{"id":404837,"date":"2025-09-25T10:56:48","date_gmt":"2025-09-25T08:56:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404837"},"modified":"2025-09-25T10:56:50","modified_gmt":"2025-09-25T08:56:50","slug":"medias-psyop-against-climate-scientists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404837","title":{"rendered":"Media\u2019s psyop against climate scientists"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From The American Thinker<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0<\/strong>Vijay Jayaraj<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

A coordinated offensive unfolded with precision September 2 against five scientists questioning the popular media\u2019s most sacred bogeyman — the hypothesis that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide threaten to overheat the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scientists attacked had written a report published in July by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delivering virtually identical narratives, proclaiming that 85 “climate experts” had discredited the DoE report, were CBS<\/a>, NPR<\/a>, ABC<\/a>, CNN<\/a>, The New York Times<\/em><\/a>, Los Angeles Times<\/em><\/a>, Reuters<\/a> and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Language in the news reporting was nearly indistinguishable, and the focus identical: a number (“85” or “dozens”), a designated group (“scientists” or “experts”) and a verdict (“flawed,” “lacks merit,” “full of errors”). This is not the natural variance of independent newsrooms pursuing a story. This is the result of a shared press release, a common source or a backroom agreement to push a common storyline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was a master class in singing the same tune that would make any propaganda ministry proud — a calibrated flash mob of climate-fear messaging in an explicitly partisan tone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fooling the Public<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first volley of the assault was a classic ad hominem attack. The authors of the DoE report, five of the world\u2019s most distinguished and academically rigorous researchers of climate issues, were immediately branded as the “Trump Team<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a deliberately dishonest tactic. The authors — doctors\u00a0John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer — are not political operatives. They are scientists with decades of experience and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications.<\/strong>

Dr. Koonin served as\u00a0Undersecretary for Science<\/a>\u00a0in the Department of Energy under President Obama, a fact conveniently omitted from most of the media\u2019s hit pieces. Drs. Christy and Spencer are world-renowned for developing the first global temperature dataset from satellites, for which they received\u00a0NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No mention that Ross McKitrick is a Canadian academic<\/a> with no political ties. No mention that Judith Curry stepped away from academia partly because of the politicization of climate research and previously had been much sought after for her research<\/a> into hurricane intensity.

Most critically, the authors themselves have stated that there was no oversight or compulsion from anyone in any government department during the creation of their report. They say they crafted the report independently<\/a>, with no interference from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. But the media gloss over that. Instead, the scientists are derided as the \u201cTrump team.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In stark contrast to the vilified DoE authors, the 85 individuals who signed the critical letter were anointed as \u201cclimate experts\u201d and \u201cleading scientists.\u201d Yet, the list of signers<\/a> is padded with individuals whose specializations are, to put it generously, tangential to the core issues of climate science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strategy is clear: assemble a gaggle of academics, label them “climate experts” and use the sheer number to create an illusion of overwhelming scientific consensus against the DOE report.

Sell Lies, Instill Fear With a \u2018Black Mirror\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adding to the theater, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has announced a panel to review the DoE report. But here\u2019s the twist: The panel is headed not by a climate scientist, but by a biologist. Out of the panel\u2019s members, only a few have<\/a> direct expertise in atmospheric science. Yet the announcement was trumpeted as if the nation\u2019s top climate experts were mobilized.

Predicting catastrophe is a media business model. NPR warned<\/a> of “irreversible” sea-level rise in 2023, ignoring tide gauge records that show no acceleration<\/a> beyond historical norms. News outlets regularly report on “unprecedented” floods, yet data indicate no uptick in floods<\/a> due to climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If everybody believed climate impacts were manageable, the case for sweeping carbon taxes, bans on fossil fuels and subsidies for wind and solar energy would collapse. That\u2019s why the DoE report — noting forecasting uncertainty, adaptation possibilities and economic trade-offs — is so threatening. It undermines a narrative of an \u201cexistential\u201d threat or imminent collapse. So, the media did not debate the five scientists; they sought to destroy them and their report. Not with data, but with labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

This is a psyops initiative like that depicted in the Netflix dystopian series \u201cBlack Mirror.\u201d The media outlets are not mirrors reflecting reality; they are black screens projecting a manufactured one. They have become instruments of a political agenda, sacrificing journalistic integrity to enforce a specific viewpoint on climate change. They operate not as individual watchdogs but as a wolf pack. They decide what you should think and seek to broadcast it in unison until you do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019d encourage you to read the DoE report for yourself or at least countervailing opinions of it. Scrutinize the credentials of those who attack it. Ask the hard questions that the journalists refuse to. The black mirror can only hold power over you if you consent to stare into it. It is time to look away and see the world as it is, not as they tell you it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the <\/em>CO2<\/sub> Coalition<\/em><\/a>, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor\u2019s in engineering from Anna University, India.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t