Juno News - The media joins in on the COP26 party to fear monger about climate change

00:00:00.560 MPs slammed the CBC for failing to carry out the most basic element of the CBC's mandate.

00:00:07.120 Plus, the CBC did not learn their lesson from those cringeworthy op-eds. They continue

00:00:11.920 to publish the world's stupidest opinion pieces. And finally, the media joined the COP26 party 1.00

00:00:18.080 to promote total doomsday scenarios and fearmonger about climate. It's Fake News Friday.

00:00:23.120 I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:30.320 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for tuning into The Candice Malcolm Show. I love Fridays. I love

00:00:34.160 our Fake News Friday show. We get to dissect the media, show you all the ways that they're just so

00:00:38.560 bad at their jobs. We usually focus on the CBC, but sometimes other journalists and Canadian media

00:00:44.240 outlets get special recognition and we have a lot of content to get to. But first, if you are watching

00:00:50.080 this video on YouTube, don't forget to like this video, leave us a comment, subscribe to True North,

00:00:55.360 and hit that little notification bell so that you never miss an episode. If you're watching over on

00:00:59.520 Facebook, don't forget to like this video, share it with your friends, leave us a comment, let us know

00:01:04.000 what you think, or leave us any tips or ideas you have for future episodes of Fake News Friday. If you see

00:01:09.600 any terrible examples of the media out there completely lying or misrepresenting the facts

00:01:14.720 or presenting their opinions as facts, let us know, post it in the comments section so we can get to

00:01:20.560 it. And also don't forget to like our True North page. Finally, if you are listening to the show in

00:01:25.600 podcast form, please leave us a five-star review if you enjoy the show and don't forget to subscribe to

00:01:30.800 The Candice Malcolm Show. All right, so let's start off with this story over at Black Locks.

00:01:35.200 Parliamentarians slam the CBC for blacking out local evening newscasts. So the CBC showed some poor

00:01:42.560 judgment. That's what the headline reads over at Black Locks. So we learned that network managers

00:01:47.920 on March 18th, 2020, one week into the pandemic, decided to black out the 6pm newscasts in Vancouver,

00:01:55.760 Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Fredericton, Halifax,

00:02:02.000 Charlottetown, and St. John. So basically every city in the country. All regular programming was

00:02:07.920 restored by June 15th. This is the first time the CBC has done this since 1952. So the CBC at the

00:02:15.760 time called it a COVID precaution, but did not explain why cutbacks did not affect the French

00:02:21.760 language services. Okay, so this was only English CBC. I cannot stress how short-sighted this would

00:02:28.000 be in our province given our reliance on local news, said then MP, Liberal MP, Scott Simmons of

00:02:33.920 Newfoundland and Labrador, who was the chair of the Commons Heritage Committee. He wrote this in

00:02:39.520 a letter. The lack of understanding and focus as to the proper role of a public broadcaster

00:02:44.720 is deeply concerning and it brings into serious questioning the judgment of the executives

00:02:50.400 in times of crisis, wrote MP Wayne Easter, then the Liberal MP in Prince Edward Island and chair of the

00:02:57.200 Commons Finance Committee. Easter said the cuts left Prince Edward Island without a local newscast.

00:03:03.200 The CBC, as a condition of their license, promised at least seven hours of local programming per week.

00:03:10.000 Senator Percy Down of PEI told the Chamber another condition was they could not change without approval

00:03:16.720 from the CRTC following a public process of consultation. None of this was done. The CRTC failed

00:03:23.600 in their responsibility, said Downey, who called the news blackout, idiotic. From the beginning of the 0.99

00:03:29.120 pandemic, when we need it the most for information, they abandoned the field. CBC executives also

00:03:35.440 received formal protests from the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador, the leader of

00:03:39.840 the Newfoundland NDP and a local First Nations group and the Federation of PEI municipalities. So even if

00:03:46.720 you defend the CBC, even if you're one of those people who loves the CBC and really believes in the idea of

00:03:51.840 having a public broadcaster or government run broadcaster, the sort of basic role that CBC

