By Vijay Jayaraj
We have reached the end of the summer Olympics in Paris, including the Olympics and Paralympics. Although the US finished on top in the Olympics and in the top three in the Paralympics, much of the world’s attention was on the Olympic’ Christian obscenity at the opening ceremony in Paris.
It also overshadowed some unprecedented events in the city. A few days before the game, French authorities fined the country’s second most popular news channel 20,000 euros for challenging popular narratives about the perceived climate crisis.
CNews, an hourly news operation, has been accused by the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communications (ARCOM) of broadcasting failure to challenge the skeptical view of global warming fears.
“This is the first time in France and internationally that ARCOM or regulatory authorities have issued financial sanctions for violations on environmental subjects,” said QuotaClimat, an organization that has reportedly complained about climate reports from various media.
The CNews case raises serious concerns about press freedom – the bedrock of a democratic society – and public access to diverse perspectives on environmental issues. While the regulator insisted that the channel failed to provide sufficient context and arguments, critics argued that the decision set a dangerous precedent, effectively requiring media outlets to adhere to certain ideological positions.
The role of journalism in a democracy is not to dominate the official point of view or consensus opinion, but to investigate, question and present different perspectives on important issues. By imposing restrictions on how climate issues can be reported, France is undermining an important function of the media.
This crackdown on climate reporting shows a growing trend of using authorities backed by official power to stifle the expression of views that challenge the government’s preferred narrative, a development about anyone who favors an open society.
The practice has become very common in academic research as well. Scientists who challenge the crisis narrative are subject to witch hunts and dismissal from the profession.
Many climate scientists, heavily influenced by funding sources, have turned the discipline into something that hardly qualifies as science. While their work appears to be scientific research and is conducted by people with scientific credentials, their methodology and findings are largely shaped by the agendas of special interest groups, political figures and international governing bodies.
Researchers and organizations, in many cases, have become grant harvesters rather than truth seekers. These scientists are the beggars of governments and wealthy foundations who want certain discoveries and are willing to pay.
Those who champion genuine scientific inquiry must resist the deliberate efforts of climate alarmists to undermine skeptics, for whom questioning is a manifestation of critical thinking. Inquiry into popular theory should be welcomed, not considered incitement.
From Galileo’s astronomical discoveries to more recent controversies in fields such as genetics and nuclear energy, efforts to protect popular views often backfire. slow scientific progress and technological progress.
In the case of climate change, this is also true. Restrictive energy policies – justified on the basis of the “climate crisis” – have hindered economic growth and increased prices. Ideologues seek to reverse decades of progress in clean coal-fired power plants, oil and gas development and other technologies.
Scientific understanding of the Earth’s climate does not proceed through silence, but through rigorous research, peer review and open debate. By allowing multiple voices in the media, including those that challenge the so-called “consensus,” opportunities for truth emerge.
Isolated intrusions on press freedom are troubling. But actions like the French regulator to report the climate story can be replicated by other governments and for other subjects – certain events without the intervention of honest citizens.
This is the proverbial slippery slope greased by the powerful’s lust for control or money or both. Left alone, only the most ruthless of political relations can say where it ends. Even he can’t say for sure, but history tells us that it will end.
This comment was first published on your news on September 10, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj as a Research and Science Associate CO2 coalitionArlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental science from the University of East Anglia, England, and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, England.
Related
