Saturday, January 28, 2023
HomeMiddle ColumnCNN's Christiane Amanpour equates climate 'deniers' with proponents of 'ethnic cleansing and...

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour equates climate ‘deniers’ with proponents of ‘ethnic cleansing and genocide’


CNN’s Christiane Amanpour equated climate change skeptics with the purveyors of “ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia” and “unspeakable crimes.” She also declared that the media should not give voice to those who reject the alleged “consensus” of man-made climate fears.  Amanpour warned of a “Tsunami of fake news.”

Amanpour was honored with the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), for her extraordinary and sustained achievement in the cause of press freedom on November 22, 2016.  (Email: [email protected]) She is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN and host of CNN International’s nightly interview program Amanpour.

Amanpour said the following about “global warming” and “press freedom” at 4:35 into the video: Note: The transcript at the Real Clear Politics link (slightly different from what she actually says in the video) includes the following:

Key Excerpt of Christiane Amanpour speech:

“It appeared much of the media got itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth. We cannot continue the old paradigm–let’s say like over global warming, where 99.9 percent of the empirical scientific evidence is given equal play with the tiny minority of deniers.

I learned a long, long time ago, covering the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, never to equate victim with aggressor, never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then if you do, particularly in situations like that, you are party and an accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences.

So I believe in being truthful, not neutral.”

End excerpt.


Wikipedia states that “The CPJ International Press Freedom Awards honor journalists or their publications around the world who show courage in defending press freedom despite facing attacks, threats, or imprisonment.”

As  Climate Depot reader Tony Kondaks noted: Neither Amanpour or the CPJ “was aware of the irony that an award for ‘press freedom’ is going to an individual who feels that defending press freedom means that journalists must self-censor and RESTRICT their readers’ access to countering and opposing views.”

Amanpour also referred to the oft repeated incorrect claim of a 97% consensus about “global warming” but she even juiced that number to 99.6%, claiming of “empirical scientific evidence” supports climate fears.
But the scientific data and new studies debunk Amanpour’s claims. See: Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit – Latest data and studies refute man-made climate change claims.
Small sampling of recent evidence supporting skeptical climate change view: 

The Sun-Climate Connection: Over 100 Scientific Papers From 2016 Link Solar Forcing To Climate Change

The Heartland Institute released a skeptical 2015 climate report featuring 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.
For the truth about the 97% “consensus” claims, see below.
97% Climate Consensus?

The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who in a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, it was then whittled down to 77. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’

In 2013 and 2014, other claims of an alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’ emerged, prompting UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol to publish a critique and declare: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.” The new 97% claim by climate activist John Cook was so “so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate skeptics.” Another researcher, Andrew Montford, commented: “The [97%] consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.”

Lord Christopher Monckton’s analysis found that “only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1%” actually endorsed the claim that “more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.”

Bjorn Lomborg wrote: “Do you remember the ‘97% consensus,’ which even Obama tweeted? Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data. It has always been a dodgy paper. Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97%.”

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’ – Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.

Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’ – 97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: ‘They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?’


    • If you want propaganda you might as well watch China Central Television’s news channel, at least they are upfront about their objectives, which is to advocate for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. CNN might as well have stood for “Clinton News Network” given their election coverage, they should be so honest.

  1. If climate change is real, and if it is caused by human activity, wouldn’t the most effective means of mitigating this problem be to reduce the number of humans on the planet? I think we should start with the 64 scientists who claim they represent 97% of all scientists, followed by removing the reporters who report this nonsense. Oops! Does that make me genocidal?

  2. The question she seems to have forgotten to ask is “What is the truth and how can I know it”. She carries on about false “news” being the culprit but has, in my opinion, decided which stories to believe based on the ones she agrees with rather doing any sort of vetting of the source or checking the data. This is the ultimate in hypocrisy as far as I can see. I didn’t ask her to tell me what to believe but to report all the news and let me sort out the truth. I will never accept anything she says as trustworthy as she has vowed to decide for me what I should accept as the truth.

    • Hey liberals and globalists…..we are aware of your agenda!
      Yes WE are indeed, unfortunately due to the liberal’s and globalist’s very successful and destructive propaganda campaigning, most of the deluded and dumbed down public know nothing about it, other than it’s a ‘conspiracy theory’, spread by those wicked ‘climate change deniers’…

    • I love how the fake 97% has morphed into an uber-fake 99.9%. Let’s see how many scientists stand up for CAGW when the biased funding runs dry. Anybody see a run on “the science isn’t quite as settled as I once thought” assessment by early 2018?

    • – 97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: ‘They never really tell you what they agree on.

