Juno News - November 05, 2021


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


Episode Stats

Length

22 minutes

Words per Minute

190.96664

Word Count

4,283

Sentence Count

271

Misogynist Sentences

4

Hate Speech Sentences

3


Summary


Transcript

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
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
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
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.
00:04:49.600 Absolutely. It is idiotic. They, they didn't follow through with the basic thing that they're
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.
00:09:14.000 So if you tuned into last week's show, you know that we covered this really, really silly opinion
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
00:11:12.560 conservatives were evil, racist bigots, basically like a paranoid screed about how much she distrusts
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
00:13:20.080 ignorant on the topic and therefore more persuadable, which doesn't really speak very highly about women
00:13:26.800 or about the tactics of the CBC or people who are pushing climate propaganda. Now moving on to the
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.
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.