Climate change/ Energy · United Nations

United Nations bans climate skeptical journalists

Democracy and different opinions are something of the past, when we have the both the high priests of climate change and the United Nations involved.

“CAUGHT ON TAPE: UN bans skeptical journalists from climate summit for holding views not ‘particularly helpful’, Climate Depot, October 21 2016:

The United Nations has rejected the media credentials of three journalists from a conservative news outlet in Canada to theupcoming UN climate summit in Morocco in November. Nick Nuttall, a UN official, admitted in an October 18 CBC interviewthat The Rebel news outlet is being banned from attending the UN summit because of its skeptical reporting of the UN’s climate claims.

Nuttall tried to justify the UN media ban by noting that The Rebel TV host Ezra Levant has called UN promoted climate change fears a “crock.”

“What does [calling climate change a ‘crock’] add to the public’s understating?” Nuttall asked the CBC.

The UN’s Nuttall told the CBC, “I don’t see what he is actually reporting, you know, as being particularly helpful.”

But much to the shock of the UN official, the warmist Canadian Broadcasting Corp’s (CBC) Carol Off was having none of it.  The CBC’s Off openly challenged the UN’s censorship of the media outlet.

“Do people have to prove that they’re helpful in order to be accredited journalists?” Off, who hosts the ‘As it Happens’ program on the CBC, asked the UN’s Nuttall.

A clearly flustered Nuttall responded, “Well, what do you think journalism is about?”

The CBC’s Carol Off tersely responded “reporting.”

As the Nuttall continued to dig himself deeper into a media hole, Off demanded an answer.

“I am just wondering again about he subjectivity of rejecting the credentials of The Rebel,” CBC’s Carol Off asked again.

Off summed up the UN’s obvious bias in rejecting the news outlet’s request for credentials.

“So it does seem that what Mr. Levant is saying is true — that you didn’t like his point of view,” Off said.

Nuttall responded. “No, not really. The point is he seems to be advocating a particular point of view which is so personal that it didn’t seem to be a genuine media outlet to me.”

Nuttall also tried to justify the UN’s censorship by claiming the conservative media outlet “seemed to be more kind of anti-refugee, anti-climate, anti-this, anti-that. And I just didn’t feel that it was maybe appropriate in terms of better understanding climate change issues and giving balanced reporting to a general public.”

Nuttall also claimed that The Rebel “caters to other people’s prejudices.”


5 thoughts on “United Nations bans climate skeptical journalists

  1. To be fair to them, Ezra can come off like an ambush journalist. However, if they were remotely open he wouldn’t need to. The situation works well for them.

    Maybe this will cool them off in a few years.

    Or maybe people will get sick of them and give them a drubbing.

    Conservatives need to demonstrate genuine concern for the environment while refuting sensational rubbish and sort wheat from chaff in the “Green’ Movement effectively splitting the old fashioned conservatives from the Marxists.

    Conservatives must remember that environmentalism started as another western value that was perceived to be maligned by Western institutions. This is how another western value (regard for all creatures great and small/tending the Garden of Eden) came to be usurped by Socialists.

    1. Yeah I think conservatives need to recognize environmental degradation when it happens. I’m certainly open to doing this. We’ve got to be ideological (so we actually stand for something) while maintaining basic strands of pragmatism

    2. As someone who grew up in Los Angeles in the late ’50’s/ ’60’s, I fully understand the need for environmentalism. The air was so polluted that it was not uncommon for my eyes to sting while sitting in class. In the mid ’60’s, the state of California enacted some sensible laws to deal with the problem, and the improvement of the air quality has been dramatic. While I no longer live there, I pass through the LA frequently, and I never see the air as bad as what, in my childhood, was considered to be a relatively clean-air day.
      The problem is that all of this success spawned the birth of an environmentalist industry which is unable to deal with said success. If they admit that they have won, they effectively put themselves out of a job.
      The solution? Find a problem that they know can never be solved. Guaranteed employment for all time. Climate change fills this requirement perfectly. They know that the climate has been changing

    3. (Sorry, finger slip)
      They know that the climate has been changing since long before there were any humans on earth, and will continue to change long after we have joined the other 99% of earthly species in extinction.
      One can’t help but notice that whether the crisis is the next ice age or rising oceans flooding our coasts, the answer is always the same: more regulations, more taxes, more money for them. It has basically turned into an organized criminal enterprise.
      The climate change hoax does not have, and never has had, anything to do with protecting the environment, saving the planet, or halting the rise of sea level. It has to do with one thing, and one thing only. Taking money out of your pocket, and stuffing it in the pocket of Al Gore and his millionaire pals.

    4. This is an interesting point. I think your right, we’ve got seek balance on issues of which enviromentalism is one of them. Thanks for sharing your thoughts I’ll visit your blog now.

Leave a Reply