Another €100,000 (£88,000, $107,000) has been gifted to a climate journalist via the foundation of Spain’s second largest bank, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA). The money is an annual presentation and was recently given to the New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert. The bank said it gave her the cash “for her extraordinary ability to communicate in a rigorous, attractive manner the fundamental environmental challenges of our time”. BBVA is deeply involved in funding subsidy-heavy renewable technologies. It recently declared record profits for 2022 of €6.42 billion, and noted that it had channelled €50 billion into “sustainable business”. Past cash recipients include Matt McGrath of the BBC, the Guardian newspaper and Marlowe Hood of Agence France-Presse (AFP).
The foundation was particularly impressed with Kolbert’s 2016 seminal book, The Sixth Mass Extinction, which was awarded a ‘non-fiction’ Pulitzer Prize. This was said to have documented the dramatic loss of species that the planet is suffering. “One third of all reef building corals, a third of all freshwater molluscs, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of reptiles and a sixth of all birds are heading towards oblivion,” she said. For good measure, she claimed that around a half of all living species on the Earth could disappear by the end of the century.
Kolbert is a Climate Catastrophist straight from central casting. She fervently believes that humans can control the climate by adjusting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a proposition that is disputed by many scientists. She compares climate ‘deniers’ to flat-earthers. What ‘deniers’ think of climate science, or rather her take on said science, is “completely irrelevant“. Like most people in her world, she says, “I have low tolerance for people who deny facts and disregard truths”.
The sixth mass extinction scare is becoming very popular in climate Armageddon circles, and is heavily promoted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). But it suffers from a major flaw – a lack of proof. Most of the claims are produced by models and are just opinions. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists 823 animals and plant species (mostly animals) that have gone extinct since 1500. If you are in the Pulitzer prize winning territory of a sixth mass extinction, you might expect to be able to show more than 823 extinct species in 522 years.
The WWF has been responsible for much extinction alarmism since its Living Planet Index has estimated at least a 50% vertebrate decline since 1970. But a group of Canadian biologists recently cast considerable doubt on this claim, suggesting that it was a cherry pick. They showed that the estimate was produced from less than 3% of vertebrate populations. “If these extremely declining populations are excluded, the global trend switches to an increase,” they point out. “More informative indices are needed,” they conclude. The finding is perhaps not surprising since the small increases in CO2 over the last 40 years has produced 14% more vegetation across the globe.
Five years ago, the eminent Smithsonian palaeontologist Doug Erwin dismissed sixth mass extinction talk as “junk science“. He went on to state that “many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, much less how truly awful the mass extinctions recorded in the marine fossil record actually were”.
As regular readers are aware, MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen believes the entire climate narrative is “absurd”. However, he acknowledges it has near-universal acceptance, despite the fact that in a normal world the counterarguments would be compelling. “Perhaps it is the trillions of dollars being diverted into every green project under the sun, and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists, along with the political control offered to elite groups in society by Net Zero, that currently says it is not absurd,” he suggests.
Neil Winton spent 34 years working for the international news agency Reuters, including four years as science and technology correspondent reporting on global warming. He wrote a recent article noting that anyone who abused people by calling them a climate denier “betrays the fact they know little about climate science, or are too lazy to do their own research”. They are more interested in forcing their views on the public and silencing debate, he added. The idea that the science is settled, he says, won’t last long if the reporter can be bothered to use a search engine revealing “scores if not hundreds of highly qualified scientists who beg to differ”.
In his new book on Net Zero, Winton notes, the author Ross Clark accuses Reuters of joining an organisation “which is dedicated to presenting a partisan view of climate change, and silences those who dare to disagree by activating the obnoxious ‘denier’ assertion”.
This organisation is called Covering Climate Now (CC Now), and it specialises in ready-to-publish climate scare stories. The Daily Sceptic wrote about it in December under the heading ‘How billionaires fill the Media with climate fear and panic’. CC Now feeds over 500 media operations and its ‘partners’ include some of the biggest names in news publishing such as Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, CBS News, ABC News and MSNBC News.
Winston notes that CC Now issues the advice: “For God’s sake do not platform climate denialists.” Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus or ridicule climate activism “don’t belong in a serious news outlet”, it says. Since when did Reuters require an outside organisation to advise it on how to report on controversial issues, asks Winton.
He adds: “If you dig deeper though you’ll find it uses weasel words only too familiar to those like me who’ve striven to provide real honesty and balance to the argument. It reveals itself as just another arrogant, warmist outfit dedicated to shutting down those with whom it disagrees. Not a thing Reuters should be associated with, surely?”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Used to be a subscriber to The New Yorker where Kolbert is a regular writer. She’s shameless in her pitches, a real horror story. Fame at any cost.
Their subscriptions are going extinct.
i read kolbert’s article a couple of years ago about norfolk Va being inundated by sea level rise . she failed to give an explanation that norfolk is sinking faster than sea level is rising . it’s incredible how people can peddle such bad science and how many people swallow it without question . and they are supposed to be our intelligentsia .
As I like to say at my GelbspanFiles blog, that Elizabeth Kolbert. The one favored by college teachers in efforts to indoctrinate their students with CAGW propaganda. More on that particular instance here.
Once I get past Passenger Pigeons, Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, and Blauebock antelopes, I can’t really think of any non-island species that went extinct other than frogs and such.