00:03:58.720 fails is providing local newscasts in markets that don't have the private sector alternatives. So

00:04:04.960 places where there isn't a CTV or a global newscast. The fact that CBC right in the middle of pandemic

00:04:10.880 said, yeah, you know what, we're just going to stop. We're just going to stop doing the news for a couple

00:04:14.640 months here because of COVID. So sorry, you don't get any news at a time where we're having a global

00:04:20.400 pandemic where people really need the news, where CBC is relied upon in those communities. The fact that

00:04:25.680 CBC, we just back out again, what a total, total joke of a network. What a disgrace. It is so unbelievable 0.86

00:04:32.640 that these people get 1.2 billion taxpayer dollars and they don't even know how to run the most basic

00:04:38.880 elements of a newscaster. If there's any reason to defund this network, there it is right there.

00:04:44.400 The fact that they can't even fulfill the most basic aspects of their mandate. It is idiotic. 1.00

00:04:49.600 Absolutely. It is idiotic. They, they didn't follow through with the basic thing that they're 1.00

00:04:54.320 supposed to, but of course it's the CBC, it's the Canadian government. There's no accountability.

00:04:58.000 There'll be no punishment. They get a stern talking to from these parliamentarians. They don't care.

00:05:02.480 They shrug their shoulders, cash your check, move on, do whatever the heck they want. That's the CBC

00:05:07.920 in a nutshell. Okay, moving on this one. This is a funny story. This was brought to my attention the

00:05:12.560 other day on the program by my colleague, Anthony Furey, who reminded me of this, this editorial

00:05:19.200 piece that the CBC put out. It's an editor's note. It says, the planet is changing. So will our

00:05:25.280 journalism. CBC news commits to doing even more climate change journalism. So CBC, what they're,

00:05:33.040 they're finally going to talk about climate change. CBC is one of the worst offenders when it comes to

00:05:38.080 ratcheting up fear, fear mongering, promoting this sort of climate anxiety, climate alarmism,

00:05:43.360 doomsday scenarios. Most of the time they don't pan out to anything, but this idea that the planet is

00:05:48.000 going to end if we don't send Justin Trudeau and 300 other delegates to Scotland as part of this

00:05:53.680 climate change conference, the whole world's going to end basically in a nutshell. So CBC is already

00:05:58.160 one of the worst offenders. And here they are pledging that their journalism is going to change

00:06:03.760 because what they weren't covering climate change enough. And now they want to cover it even more.

00:06:07.760 And somehow that's going to be a substantive change. So I'll read from the piece. It says,

00:06:11.920 the impact of climate on our changing planet may be the most pressing story of our time.

00:06:16.640 Is it environmental story? Yes. But it's also a story about health, the economy, jobs, energy,

00:06:20.960 food, water, security, geopolitics, justice, and equity. Okay. So it's not just, so we're learning

00:06:26.880 here. We're not just going to hear more about the environment, but we're going to hear it in the lens of

00:06:31.520 radical left-wing rhetoric here, like justice and equity. Equity is the idea that we should have

00:06:39.120 equality of outcome, not just equality of opportunity, not just equal treatment under the

00:06:43.040 law, equal recognition. No, when you're talking about equity, you're talking about equal outcomes,

00:06:48.000 equal outcomes. And that basically is communism. Everyone has to have the exact same outcome.

00:06:53.760 Not about where we start, but it's about where we finish. And so you see it right there in the

00:06:58.000 language that they're really talking about something quite radical here. It says,

00:07:02.240 no sector will be spared its impact. Climate change will define every aspect of our lives

00:07:06.800 and those of generations to come. Every aspect of our life will be defined by climate change. So that

00:07:12.720 what includes your marriage, your kids, your house, like we're supposed to believe that every single

00:07:18.320 element of our lives is somehow going to be affected by this. Okay, CDC. So here they say,

00:07:23.920 moving forward, we commit to doing even more. Our pledge is simply that climate change and the

00:07:28.720 endeavors to mitigate its effect will get the sustained journalistic focus and attention they

