Climate Change narrative

In terms of the Independent Newspapers Code of Conduct, the following principles are highly valued: accountable journalism, accuracy and honesty.

On that basis, I strenuously object to the article headed: “COP 28 A Crucial Year for Africa’s Climate Action… Global Warming… Climate Emergency 2023” by Keketso Motjuwadi.

That article flagrantly violates the principles noted above.

There is NO climate emergency. There is no global warming. That narrative is the concoction of the UN and WEF globalists. They deliberately ignore science and history. Robust weather changes have occurred in every century. Scientific records for the past 70 years show that temperatures have been consistent. In Natal, for example, the most extreme weather ever recorded occurred between May 31 and June 2 of 1905 – long before the major use of fossil fuels.

There have been two warming periods in the past 2000 years. The first was between 200 BC and 300 AD; the second was from 900 AD to 1300 AD. They occurred when fossil fuels were in the ground. Warming and cooling periods are a natural occurrences. The cooling period that followed 1300 saw the Thames ice up in the winter. The warming period preceded it saw fruit grown as far north as Hadrian’s Wall in Britain.

By the UN’s own calculations, if the planet was completely decarbonised, the temperature would decrease by 0,4 of a degree Celsius.

What the alarmists do not state is that carbon dioxide comprises 0,4% of the earth’s atmosphere. Yet it is crucial to plant vegetation growth. In 2018, an experiment at Rhodes University proved that by increasing the carbon dioxide content, plant life flourished even in barren circumstances.

What needs to be probed by Independent Newspapers is: why is this falsehood about global warming and carbon being perpetrated? What is the agenda of those promoting it? Who is financing this propaganda of bought science?

Tens of thousands of scientists have pointed out the falsehood that global warming is man-made. Why does the Independent not publicise their narrative? That would be in the public interest – another of the principles in your Code of Conduct.  Yet one never reads the views of those opposing the globalist falsehood about climate change except in occasional Letters to the Editor. Is that an error of omission or commission?  Wittingly or unwittingly, its omission constitutes censorship which the Independent staunchly opposes.

I am a long-standing subscriber who pays his annual subscription upfront. I expect accountable journalism. I also expect compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem.

About Author