In the grand theatre of modern environmentalism, free speech isn't just collateral damage, it's the main target. The latest act unfolded last Saturday in the pages of The Guardian, where Environment Editor Damian Carrington decried the UK's broadcast regulator Ofcom for allegedly letting GB News "flout" accuracy rules by airing "climate change denial." Carrington, a darling of the Green Blob's Covering Climate Now network (where he snagged a 2023 Journalist of the Year nod), breezily dismissed decades of critiques on UN climate models' inaccuracies since 1979, insisting they've been "remarkably accurate." It's a claim that would make even the most optimistic modeler blush, but in the echo chamber of Net Zero orthodoxy, facts bend to fit the script.
This isn't isolated sniping; it's a calculated campaign to cement the climate narrative as unassailable gospel. From activist tittle-tattling to regulatory fines and advertiser boycotts, the machinery of control is in overdrive. As the U.S. buries Net Zero under a revival of actual scientific debate, courtesy of a Department of Energy report admitting climate models' wildly divergent projections (a factor-of-three spread on CO2 doubling, unchanged for decades), Britain's establishment clings to censorship like a life raft. The message? Question the dogma, and you'll be cancelled, fined, or starved of oxygen. Welcome to the control of the climate narrative: where "settled science" means "shut up and comply."
The Guardian's Playbook: Alarmism as Journalism, Dissent as Heresy
Carrington's hit piece exemplifies how legacy media serves as the narrative's enforcer. Funded by green grants and staffed by award-winning ideologues, The Guardian doesn't report on climate, it curates it. Their complaint? GB News hosts calling climate change "rubbish" or a "scam" (echoing none other than U.S. President Trump's UN General Assembly quip). Ofcom, they whine, has "effectively suspended its accuracy rules" on this "life-and-death issue." Never mind that Ofcom has fielded 1,221 complaints on the "climate crisis" since 2020—none breached the code. It's a tell: the rules are a one-way street, wielded against sceptics while alarmist hyperbole (think "boiling oceans" or "climate genocide") sails unchallenged.
Across the Channel, Carrington nods approvingly to France's Arcom regulator fining CNews £17,000 for a contributor dubbing climate change "a lie, a scam." The complainant? Activist Eva Morel of QuotaClimat, who intoned that blurring "facts and opinions" erodes trust and "endangers lives." Noble words, but as Eric Worrall skewered in Watts Up With That?, science thrives on challenge: "There is no such thing as a fact which cannot be challenged." Ofcom's own guidelines deem anthropogenic global warming's "scientific principles" "broadly settled"—a bureaucratic fiat, not science. The scale of human impact? That's hypothesis, not holy writ. Yet regulators treat it as such, turning broadcast airwaves into Net Zero propaganda zones.
The Activists' Arsenal: From Complaints to Cash Kills
Enter Reliable Media, the shadowy outfit behind the GB News barrage. This hard-Left limited-by-guarantee entity—spawned from "Just Stop Hate" and "Just Stop Heat" campaigns, boasts of making "climate change denial unprofitable." How? By harassing advertisers into boycotts, a digital-age blacklisting that echoes McCarthyism but with carbon credits. Their latest accounts (to June 2024) paint a precarious picture: £107,940 in the bank, matched by imminent creditor bills. Cash-strapped or not, their model is class-warfare lite: the envious underdog snitching on the "bigger boys" like GB News, which has surged in viewership by daring to air contrarian views.
This isn't organic outrage; it's orchestrated. Groups like Stop Funding Heat (tied to Reliable Media) have pressured brands from Barclays to Unilever to shun "denial" platforms. The result? Self-censorship ripples through media, with outlets like the BBC issuing grovelling climate "impartiality" guidelines that equate scepticism with flat-Earth lunacy. In the U.S., pre-Trump, Big Tech's fact-checkers (often funded by Gates-linked orgs) shadow banned contrarians, labelling data-driven critiques as "misinformation." Post-2024 election, that's crumbling, Texas AG Ken Paxton's suits against Google for search bias are just the start. But in Europe, the EU's Digital Services Act looms as a supercharged Ofcom, mandating "climate misinformation" crackdowns that could fine platforms into oblivion.
Xoffers a counter-narrative Wild West, where posts debunking model failures rack up millions of views. A recent thread by @ClimateDepot on the DOE report went viral with 500K impressions, mocking "settled" science. Yet even there, Community Notes, now more balanced under Musk, face activist pushback, with calls to reinstate pre-2022 censorship.
The Science of Suppression: Models, Money, and the Myth of Settlement
At the core of this control is a perversion of science: declaring debate "over" to justify hegemony. The DOE report, penned by five eminent scientists, lays it bare: after decades of modelings, projections for doubled CO2 warming span 1.5–4.5°C, a "great concern" unchanged since the 1970s. UN models? They've overestimated warming by 50–100% in some runs, per studies from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Yet Carrington's "remarkably accurate" line persists, a sleight-of-hand ignoring failed predictions (e.g., no Arctic ice-free summers by 2013, per Al Gore).
Why the lockdown? Follow the money. Net Zero's trillions, $100T+ globally by 2050, per McKinsey, fund the faithful. IPCC authors cycle into green consultancies; dissenters get defunded. Universities enforce "consensus" via grant blacklists, turning campuses into echo chambers. The result? A hypothesis (human CO2 drives most warming) elevated to theory without falsification.
The climate narrative's control isn't about saving the planet, it's about power. Net Zero demands obedience: rationed travel, meat taxes, surveillance via smart grids. Dissent threatens the edifice, so it must be crushed. As Worrall nails it, enforcing "unassailable facts" from "flimsy" models guts scientific inquiry and free expression. Dominic Frisby's satirical ditty on bullying Miliband-types underscores the irony: science is rediscovering scepticism's value, just as activists pine for schoolyard enforcement.
But cracks are showing. Trump's U.S. pivot, slashing green subsidies, reviving nuclear, has emboldened global pushback. GB News thrives despite the hate, hitting 20% audience share. Survivors of the narrative (e.g., Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder turned sceptic) warn: suppression breeds distrust. When models flop and policies impoverish (e.g., Germany's Energiewende blackouts), the backlash will be biblical.
The fix? Unleash debate. Let Ofcom rule on all claims, alarmist and sceptic alike. Fund contrarian research. Treat hypotheses as testable, not sacred. As the U.S. DOE authors conclude, uncertainty isn't a bug; it's the feature demanding humility. The climate narrative's lockdown is crumbling, not with a bang, but with a data-driven whimper. Time for the controllers to adapt: question everything, or get left in the cold.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/28/guardian-ramps-up-efforts-to-ban-all-climate-dissent/