00:07:34.320 deserve at a time most experts describe as an inflection point for the planet. So again,

00:07:41.120 if we don't send Justin Trudeau to Scotland and 300 other delegates and 400 private planes,

00:07:46.640 if we don't send 30,000 world officials to Scotland, the planet is going to end. But don't worry,

00:07:51.360 these liberals are here to save the planet. And the CBC wants to tell us that that's what they're

00:07:56.400 going to do. I really don't understand the point of this editorial note here, editor's blog. Yes,

00:08:01.520 we know you're obsessed with climate change. Yes, we know you promote climate alarmism. No,

00:08:05.760 that's not a change in your journalism. That's just what you've been doing for a very, very long time.

00:08:10.160 And you're going to continue to do it even more so. So expect more propaganda from the CBC on climate.

00:08:16.240 Again, I don't understand the purpose of this other than what maybe it was a slow news day over at the

00:08:20.800 CBC and they wanted content, or they just wanted to pat themselves on the back, or they wanted to

00:08:25.120 share pictures like this of little kids being used as props. These poor kids, I can't imagine

00:08:32.400 how much anxiety they have from people around them telling them that the world is going to end. And if

00:08:37.920 we don't all just what completely abandon our modern way of life, give up on cars, airplanes, heating

00:08:44.000 our homes in the winter, all these things that fossil fuels enable, if we don't just kind of give that

00:08:49.680 all up, the planet is going to end. So here we're kind of left with this position, which again,

00:08:54.240 is really hard for little kids to understand. It really does promote a lot of anxiety, but the idea

00:08:58.800 is we either abandon our modern way of life or our planet implodes in a fiery ball of flames, which is

00:09:06.800 a pretty scary proposition, especially for a little kid. So again, just total ridiculousness from the CBC. 0.92

00:09:14.000 So if you tuned into last week's show, you know that we covered this really, really silly opinion 0.96

00:09:19.600 piece that was published by the CBC. CBC only recently started doing opinion pieces. This is

00:09:24.160 something from the last couple of years, but it's really strange because the state broadcaster is

00:09:28.880 there to provide news and news is different than opinion, right? There's sort of different areas of

00:09:35.280 journalism. You can be an opinion columnist. That's what I do. I write an opinion column for the Toronto

00:09:39.840 Sun, or you can be a straight news reporter, someone who just provides the news. Of course,

00:09:44.960 the whole trouble with journalism in a nutshell is that the lines between these two types of

00:09:49.360 journalism is really, really blurred. So when you're watching the Candace Malcolm show,

00:09:52.720 when you're watching True North, when you're reading my columns in the Toronto Sun or on tnc.news,

00:09:57.200 you know my worldview, you know my position, you know the way that I'm going to view a story and the

00:10:02.560 lens that I'm going to use to present the news. The problem is that so many other journalists,

00:10:07.280 every other journalist and every other outlet also has their own worldview. They have their

00:10:11.280 own political opinions, but they lie and they pretend that they're completely neutral. They

00:10:15.600 pretend that they're completely apolitical, but then by the positions that they put out and the way

00:10:20.080 that they talk about different political parties, it's very obvious that they're biased and that

00:10:24.560 it's full of spin and that they're not straight journalists. They're not straight news reporters,

00:10:29.120 but they're dishonest with the public about where they stand. And that's why trust in journalism

00:10:34.240 really is at an all-time low. But again, this idea that the CBC is going to put out opinion,

00:10:39.040 it's really strange because it's the state broadcaster. It's not supposed to be pushing

00:10:43.600 out opinions. It's kind of the purpose of a opinion journalist is to put out strong opinions

00:10:48.480 that some people are going to really disagree with, other people are going to really like.

