is making these events more intense.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not an established fact, as a simple routine check would show.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have a particular interest in Reuters\u2019 attitude because I spent 32 years there as a reporter and editor.<\/strong> The global news agency\u2019s traditional insistence on high standards in reporting makes this liaison with CCN seem questionable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Reuters announced its tie-up with CCN in 2019<\/strong> it said this, among other things.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The (CCN) coalition, which includes more than 350 organisations [there are many more now] has no agenda beyond embracing science and fair coverage<\/strong> and publishing more climate change content.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That is clearly not true. It has a partisan agenda and encourages reporters
to dismiss those with contrary opinions as \u2018deniers\u2019. \u00a0\u00a0<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The involvement of Reuters in CCN seems to me to be in direct contradiction to three of its 10 Hallmarks<\/strong> of Reuters Journalism \u2013 Hold Accuracy Sacrosanct, Seek Fair Comment, Strive For Balance and Freedom From Bias.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I became Reuters global Science and Technology Corresponden<\/strong>t in the mid-1990s, the global warming story was top of my agenda<\/strong>. Already by then the BBC was scaring us<\/strong> saying we would all die unless humankind mended its selfish ways.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carbon dioxide (CO2) was the culprit and had to be tamed, then eliminated.
I had no reason to think this wasn\u2019t established fact. I was wrong.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My\u00a0Reuters credentials<\/strong>\u00a0meant that I had\u00a0easy access to the world\u2019s finest climate scientists<\/strong>. To my amazement,\u00a0none of these would say<\/strong>\u00a0categorically that the\u00a0link between CO2 and global warming,<\/strong>\u00a0now known as climate change,\u00a0was a proven scientific fact<\/strong>. Some said human production of CO2 was a probable cause, others that it might make some contribution; some said CO2 had no role at all. Everybody\u00a0agreed that the climate had warmed<\/strong>\u00a0over the last 10,000 years as the ice age retreated, but\u00a0most weren\u2019t really sure why<\/strong>. The sun\u2019s radiation, which changes over time, was a favoured culprit.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n