      These are the questions used by Cook et al.2013 , Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 & AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014 as basis to the 97%.

      So answering the questions –
      1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
      2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
      3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
      4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
      5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?

      Note answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?

      Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj25d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash25DirectEcoGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj25d:….,……

    • We will never know all the facts about climate change, other than to say it is always happening. The natural cycles are there and we cannot change them to any level of prediction. If, and it is a big if, we have any effect on the natural forces, it will be to modulate them very much like low-amplitude noise on a large semi-chaotic signal. It will probably be impossible for us to determine if we caused any detectable modulation, simply due to unpredictable cause and effect, response delays. It might be interesting to study, but don’t read much into something so tenuous, as you will only fool yourself. You will waste your life becoming a far-left, confused climate activist.

  3. @7:12 “Mobilizing slogans?” “Mobilizing slogans”? “rather than engage in
    persuasion and dialogue?”
    Who is the one that started that? Doesn’t she know it’s none other than Al
    Gore? Quote: “…the role of logic and reason no longer includes
    mediating between wealth and power the way it once did. It’s now
    repetition of short, hot-button, 30-second, 28-second television ads. We
    have to buy a lot of those ads. Let’s re-brand global warming, as many
    of you have suggested. I like “climate crisis” instead of “climate
    collapse,” but again, those of you who are good at branding, I need your
    help on this. Somebody said the test we’re facing now, a scientist told
    me, is whether the combination of an opposable thumb and a neocortex is
    a viable combination.”
    Note that he said “W have to buy a lot of those ads.” So you see, it’s
    not skeptics doing this – it’s alarmists.

  4. It;s funny how they never seem to be able to tell us what the normal climate for earth is. Was it during the ice ages of which the earth had a mini ice age as recent as the 13th century lasting into the 1700;s or was the climate when the mojave desert was a lush oasis, or was it yesterday? Also when the environmental god Al Gore claimed the earth was running a fever Mars also saw it;s ice caps melt I wonder how man caused that to happen?

  5. Tokyo hit by first November snow in 54 years

    24 November 2016 • 5:10am

    The Japanese capital of Tokyo on
    Thursday was hit by its first November snow in 54 years, slowing rush
    hour trains as residents slogged to work wearing heavy coats and boots
    in a city far more accustomed to earthquakes than to snow.

    The last time snow fell in November in Tokyo was in 1962, when John
    F. Kennedy was President of the United States and singer Bob Dylan – who this year won the Nobel Literature Prize – had released his debut album just months before.

    Tokyo gets snow in November for the first time since 1962

    snow, which began as sleet around dawn but turned to snow soon after,
    was sparked by an unusual cold front spreading over the Tokyo area that
    sent temperatures down to near 0°C (32°F).

    A cyclist takes a picture in snowfall in Tokyo

    Average temperatures at this time of year are highs of 14°C (57°F) and rose as far as 20°C (68°F) as recently as Sunday.

    “I was shocked,” said Masaru Machida, who had just finished night shift work and was walking home. “It’s too early.”

    A snow-covered beach in Kamakura, near Tokyo

    Though Tokyo, which is on roughly
    the same latitude as the US city of Raleigh, North Carolina, does see
    snow at least once a year, it usually falls in January or February and
    rarely accumulates for long.

    As much as 2cm of snow was predicted for central Tokyo by the time
    the snow stops, likely by early afternoon, according to the Japanese
    Meteorological Agency.

  6. When bias consumes common sense which is manifest in Amanpour’s statements, a lie results. Every time, everywhere. The 99.9% figure is a bald face lie. She knew it when she said it.
    She should know by now is that a high percentage of predictions by the AGW crowd have not materialized. Not even close. Rising sea levels have been a minute fraction of predictions if they have risen at all. One half of one inch, rather than 5 to 20 feet may have happened, if you believe a measuring device thousands of miles above the earth. One must also disregard tidal shifts, magnetic shifts, geothermal activity, and solar activity to believe it is only AGW to blame. It is so plain and obvious that the “scientists” are guessing at the reasons to suit their own predictions. When reality hits them squarely in the face they persist in bad guess work to save their tarnished reputations. Now you know!

  7. C.A. is, at heart, a communist and considers herself to be part of the elite politburo because she works for Pravda. Her press isn’t free it is privileged. Propaganda is her game as she enjoys a life of perks while looking down her nose at the great unwashed masses. Her message: do as I say not as I do. If you push back on what I say then you need to be silenced.