00:10:51.600 And by virtue of that, you're kind of polarizing or divisive in some ways. And so again, when it's the

00:10:57.120 CBC doing that, it's like, is this the official endorsed position of the CBC? Because if it's

00:11:02.640 controversial, it reflects really badly on the CBC. That's what we had last week with that really

00:11:07.040 strange tirade from the elections Canada official who believed that all white people and all 0.95

00:11:12.560 conservatives were evil, racist bigots, basically like a paranoid screed about how much she distrusts 0.94

00:11:20.080 her fellow Canadians. And it was so bad that the CBC had to actually go out and rewrite it because it 0.99

00:11:25.040 was so awful. Well, the CBC didn't learn its lesson. They're continuing to pump out these bizarre

00:11:29.520 opinion pieces. So a couple of note from this week. Here is a piece that says, if you really want to

00:11:36.400 affect climate change, talk to women. And then the sub headline here, it says, it's not that men are

00:11:42.240 useless. It's that women are useful and are more likely to take action. Okay. It's not that men are

00:11:47.600 useless. It's just that women are more useful. Okay. CBC. So let's delve into this piece a little bit. 1.00

00:11:53.520 So the basic premise of this piece is that women are more susceptible to climate marketing. And so coming

00:11:59.040 from a marketing perspective, it's better to target women because they're more more susceptible 0.99

00:12:04.800 to the messages. They're more likely to not know a lot about the issue. And therefore, when you tell

00:12:10.880 them a little bit about the issue, they're more likely to buy into whatever you're saying. In a nutshell,

00:12:15.120 that's what this piece is about. So she says, according to research by Yale Climate Communications,

00:12:20.080 we also know that women are much more likely to be undecided or admit that they don't know about

00:12:25.840 many of Canada's key climate policies as evidenced by recent polling. For example, in April 2021,

00:12:33.040 a poll by campaign research said that women were more than twice as likely across all age groups to

00:12:39.120 say they didn't know whether they supported carbon tax. Men were almost twice as likely to say they

00:12:44.240 strongly oppose the policy across all age groups. She believes that household spending is based on

00:12:49.600 climate change. She says women are much likelier than men to control household spending, 0.98

00:12:53.920 which is where the big climate decisions are made. Who should you talk to about getting that new heat

00:12:58.720 pump or energy efficient appliance? The person who is worried about climate and also happens to manage

00:13:04.080 the household budget. So she's saying to focus your energy in promoting climate alarmism at women so 1.00

00:13:10.720 they have more anxiety about the climate, so that they're more worried about the climate, so that

00:13:15.120 they will do what you say. So again, taking a step back, she's basically saying that women are more 1.00

00:13:20.080 ignorant on the topic and therefore more persuadable, which doesn't really speak very highly about women 0.88

00:13:26.800 or about the tactics of the CBC or people who are pushing climate propaganda. Now moving on to the 0.96

00:13:35.520 next CBC op-ed here. This is another one of those first person's essays, so similar to the one that we

00:13:41.200 talked about last week. This one says, my climate anxiety has turned me into a trash hoarder. And then the

00:13:49.040 person says, in an effort not to be wasteful, I'm creating a bigger mess at home. So again, really

00:13:55.280 just strange things to be promoting over at the CBC. Are we supposed to be like this guy? Really what

00:14:02.000 he's saying is that all of this doomsday scenario, all this idea of climate alarmism, the planet's going

00:14:07.440 to end if we don't take action right away, is making people go crazy. And this is a pretty good

00:14:14.160 first person account of that. Okay, I want to move on here. So we have the COP26 conference going on

00:14:20.320 over in Scotland, we'll be covering that really closely here on the Candace Malcolm show. And it

00:14:24.560 really got me thinking about all of the doomsday scenarios and projections that we've been hearing

00:14:30.240 about for so long that don't really make sense. And I want to point out a couple instances of the

00:14:35.600 media sort of jumping in and promoting, doing the dirty work of all these politicians who want you to

00:14:40.640 believe that we have some kind of an existential threat when it comes to the climate, that the

00:14:44.240 planet's going to end if we don't take action, if all of these officials aren't immediately flown to

00:14:48.960 Scotland, so they can sit around and come up with schemes that will make us all poor and make them

00:14:54.320 feel better so they can virtue signal basically. And so I went on to Twitter the other day, and this

