The recent attack on five scientists questioning the widely accepted narrative about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, which took place on September 2nd, raises some interesting points. These scientists were involved in a July report released by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that critically assessed the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate.

In response, a group of 85 so-called “climate experts” endorsed the DOE report, contributing to similar headlines across major media outlets like CBS, NPR, ABC, CNN, and the New York Times. The uniformity of the language in these news stories is striking. They all emphasize figures, categorize contributors as either “scientists” or “experts,” and suggest serious flaws in the DOE findings. This isn’t typical of independent journalism; it suggests a coordinated effort to push a particular agenda.

The coordinated messaging feels like a rehearsed performance, with an almost Orwellian quality about it. The media’s chorus, full of climate-related soundbites, certainly would impress any propagandist.

Misleading the public

The initial criticism of the DOE authors was largely personal. These scientists were labeled by some notable figures in the climate research community as associated with the “Trump Team.” This tactic is misleading. Scientists like Dr. John Christie, Judith Curry, Stephen Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer have extensive backgrounds in climate research, not politics.

For instance, Dr. Koonin served as the Secretary of Science at the DOE under President Obama—information that’s often omitted in media discussions. Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer are acclaimed for their work in satellite-derived temperature data. Meanwhile, McKitrick has no political affiliations worth mentioning, and Judith Curry left academia due to the political pressures surrounding climate research.

Notably, the authors of the DOE report emphasized that their analysis was independent, crafted without interference from any government officials, contrary to what the media suggests. Instead, they are often disparaged as part of the “Trump Team.” On the flip side, the 85 signatories of the critical letter are hailed as “climate experts,” even though some of them may not have direct ties to climate science.

Propagating deception and fear

Aside from the media buzz, the National Academy of Sciences has looked at the DOE report, but it’s interesting to note that the review panel primarily consists of biologists rather than climatologists. Only a handful on the panel are truly specialized in atmospheric science. Nevertheless, this was presented as if the most qualified individuals were assessing the report.

The media thrives on alarmism. For instance, NPR has made warnings based on predictions of “irreversible” sea-level rise in 2023, despite there being no evidence of unusual acceleration in those rates. While floods and other climate-impact stories are frequently reported, data indicates that actual instances of severe flooding have not increased significantly due to climate change.

This all implies that if the perception is that climate effects are manageable, policy changes like carbon taxes, prohibitions on fossil fuels, or the discontinuation of support for renewable energy are less likely. Thus, the DOE’s findings pose a threat to prevailing narratives focused solely on existential crises. It seems there’s more interest in vilifying the scientists than in discussing their research.

In a sense, what we’re witnessing resembles a psychological operation—akin to what you might see in a series like “Black Mirror.” Media outlets aren’t merely reflecting reality; they appear to manipulate it for a broader agenda. Rather than acting as individual watchdogs, they function more like a pack, attempting to dictate public opinion on climate matters.

It’s crucial for individuals to investigate the DOE report for themselves, examine those critiquing it, and ask tough questions that aren’t often pursued by mainstream journalists. The influence of media narratives can only persist if we allow ourselves to be absorbed by them—it’s essential now to step back and see the broader picture.