Beware How The Climate Crusade ‘Partners’ With The Media And ‘Educates’ The Courts

Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,

Do you ever wonder why mainstream news stories seem so one-sided in their “climate change” coverage, promoting the most radical theories while ridiculing so-called “climate deniers?” Similarly, have you ever pondered how judges who are not scientists or climate experts render opinions favorable to the climate cult while citing scientific “facts” and “evidence” to bolster their verdicts?

Two back-to-back reports in early September provide some answers, each revealing how deeply climate change forces have infiltrated both our news and judicial establishments.

For decades, CBS News – the storied broadcast home of icons like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite – was long regarded as the gold standard for television journalism. The “Tiffany Network’s” reporting might sometimes be controversial, but it was always considered deeply researched and proudly independent. CBS News prided itself on its unassailable integrity – “And that’s the way it is,” Cronkite assured us every evening when he signed off.

When it comes to reporting on climate news, those days are gone. For some climate-related stories, CBS News has of late been partnering with Climate Central, a nonprofit that bills itself as “policy-neutral” and “independent,” but acknowledges on its on website that it “uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it. We address climate science, sea level rise, extreme weather, energy, and related topics.”

In early September Fox News reported, “Last month, CBS News published a story about melting glaciers that also aired on ‘Sunday Morning.’ Ben Tracy was the correspondent on the segment, with his byline at the top of the article. A disclaimer at the bottom read, ‘Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.’” Fox News noted that another CBS News article in July, “also tied to an on-air segment with Tracy, included the disclaimer that the story was ‘produced in partnership with Climate Central.’”

In fact, Tracy and Spinder “work for Climate Central. Only Jolly is a current CBS News staffer, according to his LinkedIn page.” So much for fair, balanced and independent journalism.

On its website, Climate Central boasts of its influence on news organizations, noting that through its “Partnership Journalism” program, it “contributes data, science and data reporting, editing and guidance to joint features coverage informed by new climate data.” The site provides links to page after page of “news” stories on which it has “partnered,” ranging from alternative energy outlets to traditional news agencies.

While its guidelines claim that its “partners” make “most final editorial decisions,” Climate Central adds that “we… insist upon scientific accuracy and context. If we can’t reach agreement on the science in a story, we agree in advance that we will halt the project.” CBS News agreed to that?

While it may not be shocking that far-left (formerly mainstream) news agencies are “partnering” with outside climate groups to produce their stories, more disturbing is the notion that our courts might be subject to such influences. And yet, a day before the Fox News story on CBS came a report from National Review revealing just that.

“An ‘educational’ program that aims to convince judges to side with climate activists in state and federal cases has already reached more than 2,000 judges nationwide,” the magazine reported. “The program, called the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), began under the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in 2018. Its objective, according to ELI, is to ‘make available to federal, state, and local judges the basic science they need to adjudicate the climate litigation over which they preside.’”

The article notes that the House Judiciary Committee recently opened a probe of ELI “to examine its distribution of climate-change education programs aimed at influencing both state and federal judges to rule in favor of plaintiffs in climate-related cases.”

ELI insists it is politically impartial and denies engaging in efforts to sway judges. But American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac told National Review, “This congressional inquiry is a necessary and welcome development. For too long, the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project has operated behind a veneer of neutrality while quietly advancing a coordinated effort to influence judges in climate-related litigation.”

Turning to experts for fact-based background information is standard practice in the news media. But openly “partnering” with issue-based organizations to produce stories is a violation of the trust between journalists and news consumers. Likewise, when courts are “informed” by “educational” materials from outside groups representing a certain point of view, the fairness and independence that is the foundation of our judiciary system is seriously undermined.

The House Judiciary Committee’s efforts are a good start, but rather than worrying about things like former President Biden’s use of the autopen or other dead-end probes, Congress should more fully investigate the efforts of climate activists to influence the American people through our media and influence judicial decisions in our courts.

While it’s good that these conflicts have been brought to light, it is not unreasonable to suspect that these entanglements may only represent the tip of the iceberg – an iceberg that even the most radical climate zealot should admit is far from melting.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.