More than five and a half years ago, The Guardian updated its house style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.

Ten years after the Climategate scandal broke, Damian Carrington, The Guardian’s environment editor, announced on 17 May 2019 that instead of using “climate change,” the preferred terms for The Guardian are “climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming,” although the original terms were not banned.

(Article by Rhoda Wilson republished from Expose-News.com)

The house style guide is a guide followed by journalists who write and edit for The Guardian and Observer.

Commenting on introducing the new language to be used relating to climate change, The Guardian‘s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, stated, “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

This change reflected the urgency of the situation and aimed to better convey the seriousness of global heating, The Guardian claimed.

The Guardian‘s climate change language introduced in 2019 is not fair, unbiased, objective and neutral journalism that serves as a watchdog on government and those who wish to be in power – it is activism, at best.

Psychological operations (“PsyOp”) or information operations are activities aimed at influencing the motives and objective reasoning of audiences.  It involves the use of communication or other means to influence the views, attitudes or behaviour of adversaries or civilian populations to achieve an objective.

Whose objective is The Guardian attempting to achieve? Viner tells us. “Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.

You can read The Guardian’s article HERE.  To preserve this important and damning evidence of The Guardian using manipulative language to influence its readers’ views, attitudes and behaviour, we have uploaded a copy of the article below.

To this day, this rule for journalists and editors applies. Under “climate change” The Guardian‘s style guide states (emphasis theirs):

climate change

is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”

climate science denier or climate denier
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”.

Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so denier is more accurate

Has The Guardian’s PysOp paid off?

Five years after introducing its manipulative climate change rhetoric, how successful has The Guardian’s PsyOp been?

Jaime Jessop has compiled a short list of articles published by The Guardian “linking extremely irritating events (at least, in the opinion of Guardian journalists) to the deepening ‘climate crisis breakdown’.”

Below is Jessop’s list with a brief description of what the article is about.  Comments in [square brackets] are not from The Guardian’s articles; they have been added by us.

‘Backsliding’: most countries to miss vital climate deadline as Cop30 nears, 3 February 2025

Most countries are likely to miss the deadline to submit vital plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite the urgency of the climate crisis.

The UN is urging countries to take time to work harder on their targets, with Simon Stiell, the UN’s top climate official, saying that the quality of the plans is more important than meeting the deadline.

The world must cut carbon by about half this decade to have a chance of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C [The Guardian stylises “^oC,” an abbreviation for degrees Celsius, as “C”] above preindustrial levels, but current targets are dangerously inadequate, with governments working to blueprints that would result in temperature rises of 2.6C to 2.8C by the end of the century.

Most countries are expected to miss the vital climate deadline as Cop30 [The Guardian stylises the acronym for ‘Conference of the Parties’ or COP as “Cop”] approaches, with many nations unlikely to submit strong Nationally Determined Contributions (“NDCs”) to cut emissions.

Key countries such as India, the EU, Canada, and Australia are facing challenges in setting ambitious climate targets, while Russia and Saudi Arabia are unlikely to commit to significant cuts.

Experts suggest that even if some countries submit relatively strong NDCs, the global total may not be enough to meet the 1.5C target, but NDCs can be negotiated and updated, and focusing on methane reduction could offer a “breathing space” to slow down warming.

Doge staffers enter Noaa headquarters and incite reports of cuts and threats, 5 February 2025

Staffers from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency [The Guardian stylises the acronym “DOGE” as “Doge”] entered the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [The Guardian stylises the acronym as “Noaa” rather than “NOAA”] headquarters, sparking concerns of potential cuts and threats.

The move is seen as part of Project 2025’s goal to “break up and downsize” Noaa, which has been labelled “harmful to US prosperity” due to its role in climate science.

[Critics argue that NOAA’s climate change narrative is driven by delusions and outright lies. They claim that climate science is a sealed universe driven by self-reinforcing faith and sheer fantasy, with no serious reality attached.  Critics also point out that NOAA has been less than honest in reporting about “billion-dollar disasters,” suggesting that the agency’s methodology lacks scientific integrity and goes against its own standards.  See the article ‘For Govt. And The Media, Delusions And Lies Drive The Climate Change Narrative’]

Elon Musk’s journey from climate champion to backing EV-bashing Trump, 7 February 2025

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has shifted his stance from climate champion to backing Donald Trump, who plans to revoke the electric vehicle (“EV”) mandate and eliminate a key tax credit for EV buyers.

Musk believes removing EV subsidies will hurt rivals like Ford and General Motors more than Tesla, but experts say Tesla will still be affected, particularly by weakening federal pollution rules.

Musk’s focus has shifted away from EVs to areas like robotics, AI, and SpaceX, and he has downplayed the dangers of climate change, sparking concerns that he is an opportunist prioritising personal interests over environmental concerns.

[The Guardian must be really annoyed with Musk who, in a relatively few words, is destroying their years-long UN climate change PsyOp.]

Hottest January on record mystifies climate scientists, 6 February 2025

January 2025 was the warmest January on record, with surface-air temperatures 1.75C [The Guardian stylises “^oC,” an abbreviation for degrees Celsius, as “C”] above preindustrial levels, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Climate scientists are surprised by the record temperatures, as they expected a cooling effect from the La Niña weather pattern, but instead, the heat has lingered at record or near-record levels.

Scientists are debating what factors could be driving the high temperatures, with theories including a global shift to cleaner shipping fuels in 2020 which accelerated warming and a reduction in low-lying clouds, but the exact cause remains unclear.

[“Cleaner” fuels causing warming?  That must be giving Guardian “journalists” nightmares.]

Jeff Bezos fund ends support for climate group amid fears billionaires ‘bowing down’ to Trump, 6 February 2025

Jeff Bezos’s $10bn climate and biodiversity fund has stopped supporting the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a key climate certification organisation.

The halt in funding has raised concerns that US billionaires, including Bezos, are “bowing down” to Donald Trump’s anti-climate action rhetoric.

Researchers and advisers have expressed fears that this decision is part of a broader trend of wealthy individuals moving away from funding climate causes due to Trump’s influence.

[As is widely practised, The Guardian stylises people as “individuals” which is part of a broader PsyOp to dehumanise, demote, degrade and demean human beings; to deprive people of their human qualities such as individuality, consciousness, empathy, creativity, resilience and the pursuit of meaning and purpose.]

Read more at: Expose-News.com