COMMENT BY MATHEW CARR [CarrZee]
Feb. 5, 2022 — LONDON: Reporters are meant to be neutral. Get a round up of views and facts about a certain topic, present the reporting, and finish a compelling narrative with a logical conclusion about why the reader should care or act.
I believed I was the poster child of neutral reporter. That’s what my most-recent employer seemed to be telling me for most of my 20-year career, but apparently it changed its mind during the last few years.
About seven years ago, after more than a decade of writing about climate solutions, it seemed important that the world had signed onto the Paris climate deal. A few years later, I began to notice that there was still a systematic bias in our reporting toward the status-quo dirty system in the energy and commodities team at Bloomberg News.
We were sending scores of reporters to cover the OPEC meetings, where government officials rig the market for crude oil. Climate-change meetings at the United Nations level were allowed to unfold with little coverage, whatsoever, even though I thought it was well known that the switch to a cleaner system was going to be extremely tough because it requires global collaboration.
I was being required to write about natural gas rather than carbon markets.
The fossil fuel bias shouldn’t hold, I was thinking. The world has agreed to cut emissions dramatically. I began to blow the whistle, or I thought I did, at least.
I had limited impact. I was ultimately fired in 2020, after being told I was too biased toward climate action. Management said I’d become incapable. These accusations seemed outrageous then.
And now I’ve been through several internal investigations and more than five unfair-dismissal / whistleblowing hearings in London’s system of employment tribunals, losing at most of them, they seem even more outrageous.
I’m not wrong to assume the world means what it says. What’s so hard? Continuing to kill the climate — that’s clearly bias. Clean energy is already cheap, especially when the cost is spread over 15 plus years (which is can be via financing).
Here is how I argued it to the Tribunal back in August 2020:
The Respondent [Bloomberg] argues the Claimant [CarrZee] was campaigning. Because of the Paris climate deal struck in 2015 the global frame of reference on campaigning journalism had changed. Before then there was no global carbon budget, so anti-fossil fuel reporting could be labelled “campaigning.” After Dec. 2015 there was a global budget (or at least after 2016 when the Paris deal was ratified). Paris required anti-fossil fuel reporting to become the norm, and that is why the Claimant’s disclosures were highlighting a failure of the Respondent and so they are protected. Paris turned much of the benign-fossil-fuel reporting into campaigning. This is why the disclosures were novel, even if that is not necessary to show. See also paragraph 89 of the decision, where the Tribunal states the claimant’s disclosures were too general. Again, the Tribunal might reconsider all the alleged protected disclosures, starting in 2016. The background is crucial in this case, because it is about the Respondent’s behavior toward the Claimant since 2015, when Paris was struck.
The Tribunal dismissed the argument and most of my others, as well. Several other tribunal judges have joined the party. I’ll ignore the legalities in the above text for the purposes of this column.
I’m writing this story today in February 2022 because even still now, we are seeing clean energy undeservably getting the blame for the energy crisis, which is basically caused by high oil and natural gas prices ramped by fossil fuel providers in rigged markets.
The situation is basically this (ignoring many important nuances): polluters are creating a crisis by withholding supply in a bid to delay climate action. It’s predatory and it’s fabricated. The greedy brazeness is just stunning and barely anyone is saying anything about the root causes. So, the polluters’ strategy is working.
The winter is mild and commodity prices really should have collapsed already because of the lower demand. (I’m ignoring a few important nuances here, too.)
Three important “to be sures”:
One:
High fossil fuel prices boost the pace of the transition by making clean alternatives even more attractive.
Two:
High prices make it easier to remove fossil-fuel subsidies. The sellers of fossil fuels can back up their economies with high commodity prices rather than subsidies.
Three:
And as fossil commodity prices come down (and they will eventually / soon), clever lawmakers can boost / install carbon prices and the end consumer won’t notice as much when higher carbon prices replace commodity costs in their utility bills / at the gasoline pump.
The silence or misleading stories across much of the news media is made even more shocking because we are coming out of a pandemic that’s hurt most of the world’s population financially. Enough is enough.
Of course, fossil fuels will play a declining role for the next three decades at least, but we’ve been beholden to polluters for too long.
More aggressively sticking to the Paris climate deal emission limits would have made the world a much safer place right now. Saying so wasn’t (and isn’t) biased or campaign journalism, it’s neutral science and maths – a logical conclusion based on facts.
