5 Filters

Compare and contrast Medialens latest on Climate "collapse" with Judith Curry et al's state of the Climate -summer 2023

Just read Medialens latest :

The ML theme is that the MSM are not doing enough to inform the public of our climate “collapse” - they just do the bare minimum! ML claims all sorts of things without evidence and never once mentions carbon or carbon dioxide or anthropogenic anything.

The JC article which I have linked to before ( State of the climate – summer 2023 | Climate Etc. ) does not touch on the media or propaganda but does show how science can explain the hot summer of 2023 without involving anthropogenic climate change as shown in this summary conclusion:

"…This Report has provided an integrated look at the global climate from the perspective of the global radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, components of the surface energy balance, and the internal modes of climate variability driven by atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Recent anomalies are introduced by external forcing from the Hunga-Tonga eruption in 2022 and the change in sulfate aerosol emissions from ship fuels which started in 2015 and was mandated in 2020.

The exceptionally warm global temperature in 2023 is part of a trend of warming since 2015 that is associated primarily with greater absorption of solar radiation in the earth-atmosphere system. This increase in absorbed solar radiation is driven by a slow decline in springtime snow extent, but primary by a reduction in reflection from the atmosphere driven by reduced cloudiness and to a lesser extent a reduction in atmospheric aerosol. Any increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 (which impacts the longwave radiation budget) is lost in the noise…" ( my added emphasis)

ML has totally missed the point - the MSM and large swathes of alternative media have never even discussed the possibility of there being no link between climate change and man-made CO2 or other greenhouse gases there is only one story being pushed out - we suffer from climate change because of man-made greenhouse gases and our “carbon footprint” ( whatever that means!) If there is only one storyline why bother with detailed boring analysis of facts that might actually trigger challenges from climate scientists - just keep on repeating man-made climate change and links to daily climate events! To go further, as ML is doing, to criticise the media for its failure to build up the man-made CO2 fears is ignoring the blanket storyline smothering everything else ~ we have caused climate change mainly through our fossil fuel use and we have to reverse all we have done as quickly as possible to have any chance of surviving as a species!~

ML says the truth will out, as with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction so the media release a little bit of AGW but don’t go full throttle WWIII as they would do on any other subject like terrorism and 9/11. But of course ML fails to mention that the MSM have been in the truth burying business ( much of which has remained hidden) for decades from the real causes of 9/11 to now with all things COVID:

  • there are reports in TCW of the possiblity of deaths from COVID jabs being in the tens of millions world-wide within a few years (“28million in five years and 56million in ten years”

-but nada still in the MSM just like AGW proof!

I’m afraid I’ve had it with ML’s and Chomsky’s Nelson’s Eye approach to climate issues!



But warming (e.g. of the oceans and the arctic) has been going on much longer than that. Very well correlated with CO2 rise. As it was predicted it would do in the 1800’s, and again by numerous scientists since then, including secret reports by Shell’s own engineers in the 1970s, and reports by the US military. Neither of whom have an interest in making that public.

JC is plain wrong to dismiss CO2 as she does. It’s not all down to CO2, but one cannot dismiss CO2 either.

Because there obviously is. Proven a dozen different ways and in thousands of studies over more than a century of study. [Edit] I thought more about this, and I think it’s wrong on the face of it. Lots of media outlets have amplified well funded climate change denying stories for decades, including Fox news, WSJ and many others. Those that didn’t propagate outright lies put out by organisations like the Heartland institute (or other Koch brothers think tanks, or fabrications from campaigns by shell and Exxon) have done their best to minimise what it means, and have found a myriad ways to restrict the framing of this massive problem so that it in no way challenges the existing power structures. They’re still doing this today. It’s only in the last few years had the evidence in our daily lives become so overwhelming that they have had to change tactics. [/edit]

Denying reality doesn’t change it, sadly… something the Ukrainians are finding out the hard way.

Man made impacts in climate are showing up all over the place from overwhelming pollution to deforestation. Why should our reckless dumping of CO2 be any different?


Hi folks,

I don’t really think @admin and I will ever bridge the gap between our opinions on this subject so I will not post in a dialogue format and perhaps we can just post our views without reference to each other’s opinions - in this way we can perhaps keep friction to a minimum on this divisive topic. I will just make general observations as below.

