Close this search box.

Paper to staff: Use ‘climate crisis’ … ‘change’ is ‘too gentle’

By Michael F. Haverluck (

Staff at the Guardian newspaper of London, England, has been directed to address “global warming” more aggressively and use “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” instead of “climate change,” which it considers “too passive and gentle.”

An internal communication at the British daily was obtained by the Washington Examiner, which dubs the paper as “a proud bastion of liberalism” in the United Kingdom.

“’Climate change’ [sounds] rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity,” the Guardian’s internal email reads. “[Rather than] ‘climate skeptic,’ terms like ‘climate denier’ or ‘climate science denier’ [should be used] … ‘global heating’ … [instead of] ‘global warming.’”

Pushing facts or a political agenda?

Despite the fact that global warming is more rooted in doctored numbers (inflated temperature readings) and trillions of dollars funneling into the green industry, the Guardian pontificated to employees that it is merely looking to appear more “factual” – which many skeptics view as merely upping its allegiance to the global climate change agenda.

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise in rooted facts, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” Guardian staff was told in the internal email.

However, the email was presented as more of a firm request from management rather than a direct order.

“While stopping short of an outright ban, Guardian editors told staff to ‘think twice’ before including them in stories,” the Washington Examiner pointed out.

The Associated Press is also on board with pushing the climate alarmism narrative with words instead of facts.

“To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science,” instructs The Associated Press Stylebook – considered worldwide as the standard for most media outlets. “Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.”

It is rarely admitted that the climate change debate is far from over – as many secular scientists have joined creation scientists to acknowledge that much of the “science” promoting the evolutionary theory on global warming is based in thin air.

“[M]any scientists point to failed predictions based on the models of scientists who believe mankind is causing catastrophic climate change, noting a ‘pause’ for the past two decades in the rise of average global temperatures,” WND reported. “Scientists who promote the theory of anthropogenic climate change contend a rise in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activity is causing catastrophic warming.”

Climate change numbers just don’t add up …

More evidence debunking climate change alarmists’ claims – which they academically repackage as facts in schools and universities across the planet – was recently divulged in a secular science publication.

“A new scientific study shows … current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances,” Breitbart News’ Nick Nolte reported. “Yes, you read that correctly, three million – million – years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today – three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols. In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today, and yet… CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…

Of course, these figures were set to the evolutionary time scale that most secular scientists use, putting the Earth’s creation at 4.6 billion years and the universe’s origin at 14.3 billion years via the “Big Bang,” as naturalists have historically begged for more and more time to make their troubled theory float, with Darwinists saying around the turn of the 20th century that the Earth was millions of years old – evolving over the years to billions.

Regardless, scientists found that earlier in the Earth’s history – when modern-day manmade pollutants were not produced – the planet was the exact same temperature.

Cooling instead or warming?

In fact, researchers indicate that the planet is actually getting colder … not hotter.

“The planet is cooling,” Breitbart’s James Delingpole impressed earlier this year. “Clearly, this isn’t something the alarmists want you to hear, especially when they’ve got a shiny, expensive, new bridge to sell you with [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s $9 trillion] Green New Deal stamped on the side, [s]o to help out, the Climate Industrial Complex has played its usual trick of ramping up the climate scaremongering.”

He went on to cite questionable figures published by NASA and “AP’s resident green prophet of doom Seth Borenstein,” who claim that the Earth’s temperatures in recent years are exceeding all-time highs, even though research shows that the any increase is negligible – at best.

“But look at those scary claims more closely and you’ll notice something they would rather you hadn’t noticed: If 2018 is not as hot as 2016, 2017 and 2015, that means the planet is cooling not warming,” Delingpole stressed. “In truth, these ‘hottest year evah’ claims are pretty meaningless anyway.”

A case and point to this argument was recently published.

“While such years as 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2015 were declared the hottest years by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed that the claims were based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to up to a few tenths of a degree – differences that were within the margin of error in the surface data,” Marc Morano contended in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. “And the satellite data disagreed with the surface datasets. When an El Niño-fueled 2016 was declared ‘hottest year,’ the temperature rise from 2015 also failed to exceed the margin of error, or exceeded it just barely – depending on which of the multiple temperature datasets were reporting.”