Former Reuters Editor Says He Was Misled on Climate Change

For 32 years, Neil Winton was a journalist for Reuters. He also served as a global Science and Technology correspondent in the 1990s. This gave him an unique perspective on climate change debates.

Climate change panic was still manageable in the 1990s. Many people questioned the increasing narrative that CO2 from human industrial activity is the main cause of rising temperatures. However, activism has taken over science in the past two decades.

Winton points out the fact that temperatures have been rising since the end the last ice age, for over 10,000 years. This uneven increase has seen warming stop, retreat, and start again. Winton points out that even climate deniers agree with this postulate.

Skeptics are divided on the notion of a “climate crises.” This is one of two facts that media ignores.

Although the idea of a “climate crisis” isn’t widely accepted, partisans chant about it. It is difficult to prove or define, and it is very vague. According to Reuters standards, shouldn’t it include a balancing viewpoint? Many people believe there is a crisis. But many others don’t. Climate change is a myth, not a fact.

Another little-known fact, something only a close look at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports would reveal, is that although 90% of climate scientists agree that the climate is warming up, much less are certain that CO2 is to blame.

My Reuters credentials allowed me easy access to some of the most respected climate scientists in the world. I was shocked to discover that none of them would categorically state that the link between global warming and CO2 is a scientific fact. Some believed that human-produced CO2 was a cause. Others thought it may have played a part. Other people said that CO2 had no effect. Everyone agreed that the climate has warmed over the past 10,000 years since the ice age ended, but not everyone knew why. Sun radiation, which is subject to change over time, was the preferred culprit.

My reporting reflected this wide variety of views. Reuters is a typical example of Reuters’ “on one hand this, and on the other, that” style. However, even then, mainstream media often succumbed to the BBC’s flawed, biased thesis. It was too difficult to point out that many outstanding scientists challenged the BBC’s conclusion.

Even worse is the American media, where statements on climate change are treated uncritically and published as scientific facts. The lack of climate scientists and scientists-trained reporters is part of the problem.

This is now referred to as “bothsiderism”, which refers to the careful presentation of both sides (or all) of a debate and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Winton points out, however, that this was once a core principle of Reuters journalism.

Climate change is still a hot topic. It’s not something I know much about, so I can’t say if it’s man-made. However, politicians and lobbyists believe that all of us are guilty. They want to destroy our way of living and order us to follow their orders because it is good for our future and our children’s future. We should have an open discussion if we’re going to abandon our civilization. Journalists must stand up and be heard. It takes courage, energy, and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.

It’s clear that politicians and media conglomerates are pushing the global warming agenda. This narrative will not be stopped. We can only continue to fight back against the facts and hope the worst of the proposals is defeated.