00:14:59.760 story was promoted all over Twitter. It was from timeout London, it says nine cities that could be

00:15:04.560 underwater by 2030. So this is a kind of alarmism that they love to promote this idea that our world will

00:15:09.600 somehow substantially change, fundamentally change in our lifetime. They love ground numbers too,

00:15:15.680 so it's always by a certain date. It's always by, you know, 2000, 2020. This one's by 2030. So nine

00:15:21.680 cities that could be underwater. Here's what the headline says. It says global warming can be

00:15:25.760 difficult to properly visualize. If you're not directly threatened by rising sea levels, suffering

00:15:30.320 water shortages, or ravaged by wildfires, how do you know it's really happening? That's why projects like

00:15:36.000 Climate Central are essential. The website creates maps that show which parts of the world could find

00:15:40.640 themselves underwater due to rising sea levels as early as 2030. So again, the whole concept is just

00:15:46.240 a fearmonger here. So I took a look at this map, these cities that supposedly could be underwater,

00:15:51.520 and it's just so silly. It's so absurd. Mostly because all of these cities are already underwater. 0.92

00:15:56.880 These cities are already underwater. So I'll just keep going on this Twitter thread here. So it says

00:16:01.280 Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and the Hague sit low, flat, and close to the North Sea. The Dutch are famed for

00:16:07.120 their flood defenses, and it seems the country's dikes, dams, barriers, levees, and floodgates could

00:16:11.520 become even more essential in the years to come. So they're trying to scare us and say that Amsterdam

00:16:16.800 could be underwater. But then it says right here that the Dutch are famed for their flood defenses.

00:16:21.040 And why is it? Why are they famed for their flood defenses? Why are they famed for the country's

00:16:25.280 dikes, dams, barriers, levees, and floodgates? It's because Amsterdam is already underwater. It's

00:16:30.720 underwater. It's been underwater for a very, very long time. And that is why they have all these

00:16:35.040 systems. That's why they've become world leaders and innovators in this idea that the city is built

00:16:40.080 below sea level. And so they have to have all of these mechanisms to keep the city from flooding,

00:16:46.000 even though it floods from time to time. And so fact check here, 26% of the Netherlands is already

00:16:52.240 below sea level. 50% of the country is less than one meter above sea level. And so because sea level varies

00:16:59.360 by about 1.5 meters high and low tides and during storms, it means that at some times, currently right

00:17:05.920 now, up to 60% of the Netherlands is vulnerable to flooding from the sea. So that's why they have

00:17:13.360 all of these systems and it's already underwater. So the silly idea that global warming is going to

00:17:17.680 cause the city to flood is absurd. It goes on. Most of the examples are just like this. They found

00:17:23.360 cities that are below sea level and they say that they're going to be flooded by 2030. Well,

00:17:27.840 yeah, of course, because they're built below sea level. Here's another one, New Orleans. So it says,

00:17:33.280 again, without the city's systems of levees, New Orleans would be severely threatened by rising sea

00:17:38.160 levels. Even with them, the damage looks catastrophic. Again, fact check. Why is New Orleans

00:17:44.480 vulnerable to flooding? It's because it's sinking. So this is according to CNN. When it was built,

00:17:49.440 New Orleans was barely above sea level, but it was built on loose soil. The drainage system

00:17:54.240 has unintended consequences. And so New Orleans is already underwater and it's sinking. And that's

00:18:00.160 been the case for a really, really long time. So don't sit there and blame climate change. So this

00:18:05.680 is like one rare case where a media might actually get it right. They might, their predictions might

00:18:09.600 actually come true that these 10 cities are underwater in 2030, because most of them are already

00:18:14.960 underwater in 2021. So, so, so that one was fine. But I do want to highlight some climate predictions

00:18:20.640 that went horribly wrong. I've covered this before on True North. I've covered it before

00:18:24.240 on the Candace Malcolm show. But because everyone's out at COP26 pontificating and bloviating about all