There is ample evidence that all CO2 rises have followed increases in temperatures - after all isn’t this the one obvious plain fact -a lot of things that release CO2 into the atmosphere grow in greater numbers not before but after the onset of hotter climates, like summer. There is a danger of falling for the “fire engine observation from space” - by reversing the timing of events the causes of those events can be reversed - fire engines always appear when there are fires ergo, to the alien looking at the Earth from a distance, they cause fires!
On the Medialens stuff:
Check out the UK Column News on the floods in Greece and Libya for a different view from that put forward by MediaLens - man’s hand yes, but nothing to do with Co2 and climate change -from 3 minutes in:

On Hawai, also mentioned by Medialens, here is another alternative ( which I have linked to before) to AGW:



Self edited. Unwilling to rock the boat

Respect your position @CJ1 and won’t push. As always, the (massive body of) evidence for disruptive climate change is freely and readily available should you ever wish to look at it. I do understand why you might not want to, though. It’s hard to face, especially for those who have kids/grandkids that will likely bear the ferocious brunt of what’s coming…

For anyone who might be interested in the CO2 following temperature rises in the past, or indeed a thorough discussion of climate change and the IPCC failings, I recommend Jem Bendell’s recent book. This is from a review I posted here a few days ago:

Perhaps for the first time, I am helped by this chapter to understand that “prior to human activity affecting the atmosphere, carbon dioxide nearly always increased hundreds of years after global average temperatures increased.” In debating ‘deniers’, how I wish I’d had much earlier the analogy the author provides in this chapter about how this time is different to previous warmings; that carbon gases are “tinder” which we have surrounded ourselves with as we sit in front of an open fire in our living room – one strong spit from the fire (i.e. “solar activity, with increased sunspots, an El Niño ocean current, or a lack of clouds due to deforestation”) could set the living room alight. “We might get lucky and have a period when the fire doesn’t spit that much, giving us time to remove the excess tinder from the living room”, he says.

This is a well understood denier talking point that in no way diminishes the serious issues we are facing.

1 Like

I follow Reuters Science News and Reuters News on Twitter and EVERYTHING that happens that can possibly be connected to ‘Climate Change’ is ALWAYS connected to Climate Change. Really, don’t believe me. But I imagine it’s obvious to everyone. BBC Guardian New York Times etc.

The response that 'oh, they’re FINALLY saying something because of OUR ACTIVISM is ridiculous. Suddenly the big bad media is all saying the same thing because the PEOPLE are forcing them. Nothing has changed in terms of ownership structure, political power, but now for some reason they are telling us the truth. As if climate change and before that Global Warming has not been pushed for more than twenty years. Who is the guy, Luongo?, who says it’s the ‘west’ going on about it because the ‘west’ doesn’t control the oil supplies any more. I don’t know about that. But I know for a fact that the state/corporate media is pushing the ‘climate change’ narrative non stop so Media Lens are just destroying their credibility as media critics. Add in the recent end of meeting statements from both Brics and the G20, and you’ll see all the usual bullshit about ‘Sustainable Development’ and it’s the same narrative as the Climate Change narrative and they all connect it with the United Nations plans…

Media Lens is now effectively a non critical promoter of the dominant state/corporate narrative of our time.


Well timed, interesting article.

As for my kids/grandkids? I’m far, far more worried about them dying alone in a foreign country fighting China and or Russia than them going under via the weather.

I’d rather have questions I can’t answer, than answers I cannot question.


Well, I suppose time and further evidence of massive disruptive climate change will make things much clearer. It’s too late to stop it now anyway… massive change is coming whether we like it or not. The real world evidence is already making it’s way into media that formerly denied climate change. That evidence will only continue to grow. Although I’m sure a plucky band of rebels will always deny the evidence in front of their eyes, no matter how vast and incontrovertible it is. That’s an unfortunate element of human nature I guess.

For what its worth, I think you’re right to be worried about your kids being at risk of dying in a war. But what do you think massive climate change, the increasing lack of natural resources, extensive crop failures, and massive waves of desperate climate refugees are likely to do to the war/peace equation? The number of risks our children will have to face is rising exponentially.

