In Australia, the newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald is considered one of the main sources of information for the country, with a long history full of important journalists and coverage.

Unfortunately this kind of pedigree does not, in the modern age of alarmism, activism and dirty politics, translate to anything even close to factual, balanced coverage across a wide range of topics and, shall we say, narratives.

Climate change, which was once global warming, which was once global cooling, and which is inevitable on a planet for which, how does the IPCC put it, “the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible“, is of course one of the main subjects for such dishonesty.

A perfect example is a recent article by a senior journalist at the title.

And just one, simple quote is required to encapsulate this:

I’m not sure at what point we stopped talking about not spewing dirty pollution into the sky, and started talking in more measured tones about reducing “carbon emissions”, but I don’t think it’s helped us. There should be no sugar-coating the truth that preventing climate change means pumping out far less pollution, in net terms, than we have.

Oh, stop it! It’s not a carbon tax and never was
Jessica Irvine, Senior Economics Writer, Sydney Morning Herald

Here is another version of the same paragraph, with additional context for several of the more loaded descriptions and phrases:

“I’m not sure at what point we stopped talking about not spewing
humans of all shapes and sizes, in all parts of the world, releasing small amounts of CO2 from important, often life-giving processes such as medical treatment, food transport, housing, product manufacturing and heating

dirty pollution
CO2, the key ingredient in plant life and a bedrock of all life as we know it

into the sky, and started talking in more measured tones about reducing “carbon emissions”, but I don’t think it’s helped us.
helped who, and in terms of what? Who is not being helped on a planet where CO2 emitting processes have been directly responsible for the greatest increase in life expectancy in all of history, which continues to this day? The net positives of “carbon emissions”, for all of humanity, are clear for all to see, or should the much lower life expectancy of populations that emit less carbon be what we are aiming for?

There should be no sugar-coating the truth that preventing climate change
how does this type of phrase even pass basic sub-editing? Preventing the climate from changing is simply not possible (see the IPCC quote above, beyond simple common sense); surely even the most gullible of this newspaper’s readers realise this. Words and their meaning matters

means pumping out far less pollution,
again, CO2, the key ingredient in plant life and a bedrock of all life as we know it

in net terms, than we have.
Australia is responsible for the addition of approximately 2ppm CO2, of the current 420ppm in the atmosphere, over the last 180 years. In other words, if only Australia was emitting CO2 the current atmospheric level would be approximately 282ppm instead of 280ppm, or if no Australians existed the current level would be approximately 418ppm instead of 420ppm.

Another famous news title promotes the phrase that “democracy dies in darkness“.

Indeed, it appears likely that such darkness will arrive once misguided energy policies following dishonest mainstream media narratives lead to rolling blackouts, as perfectly safe energy sources rot in the Earth…