It is illegal in France to tell the truth about climate.
France’s CNews fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged | Euronews
It is illegal in France to tell the truth about climate.
France’s CNews fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged | Euronews
Mon Dieu! Zut Alors! Et cetera.
oh come on the French aren’t that scientifically illiterate. after all they invented the reverse gear in a tank. lol. so true, a little cold is much worse than a little warm. back in the 1990s, Northwest Minnesota where The Red River farm belt is, there were a few years when we were getting a killing Frost in August and people were worried that that’s the new normal but it didn’t last thankfully. Frost in August cuts the yield way down. not good if you need to feed the planet.
Requiescat in pace, French science.
Typical bureaucratic BS. Instead of calling Gervais a liar, which could result in a defamation law suit, they come out with ‘misinformation’, illustrating the common experience that it takes more syllables to misrepresent the truth than it does to simply tell it. Five syllables, where one will do; a fog or pomposity (FOP) index of four.
Misinformation, is information which is politically inconvenient to those promoting an official narrative. The ‘consensus’ is formed by excluding anybody who does not agree with the narrative. Therefore it is meaningless to claim that the ‘scientific consensus’ supports the narrative: What else can be expected when alternative views are suppressed, rather than scrutinized objectively?
Facts, logic, established theory, rather than the religious litany of AGW, is what determines a scientific argument. To quote Michael Crichton; ‘if it’s science, it isn’t consensus, if it is consensus, it isn’t science. Period’.
I can’t remember the Latin term, but the argument is the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. Those scientists who disagree with the narrative are not ‘real’ scientists. That they include Nobel Laureates, and professors from Ivy League universities, is irrelevant.
The only misinformation that exists is consensus in science.
Science where results are determined by democratic=lobbyist vote.
It says it all when you can “contradict or minmise” any scientific fact as much as you want in France – and noone will ever care;
but contradict and minimise the consensus and it is red alert all over the place.
And in term of lack of balance – if there was any kind of balanced reporting about the climate lie or the ukraine war both would not exist.
And Sud Radio is probably the only outlet that had a balanced and journalistic view as they were the only ones who exposed the Ukrainian war crimes
from day one (J’ai vu les crimes abominales commis par Azov)
– and that’s why they have this kind of problems.
They went against the great mandatory narrative.
And somthing related – Elon Musk has just revealed that European Billionaires tried to bribe him , which means EU offered him a secret censorship deal so that informations like those from Sud Radio can no longer circulate.
Another interesting comment from the WEFs you’ll own nothing,
and most probably relevant to most readers here
– Justin Trudeau just said that too many older people live in houses that are too much house for them (but the right size for illegals I guess).
Remember Obamas ” you didn’t built that”.
why did you have to ruin my day by mentioning Justin Trudeau? lol. did you see the clip, the rolling Stones were performing in Canada, 80-year-old Mick Jagger mentioned Trudeau’s name and the crowd booed like crazy. the look on Micks face, he was stunned and quickly changed the subject. I heard Trudeau’s favorite stones song is paint It Black. lol
His favorite Stones song is Sympathy for the Devil.
— “… contradict or minimise the scientific consensus on climate change …”
Thou Shalt Not Spew Disinformation, sez Arcom, which itself is spewing disinformation. What I continue to marvel at, even though it should not be a surprise, is the rising level of tyrannical control these people are trying to achieve by suppressing the elemental free speech right to question authority. They are aiming a gun at the heads of anyone who dares to ask even the simplest questions of “Climate change . . . to WHAT, exactly? From a ‘stable’ climate to an ‘unstable one’?? Who gives YOU the authority to dictate what a ‘stable’ climate looks like?!”