As no one has any good idea of how many species there are, counting species, or deciding whether they are extinct is mostly conjecture.
Forget the plant food dooming. Alfred Hitchcock was right all along. It’s The Birds!
Bird flu ‘may mutate to kill more than 50% of humans’ (msn.com)
There’s a long list of critters that still need to be made extinct. Ticks and dozens of other parasites, thousands of viruses, some seriously poisonous snakes, etc.
Starting with the journalists
Rewarded for lying!
Just like Matt McGrath was, at the BBC.
As I like to say, “He who owns the cookie jar hands out the cookies.” Liars and con artists receive many awards and accolades as long as their lies fit the needs of the awards committee. For example “Distinguished Professor” Michael Mann.
It’s weird that the warmunists keep yelling that so-called “climate skeptics” are being paid $$ when all along it is they who are being rewarded for common sense denialism.
I haven’t been on here for years. I left after resident commenters couldn’t tell the difference between ‘it is said’ and ‘I believe’. ‘It is said’ doesn’t even mean ‘they believe’. It simply means they say it. And some people will say anything if it suits their purpose.
There are people with a purpose. They have had a purpose since Old Testament times. The OT warns about these people constantly worshipping idols.
These people have a large say in the petroleum industry. The also run the climate change agenda and fund activist groups to divide and conquer. They know it is untrue.
I was divided from this site by others thinking they knew better because I joked about a popular song title relevant to an article headline on manufactured poverty. It was my fault for thinking they could think well enough to understand what “it is said” meant.
What I never said, but will say now, is that i infiltrated the religion behind the carbon con, sufficient to discover the truth. The truth was, as I suspected, that conservatives were being played like a fiddle. They are still being played by the extremely wealthy, just as they were by the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan back then.
I don’t know anything about the journalist in this article, but I well understand the people who control the media. They’re the same sort of people who had conservatives cheering for Thatcher and Reagan through basic manipulation.
I came on here to see if some were waking up properly. But I dare say that’s too much to expect. I had to put my life on the line to see the whole truth and I already suspected much of it. I could have just joined them and become famous and financially secure. That is what I appeared to be doing.
Appearances can be deceptive, though. I shall appear as a crank or a liar, but it makes neither true. In a fake world the truth is lost.
I’m old enough to remember when a journalist’s job was to question the narrative by asking
Who
What
When
Where
Why
“How?”….
“What are you selling?”
“Do I need it?”
“Who is paying you?”
The idea that the science is settled won’t last long if reporters use a search engine to reveal scores if not hundreds of highly qualified scientists who beg to differ.
____________________________________________________________
That search and the resulting list of qualified scientists & LINKS should appear here at WUWT somewhere. Maybe it does and I’m too lazy or unskilled to find it.
It should. Prominently. So, too, in a bold, forthright, manner, should lots of other data-driven analysis and writing exposing the fact that CO2 does not drive climate. Sadly, since around 2016, WUWT does as much to promote the lies about CO2 as to counter them.
From the article: “Kolbert is a Climate Catastrophist straight from central casting. She fervently believes that humans can control the climate by adjusting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a proposition that is disputed by many scientists.”
It should be disputed by every REAL scientist, since there is no evidence that humans can control the Earth’s climate by adjusting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. None whatsoever.
Journalists, and the Average Joe and Jane, can figure this out, too, since you don’t have to be an Einstein to figure out the difference between evidence and speculation, assumptions and assertions. They are different things, Ms Kolbert. They are not the same, Ms Kolbert. Speculation, assumptions and assertions (your stock in trade) are not evidence of anything other than evidence of ignorance on the part of the people who present such things as being evidence.
From the article: “She compares climate ‘deniers’ to flat-earthers. What ‘deniers’ think of climate science, or rather her take on said science, is “completely irrelevant“. Like most people in her world, she says, “I have low tolerance for people who deny facts and disregard truths”.”
Yeah, me, too.
Your problem, Ms Kolbert, is you don’t know the difference between speculation and facts and truth. You think speculation is the truth. No, it’s just speculation. A guess, Ms Kolbert. You’re guessing right along with all the other alarmists. None of you have any facts or truth, you just think you do.
Return the money in the name of professional and humanitarian ethics!
Yes. If she does not, that refusal is strong evidence that she is being paid solely:
for her extraordinary ability to communicate in a rigorous, attractive manner.
In other words, she is simply writing advertising copy.
I think she wrote that quote, too. “Extraordinary.” Lol.
There is more work to do in public awareness of media bias with “only” 50 percent aware of the problem now.
Study shows ‘striking’ number who believe news misinforms – ABC News (go.com)
When people generate lies to support a narrative it is clear they are in it for the money and fame.
“I have low tolerance for people who deny facts and disregard truths”
By this statement, she demonstrates a remarkable degree of self-loathing. Maybe she should be on suicide watch.
As for this statement attributed to CC Now, “For God’s sake do not platform climate denialists,” such meaningless gibberish. These people do not even believe in God.
Climatemongers who push narratives, shouting epithets on anyone not espousing their chosen POVs are nothingness mush … i.e., waste or byproducts of internet blogs full of idiot mush… such persons have no understanding of real (Capital S) Science and the Scientific Method vs. pushing a narrativve-of-the-day that they pin their name on in order to say they are a “believer” … a definition of empty nothingness.