We are living in a connected system, as Bill Rees discussed so clearly in my recent post. We’re really going to have to deal with the whole system if we’re to navigate the coming breakdown in any sensible way.



Fair points Everyman. There is plenty to criticise in the media narrative. Almost everything in fact.

It’s important to separate out the media narrative from the measurable evidence, though. The media narrative can be nonsense even though the climate is really changing.

That’s where folks like Bendell come in. He is extremely critical of current narratives, but also very clear on the actual evidence of what’s happening. He’s someone you might find interesting, I think.

I think ML are actually extremely critical of some of the existing media narrative. For example I think they’re pretty clear that any possible solution has to change our current economics and our current system of corporate control. That’s an important piece to acknowledge, I think.


Massive climate change is not something we haven’t experienced before. What has a lack of tin got to do with weather/climate? Why are farmers being paid to deliberately let fields go wild when this is the future? Only desperate refugees I ever see is from war.

Mankind will adapt, improvise and overcome. We’ll go under if we don’t. And we’ve been doing this with much worse to deal with (super volcano eruption leaving around 15k humans left globally. We’re still here).

If people will become climate refugees, why do people live and farm near volcanoes?

We need to change, but the plans laid out are absolute twattery! Take cars. I’ve spoken to environmentalists and they’ve all said the same thing. A well maintained old car is better than a new one. It’s paid its debt. A new car requires new resources and the shenanigans involved in obtaining it. But somehow, electric cars are the future, even though we know we can’t fuel them all…Then there’s eating two small meatballs a day and only being allowed to buy 8 items of clothing a year (C40 cities).

All the while, this absolute FUD is pedalled by charlatans who fly private jets and offset using fiat carbon credit cobblers. Take the climate conference here a few years ago. Lord knows how many air miles were clocked up for that charade!

Look, I’ll be the first to say humanity needs to change, but if it’s bleated at you by the MSM, it’s 100% pure bullshit. And this wasn’t brought to you by the bill and milinda club either


Forgot to add.

There’s those bloody inconvenient public statements from Gore and Thunberg that have turned out to be farcially wrong.

Equally, you’re a nutter for everyday you preach about the end except the day before said end…

Good post, LY. Agree with pretty much all of it.

The climate has changed before, that’s true. What we’re doing now is making it change again. We could have chosen not to “fill our house with tinder” but we chose to ignore that instead. Future generations will pay the price.

It might be that as a result of our current actions, humanity gets reduced to, say, 1% of our current population, as has happened before. That feels … pretty foolish at a species level. As Bendell has pointed out when asked if it was easier for people to imagine our species going extinct, or our species getting rid of capitalism, the majority of respondents believed it was easier to imagine our species going extinct. A massive failure in our collective imagination there, I feel.

Just to clarify, the point about resources is again to point out that we’re facing an interconnected systemic failure. Climate change is just one way that human beings are negatively impacting the earth. It’s part of a general pattern in how we choose to live on this planet. We’re impacting the biosphere in multiple ways, including how we’re changing the climate of the planet on which we live.

I like this question as it says more about human nature than anything else. Why indeed do we take risks that we know could wipe us out? There’s a lot in that question.



And there you have humanity itself. To err is human. And we seem to be very good at it (which reminds me)

I have this theory on the origins of humanity. A traveling space deviant thought “Hmm, that ape looks kinda hot!” If only they’d have chosen a bonobo instead of a chimp…

I digress. Let’s assume for a moment that we are affecting the climate. It’s small beer. Very small beer

Because if what is said about resources being the main problem, many of our climate woes will be automatically corrected to some extent. Tin beings fantastic example. No tin means no canned foods, and it also makes soldering somewhat of a challenge too. Oh bugger! That’s widespread collapse of industry and so much more.

Then there’s war. Seems to be very fashionable right now, more so than normal. I could mention the DU, burning armour, massive methane release but I’ll just focus on the deaths. Someone’s going to Ukraine for a good time though. Can you guess who?