Please share and support my GoFundMe, where I’m seeking financial help for what will hopefully be the last part of my litigation and to potentially pay a 40,000 pound cost order sought by Bloomberg LP. Yes, Bloomberg wants me to pay for a portion of its legal costs. See, also, this overview.
(Updates to make the three benefits clearer)
Man-Made Climate Change is a crock of lies . . . Research . . . Real Research proves that CO2 has Never led Climate change in the 18 cycles of climate change in the last 10,000 years. When you study 250,000 years of climate change CO2 LAGS, falls behind . . . Follows . . . warming periods . . .
I STRONGLY suggest you do some real research before you spout off on ‘Man Made Climate Change’ . . . You my dear sir present extremely biased and unfounded drivel . . . to put it mildly !
https://www.academia.edu/51184433/Climate_Change_For_the_21_st_Century
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
Why have you not convinced the USA govt about this stuff?
Because ‘The Big Green Propaganda Machine’ As well financed as is is stifles the truth wherever and whenever it appears. Truth does not erase propaganda once it has had 30 years to stew in the pot unchallenged. Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been proven FALSE by hundreds of Scientific researchers . . . Yet it still gets used by the IPCC . . . Momentum rules the public discourse . . . and frankly, The Truth . . .
The Irony of The Written Word
Modern society . . . such an interesting construct. Less than 30% of high school graduates go on to attain Under Graduate Degrees from university. 65 % of those study in the realm of ‘Letters’, the many fields of The Arts. First, research published works, summarize the findings then write a legible, well documented and concise review. We have created wordsmiths, not interrogative minds, not scientific inquisitors. Not minds that doubt – respectfully – We have created ‘Intellectual Parrots’. This . . . represents the learning and rational thinking of the vast majority of our leaders. Teachers, Journalists, Political Advisors, Publicists, and yes Environmentalists. In all these fields of study consensus is the ruling doctrine. Researchers whose works are most often ‘referenced’ rise to the top of their fields. Quality and content are judged not so much by an analytical review of the input data . . . judgement is based on ‘Peer Review’.
Aristotle’s contention that The Earth was the center of the Universe lasted 1,600 years or so as The Prevailing Doctrine. When Galileo, thanks to scientific observation through a telescope, demonstrated that the Sun was the center of the Universe, the Science supporting this observation was categorically rejected and deemed ‘Blasphemous’.
Today . . . in the 21st century . . . little has changed. Scientific reviews challenging Globally accepted ‘Consensus Views’ are treated as ‘Blasphemous Aspersions’ being cast upon ‘The Peers’ and ‘The Writers’ who have come to be known and loved. More energy is expended defending prevailing positions than will ever be spent examining the ‘Descenting Science’. Common sense in the face of change, evaporates. Counter-prevailing research and the Authors behind it are defamed, and aspersions are cast while the elite of the prevailing views spend vast energy reinforcing and reiterating their prevailing views . . . At times, even the courts are used to confront ‘Descenting Scientific Research’ that is counter to prevailing consensus views.
Galileo, the father of ‘The Modern Scientific Methods’, suffered 5 years of imprisonment and lived out his life under house arrest for his ‘Descenting Scientific Research’. The more things change . . . the more they stay the same. Environmentalism, today, is the new ‘Religion’ defining the prevailing ‘Global Consensus Views’ on Climate Change. The 2001 united nations document co-authored by Michael Mann that included his now famous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ has become the new ‘Holy Grail’. Research . . . any Scientific Research counter to this Globally accepted consensus view that Climate Change is caused by humanity burning Fossil Fuels shall be deemed blasphemous to the ruling doctrine of our time, akin to ‘Satanic Worship’.
The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject, is Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. Environmentalism is a relatively New Science and it is being truly tested for the first time. If Climategate starting in 2009 is any example, we can only imagine what is yet to come. When that One Stone gets overturned proving Collusion and Willful Deception. The un-scientific foundations that have been supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . . Null.
Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak. Who wants to be the one to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . . The old adage . . .
There are none so blind as those who will not see . . . How Ironic . . .
Jim Le Maistre
Copyright 2022
Furthermore . . . You are an intelligent man . . . Read this one . . .
https://www.academia.edu/71021345/All_Electricity_Even_Renewables_Poisons_Planet_Earth
ALL energy production is POISON to Planet Earth . . . Solar panels, during their production, mostly in China, burn MORE energy than they will ever produce during their useful lifetime . . .
But Hey . . . Why check these things . . . they might change your views . . .
We wouldn’t want that now would we . . . !!