  8. You wonder if these people ever took high school earth science or Geology 101. We are at the end of a brief interglacial within an ice age and in the worst of only two CO2 crashes in earth’s history. Temps will soon begin to drop 9C over the next 100,000 years. If we’re very lucky, we might get 2C of beneficial warming (but more likely 1C) from quadrupling CO2, back to the normal levels plants prefer, and delay the return of the ice sheets. In the mean time, we’ll enjoy nicer weather, milder storms and increased crop and forest yields. Not to mention cheap, abundant energy that does not blight the landscape or shred wildlife. These two charts say it all:

  9. Ince again the lefties spew their fictional view of reality. When there really is no definitive proof of their case they simply call you a criminal for not agreeing with them. Recent reports showed (once again) that the “data” claiming “climate change: was rigged and false.

    Why should I ever believe these fools?

  10. Don’t forget that climate has become an actual religion to the redistributionists of the left. Disagree, and you are an apostate who deserves imprisonment or death. Sound familiar?? Disagree with our “religion” and you will be put to death. Amanopour is just a mindless robot of the far left who has no idea what “truth” is.

  11. The maxim that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ for some reason doesn’t seem to apply to this topic. The ‘97%’ claim certainly is extraordinary but the MSM won’t push for the extraordinary proof.

  12. I am not a climate scientist. I am a person who likes to be somewhat informed and get information from different sides of important issues. My big problem with the Amanpour approach is that if you buy into her viewpoint, you have to go along with every flaky measure the enviros propose no matter how effective it is likely to be and how much it costs. Given the size of the world’s population, I support rearch into energy efficiency and new forms of energy, but I don’t expect every location on the planet to be able to use them all. Air conditioning may be more important around the equator, while people who live near the Arctic Circle may nor want to depend on solar-powered heat during the winter. If climate scientists want my respect, they need to distance themselves from the environmental wackos.

  13. The main purveyors of ‘fake’ news are pissed that others are horning in on their turf and doing a better job.

    What we need to do in order eliminate ‘fake’ news is create a new government agency that fact checks and vets all news stories before dissemination. We could give it a catchy name like ‘Ministry of Truth’ and put Amanpour and other like minded crusaders of truth in charge of it.

  14. Amanpour is also a notorious anti-Semite, which is likely the main reason she got the award. She never reports, she just postures, and that appeals to some people who are more interested in style over substance.

  15. Wanna smoke out a scientifically illiterate warmista? Ask them

    Almost all say, “Oxygen”. BZZZZTT.

    Then ask what percent of the Earth’s atmosphere CO2 comprises?

    Almost all will say “10 percent” or some other nonsense figure, pulled directly from their anal orifices, which probably emit 10 percent methane, at least.

  16. I remember – back before she became an old woman – that this poor woman was referred to on blogs as “CNN’s War-Slut.”

    Have writers now discarded “War” and replaced that with “Climate?”

  17. 1. Is it a requirement that Climate should not change?
    2. How much change is ok, How much is manageable? How much is bad but we’ll adapt? How much is we are a done deal?
    2 a. How much is the uncertinity in the answer to question 2.
    3. How much of the change (from the awnser) to 2. is man made?
    4. From thje answers of 2. and 3. If the change is real bad and it is mostly man made

  18. People like this just love the sound of their own voices. The sense of self-importance and vicitimhood makes you want to reach for a cricket bat and..especially when it comes from a pretentious bint like Amanpour.

  19. Aside from Christine Amanpour advocating that climate change skeptics be censored, I find the moral equivalence drawn between ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and skepticism regarding half baked theories and hysteria in the media over Mann Made Earth warming, appalling. Just how morally bankrupt does one have to be to make this sort of false moral equivalence? I was asking myself the same questions over some of the comments I have read posted by Castro groupies on the U.S and Canadian Left, when people point out the Castro brother’s record of economic failure and human rights abuse. This is precisely why fewer and fewer people listen to the so called “mainstream media”, why Mr Trump was elected, and why Brexit succeeded, they ignore facts they find inconvenient, propagate rumors and lies, fain outrage over trifles, and overlook serious issues with their preferred candidates/theories/causes, and most are sick of it.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Intersectional Climate Scientist Goes on Rant Against ‘White Men’

"OK, so you have this three-legged dog. The three-head dog. Now the heart of this dog is CO2. OK. Carbon dioxide. The post Intersectional Climate...

No Matter Your View on Climate Change, Pricing CO2 Is Harmful… Why?

because pricing one externality but not others leads to economic and environmental distortions… causing human suffering. The post No Matter Your View on Climate Change,...

NYT: Bomb Cyclone? Or Just Windy with a Chance of Hyperbole?

Wouldn't it be a tragedy if journalistic weather hyperbole got so bad, people started ignoring all the climate change hype? The post NYT: Bomb Cyclone?...