What we’re facing, is a cull. No more, no less. It’s multifaceted and isn’t going to stop any time soon. It’s survival of the fittest. That maxim of Holmes applies.

And I’ll finish with this. Prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance.

Enjoy the remains of your weekend:)



Oh,I wish they had chosen bonobos too. Can you imagine?

Incidentally, talking about chimps (and leaving the main topic for an off-topic aside) one of my favourite books is called Next of Kin, by Roger Foutts. It talks about human/chimp relationships and how Roger was able to teach a chimp called Washoe to speak sign language (among many other things). There’s even a linguistic critique of Chomsky’s universal grammar. Highly recommend.



I sincerely hope you’re right

Regarding the sides of the debate represented by @admin and @CJ1 I’m on both sides of the fence, definitely in need of a pill (but which one?).
On the one hand, I feel the ‘weight of science’ should count for something.

On the other hand, many times the ‘weight of science’ has turned out on closer examination to amount to the power of vested interests, propaganda and politics pushing corrupt science to the fore while suppressing real science and stifling (now, more like crushing) dissent.

The solutions being enacted may be worse than the problem, and will cement in power disparities like never before.

I see no way out of this dilemma at an individual level. Even if you discover ‘the truth’ about climate change, if it doesn’t ally with the aspirations of those that caused the problem in the first place, you encounter the creeping cancellation culture. Even if it does ally with the narrative, their solution is an alternative nightmare which in the rush is not being evaluated. (Seems we’ve been here before recently)

In the fabled science model, climate change damage equals infninty so there is no need to count the cost of measures (even though that may be infinity too, and other measures may be much better).

If climate change is the problem, the precursor to the problem was the abandoning of limits on corporate power. That needs to be addressed. The political movements for challenging this used to exist, but don’t really anymore, at least in the UK and US.

LY makes an excellent point that the resources needed to implement the energy revolution ‘to address climate change’ do not exist (or only exist subject to the law of diminishing returns). This may limit the damage done by climate change.

Trouble is, regardless of the reality of climate change, the control measures rolled out to combat it will be permanent.


Hi @LocalYokel, thanks for the link to the superb ZeroHedge article - a comprehensive review of many of the issues which invariably never hit the MSM or the MainStream Alternative Media ( MSAM).


PS this post suddenly got directed to you @Evvy_dense when I intended it for @LocalYokel I think because I forget to press “reply” before starting another post to @Evvy_dense

1 Like

Hi @Evvy_dense, my kids keep telling me to adopt a more positive approach and stop all this doom and gloom stuff. This thread was my attempt to do just that ( although some dire Covid stuff has crept in :roll_eyes: ) - the power of everyone to change the world just by thinking and acting positively is I think very under-valued. I will pursue this in another thread as it has wider implications than climate change.



Hi Admin, and others on this thread, I have a question for you to ponder. But prior to my question do you mind if I ask if your handle means you ARE admin on this board, or is it just your handle?

My question: Given the current system of corporate control, where Tony Blair still has a platform to spout off the climate change narrative and has never been tried for war crimes; where we KNOW BigPharma are criminals who when found guilty for their crimes simply pay a fine, part of the price of doing business, and move on, where there is not ANY meaningful resistance to state/corporate power in the USA or UK, given that fact, what is going to be the result of activism which pushes the climate change narrative? Let’s really consider that question, without arguing whether the climate change narrative is false or true (I obviously think it’s false, though I used to be a ‘believer’).

Given the current structure of power, what is this power going to do if more and more people are convinced of the climate change narrative? We already know what they are PLANNING to do using this narrative. They are PLANNING to use the narrative to justify huge changes in our social and economic lives, and our personal lives. And who will those changes benefit? Us or the people like the World Economic Forum and Tony Blair who are doing the planning and the selling of the plan?

Mr. Admin, please honestly consider this question: How will YOU benefit if the climate change narrative takes over COMPLETELY the public discourse, wins completely the debate? What benefits do you see for yourself and your family and friends and society?

Does anybody on this board think that there is going to be any change in the class that controls the corporate/state system? And, if there is no change, and they succeed in convincing EVERYBODY that their climate change narrative is accurate, what will they do with their INCREASED power?