00:18:29.680 their climate importance, it's worthwhile to say that human beings are often wrong. Human beings are

00:18:36.160 usually worried about our environment. That's sort of like hardwired in. And for at least the last 50

00:18:41.760 years, there have been scientists and public intellectuals and world leaders who have claimed that some

00:18:47.520 various threat is going to end humanity. That's something that we do, be it because of famines,

00:18:52.320 or because of an ice age coming, or because of a nuclear holocaust, or because of now climate change

00:18:58.640 and global warming, the planet's going to end, species are all going to go extinct. They've been

00:19:02.560 making these predictions for a very long time. So let's look at a couple examples of some climate

00:19:06.800 predictions that have gone horribly wrong. So back in 1978, the Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the

00:19:12.640 Journal of Science University of Washington, researchers predicted that the concentration

00:19:17.440 of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020. And yet the CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't

00:19:23.600 come close to doubling since 1978. So back in 1978, when the article was published, there were 335 parts

00:19:31.360 per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. But in February 2020, the same organization reported that there were

00:19:36.080 413 parts per million in the atmosphere that represents a increase of about 23%, a far cry from

00:19:43.760 doubling. Okay, moving on. This is a claim that we have covered on the show before, because Al Gore

00:19:48.400 talked about it in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. He predicted that there would be no snow on

00:19:54.400 Mount Kilimanjaro by 2020. This is something that lots and lots of different geologists and environmentalists

00:20:01.760 predicted. According to a geologist at the Ohio State University, Lonnie Thompson said, at this rate,

00:20:07.840 all the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020. And that is probably a conservative estimate. And yet

00:20:14.160 in February 2020, the Times of London reported that the staying power of Mount Kilimanjaro snow defines Al

00:20:20.960 Gore's gloomy forecast. So this prediction apparently helped tourism for Mount Kilimanjaro. The owner of a

00:20:28.080 trucking company called Just Kilimanjaro said that the snow has certainly got my clients talking. Many

00:20:33.280 people have made Kilimanjaro a bucket list priority because of the Al Gore deadline. When they get there,

00:20:39.440 they're pleasantly surprised to see lots and lots of snow. And finally, this one comes from True North

00:20:44.640 over at tnc.news. Glacier National Park removed a sign predicting that the glaciers would be gone by 2020.

00:20:51.600 So a national park in the United States, the northern part of the US, just south of the Alberta border

00:20:56.720 in Montana called Glacier National Park. I've been there. It is absolutely beautiful. But there was a sign

00:21:01.680 that said that the park's glaciers will be gone by 2020 due to global warming. They had to take that sign

00:21:07.920 down though because the glaciers are still going strong. There are still 26 glaciers at Glacier National Park.

00:21:15.040 And the sign was quietly removed in late 2019 because the prediction just simply didn't come true. And this

00:21:23.360 isn't a bad thing. This is a great thing. All of the fear mongering, all of the doomsday scenarios

00:21:29.040 didn't turn out. That's great news. That's great news. It means that our planet is persevering. It

00:21:33.120 means that there are innovations, that human ingenuity is making the world a better place. So

00:21:38.480 don't listen to the people who want you to be crippled with fear, who want you to be hoarding

00:21:43.280 garbage because of your climate anxiety. It's not a healthy way to live. No, the CBC is wrong. Climate

00:21:49.440 change doesn't impact every aspect of our lives. Sure, we should care for the environment. We should

00:21:54.160 do our best to make sure that future generations get to enjoy the natural environment in the same

00:21:59.040 way that we do. We should be committed to preserving the national environment, to make it clean, to make

00:22:04.000 sure that we're not doing something to catastrophically damage the planet. But again,

00:22:10.880 all of these doomsday scenarios that are promoted by a hysterical alarmist media do not help. They only

00:22:16.480 make the situation worse. Thanks so much for watching. This is Fake News Friday. I'm

00:22:20.080 Kenneth Malcolm and this is The Kenneth Malcolm Show.

Juno News - November 05, 2021

The media joins in on the COP26 party to fear monger about climate change

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript