32-year Reuters veteran reporter on ‘climate change’: “I was wrong”
From Neil Winton’s blog WintonsWorld: Climate Change; An Alternative View But Backed By Top Experts
When I became Reuters global Science and Technology Correspondent in the mid-1990s, the global warming story was top of my agenda
Already by then the BBC was scaring us saying we would all die unless humankind mended its selfish ways. Carbon dioxide (CO2) was the culprit and had to be tamed, then eliminated.
I had no reason to think this wasn’t established fact. I was wrong.
My Reuters credentials meant that I had easy access to the world’s finest climate scientists.
To my amazement, none of these would say categorically that the link between CO2 and global warming, now known as ‘climate change’, was a proven scientific fact.
Some said human production of CO2 was a probable cause, others that it might make some contribution; some said CO2 had no role at all. Everybody agreed that the climate had warmed over the last 10,000 years as the ice age retreated, but most weren’t really sure why.
The sun’s radiation, which changes over time, was a favoured culprit.
My reporting reflected the wide range of views, with Reuters typical “on the one hand this, on the other, that” style. But even then, the mainstream media seem to have run out of the energy required, and often lazily went along with the BBC’s faulty, opinionated thesis.
It was too much trouble to make the point that the BBC’s conclusion was challenged by many impressive scientists.
Fast forward 20 years and firm proof CO2 was warming the climate still hasn’t been established, but politics has taken over.
Sure, there are plenty of computer models with their hidden assumptions ‘proving’ man is guilty as charged, and the assumption that we had the power and knowledge to change the climate became embedded.
The political Left had lost all of the economic arguments by the 1990s, and its activists eagerly grabbed the chance to say free markets and small government couldn’t save us from ‘climate change’; only government intervention could do that.
Letting capitalism run free was a certain way to ensure the end of the planet; smart Lefties should take charge and save us from ourselves.
The debate about climate change is far from over. I’m not a scientist so I don’t know enough to say it’s all man-made or not. But politicians and lobbyists have decided that we are all guilty.
They are in the process of dismantling our way of life, ordering us to comply because it’s all for the future and our children.
If we are going to give up our civilization, at the very least we ought to have an open debate. Journalists need to stand up and be counted. The trouble is that requires bravery and energy, and an urge to question conventional wisdom.
Reuters should be leading this movement. All it has to do is stand by its 10 Hallmarks.
And maybe tell CCN thanks but no thanks; it needs to apply Reuters principles to its climate reporting.
Excerpt– Jan 23, 2023:
When I first started writing about human-induced climate change (or global warming as it was then known) as Reuters’ Science & Technology Correspondent back in the mid-90s, I turned to a subject I knew from headlines rather than research.
But I had expectations. After all, even then, the BBC was reporting as fact global warming was upon us, it was all our fault, and we’d all die soon if we didn’t listen to those that know best and act.
Imagine my amazement when I started talking to the world’s top climate scientists and found a completely different story.
The science wasn’t even close to being proven, and I had great difficulty finding anyone to say the link between excessive human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and a changing climate was clear.
There were many assumptions, but no proof. Yet the BBC and the mainstream media (MSM) constantly reported a proven doom scenario.
See more here climatedepot.com
Header image: downloaded.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan Stewart
| #
Since the beginning of civilization thousands of ‘end of world’ prophecies have abounded. Funny thing, I’m still here writing and you’re still here reading.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Eventually, people will make them specify which sense of the word “climate” they are using. They love to use alternate definitions of the words. The sheep assume that they mean one thing, when in fact, they are saying something different.
For example, “white” means bright and shining. It refers to people who have risen above their peers. Wealthy middle class people are “white”, even if they’re black or Mexican. Oprah is “white”.
If you replace the definition of “white” in everyday life, you will quickly see that they aren’t attacking white people by skin color, but by definition. Hence, the IRS going after millionaires. The proto-indo-european root word for bright and shining is “*dyu”, or “jew”. This is how Hitler could both be a *dyu, while also oppressing “jews”. The words jew and white are synonyms by virtue of their roots. In WWII they were going after the middle class wealth in the country, just like they’re doing now. Same script!! The 30 tyrants from ancient Greece are no different from the politicians today, and that is another place you’ll find similarities with modern events. It’s all a script and they use locution to hide it from you.
Another example is “love and peace”. Sheep assume it means affection and freedom from war. No, “love” means worship and “peace” means a quiet population (one that obeys, doesn’t protest or whine). North Korea is an example of “love and peace”. Far cry from what people assume they’re saying.
You have to look up the words and make them specify which sense they’re using. Otherwise, you’ll be led down the wrong roads.
Reply
aaron
| #
Good comment Wisenox
yes, semantics is their favorite time tested method used to confuse and gain compliance of the naive and gullible
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
‘Greenhouse Gas Warming Theory’ is simply that. A theory. A false assertion.
Unproven in any laboratory in the world.
If it had been proven with empirical evidence, then we would have seen these scientific demonstrations.
Reply
patricia bowman
| #
If I was wrong on my job for 32 years …. well I would have been fired after the first year. Just saying. Climate change is a weaponized agenda.
Reply