Please don’t say ‘well, if there is a real challenge to state/corporate power THEN we can REALLY do something about climate change’ unless you REALLY BELIEVE state/corporate power can be meaningfully changed in our lifetimes.


Very many good point, ED.

As I’ve said before, it’s important to separate out the physical facts from computer models, and both from the various narratives being pushed. Not that easy, I’ll admit.

In this case, the science part is actually not the hard part. The connection between CO2 and warming has been known about for more than a century. Lab experiments have proved it. More than once. It’s happened on other planets in our solar system before.

The increasing dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere has also been known for a long time. The consequences were very predictable, and are now unfolding. It’s even the case that we can distinguish carbon from fossil fuels from other types, so we can sort of pinpoint our collective effect on atmospheric carbon. This is just one way that humans are polluting our planet beyond the planet’s natural ability to absorb/recycle it. Chemicals, plastics, deforestation and a host of other examples all follow exactly the same model that carbon does. It’s no different. Even Exxon and Shell have privately commissioned studies that came to the conclusion that burning fossil fuels will increase global temperature. In the 1970s… this is not controversial, untested science. It’s pretty basic stuff.

We’ve burnt half of all the fossil fuels we’ve mined/pumped/fracked in our entire history in just the last 35 years. Is it surprising that this is having an effect?

There’s obviously more to the story than that (it’s an interconnected system after all), but that is already enough to get the big picture.

Problems arise when folk start opining in what to do about that.

The only “solution” to our problem is to redraw our consumption boundaries as a species, to lie within the true carrying capacity of the planet. Absent brand new alien technologies, there is no way to do that and maintain our current civilisation.

Obviously that’s a non-starter to our corporate funded agenda. Hence all the bullshit bright green-wash being splashed around.

It’s also a non-starter to most ordinary folk, so there is a deep psychological desire to deny what’s happening.

I have compassion for that, but at the same time, we’ve got an opportunity now to start planning for the society to come. If we keep our eyes closed and just pretend it’s not really happening, then we give others the ability to plan for us. The US military, for example, has queitly been drawing up plans for climate induced disasters for at least 3 decades now. And I’m not saying anything new to folks here when I mention the WEF and it’s agenda(s).

Are those the people who we want to plan the future that’s coming?

Not to keep banging on about Bendell, but this is the crux of his “ecolibertarian” philosophy. We need to resist agendas being forced on us by psychopathic elites, and start trying to organise ourselves collectively with eyes wide open as to what the likely near/medium future will look like.

The first step is to at least engage with physical reality and realise what’s actually happening under our noses.

Hi @Everyman

I am the technical admin of this board. I set it up, pay for it and keep an eye out to see if it’s working. I’m not a moderator, though, and with very few exceptions I don’t involve myself in policing what people say here. You can call me Mr Admin, if you like, or you can just call me Aly.

I think you raise several good points. It’s a long subject, though, and I’m not an expert.

The two main competing narratives out there at the moment both seem to come from different corporate agendas. Those who deny climate change and are fighting to maintain the status quo (more fossil fuels, more flying around etc) are basically signing up with big oil, mining, pollution and earth exploitation.

Those who sign up to the green new deal, renewable energy, and limiting our freedom are paying their dues to the WEF, Bill Gates and the tech bros (and mining, pollution and earth exploitation).

Take your pick. Heads they win, tails you lose.

Meanwhile the climate will continue to warm leading to ever worse disasters, deaths, and other catastrophes.

You’re right. The elites know that the climate is changing (whatever they say publicly) and they are planning on building their future with that knowledge. All we can do is resist. But with our eyes open.

Roger Hallam spent a lot of time studying how revolutions happen. There was a time that he really believed that climate disruption would lead to upheavals in society that would lead to a revolution. My issue with that story is that it’s inherently chaotic - there is no predicting the outcome of a revolution. I don’t know what he thinks about that these days. I know that he’s spent a lot of time in prison trying to make something happen.

Jem Bendell is advocating a sort of civil disengagement. Reject all agendas and programming from the elites and organise locally basing your decisions on knowledge of what is coming. Chose radical, local democracy and be ready to resist the elitist agendas (both flavours) as strongly as you can.