Almost a year ago, a French economist went on that country’s CNEWS TV, and said he thought that global warming was “a lie and a scam”; a form of “totalitarianism”.

Now, 11 months later, the TV channel has been fined 20,000 euros for not challenging him.

A sign of things to come here? Not that it is imaginable that Australia's Leftist free-to-air-because-nobody-would-pay-for-it TV wouldn't immediately attack anyone who said the same thing about their ‘religion’ here; and they are just a mouthpiece for government propaganda. And we have that very expensive, foreign-born eCommissioner eagerly looking to rake in fines for the government, menacing social media and everyone else at every opportunity she gets.

https://www.joannenova.com.au/

European Commission are a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing.
Totalitarian NAZIs owned by the U.S.

The west is going down the drain.
The sooner we get off that sinking ship and make our own way in the world the better.

Democracy has become too polarised with foreign / global issues and identity politics.

Democracy is an unaffordable frivolity & only serves to destabilise Nations mainly by America !

ttbn,

Jo Nova’s claim that the French government fined a TV news channel for allowing a climate “sceptic” to speak unchallenged is misleading. Similarly, your use of the word "dogma" here is incorrect.

The fine imposed by Arcom, France's media regulator, on CNews was about ensuring regulatory compliance, not suppressing free speech. French broadcasters are required to present controversial issues fairly and ensure that different viewpoints are represented, preventing the public from being misled.

The fine wasn't for expressing scepticism but for the lack of balance and rigour in the broadcast. Arcom found that the program didn't challenge or provide counterarguments to Philippe Herlin's statements, which contradicted the scientific evidence on climate change. This lack of balance violated regulations designed to ensure viewers receive accurate and comprehensive information.

Nova’s assertion that the main issue was the TV crew’s failure to correct Herlin’s statements misses the point. Media regulations in France and many other countries require broadcasters to provide balanced views, especially on scientifically established topics like climate change. This isn't about suppressing dissent but ensuring the audience gets a complete picture, including scientific perspectives.

The claim that Arcom endorses name-calling or social opprobrium as a balanced response is baseless. Arcom's role is to uphold journalistic standards and ensure accurate, balanced reporting. The fine was about maintaining factual correctness and responsible journalism, not supporting derogatory responses to climate deniers.

The suggestion that French TV has been one-sided without needing balance is a misrepresentation. French media operates under regulations requiring balanced reporting on controversial issues, just like in other democratic countries. Arcom's intervention aligns with its role in maintaining these standards.

The notion that journalists shouldn't promote "government-approved" science ignores their duty to report factual information. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on extensive research and peer-reviewed evidence from the global scientific community, not government approval.

How to scientifically establish the existence of the Loch Ness Monster:

1) Offer scientists promotions and extra research budgets if they claim that the monster exists.
2) Inform those scientists who refuse to acknowledge Nessie that if they continue that way, they will be sacked.
3) Issue generous research funds to scientists in all other disciplines who can connect the title of their work with Nessie.
4) Produce fake evidence of the monster.
5) If all else fails, produce scientific papers with forged signatures of the scientists who still refuse.
6) Fine individuals and companies who dare to deny Nessie's existence.
7) Send any remaining deniers to Siberian work camps.

Yuyutsu,

Your suggestion that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster could be scientifically established through coercion, bribery, forgery, and punishment is an absurd and baseless analogy that fundamentally misunderstands how scientific inquiry and consensus work.

1. Science is driven by evidence, not incentives. While funding can drive research, it doesn't change the requirement for verifiable evidence. Any scientist making a claim without solid evidence would face significant scrutiny and damage to their reputation.

2. This is not how the scientific community operates. Dismissing scientists for not supporting a specific claim would lead to widespread outrage and undermine the integrity of scientific institutions. Academic freedom and peer review ensure that evidence, not coercion, dictates scientific consensus.

3. Research funding is typically allocated based on merit, potential for scientific advancement, and societal benefit. Funding scientists to draw unrelated connections would be easily identified and discredited by the scientific community.

4. Scientific discoveries are validated through peer review, replication, and scrutiny by the global scientific community. Fake evidence would not withstand these rigorous processes and would be exposed, discrediting those involved.

5. Forging scientific papers is a serious offence that would lead to immediate dismissal, legal consequences, and professional ruin for anyone involved. The scientific community has mechanisms to detect and punish such fraud.

6. This is a fantastical scenario that ignores the principles of free speech and academic freedom. Scientific debates are resolved through evidence and reasoned argument, not financial penalties or coercion. I’ve already clarified this situation in Nova's misinformation piece. So this comes across now as heel digging.

7. This outlandish statement is a clear exaggeration meant to evoke totalitarian tactics, which have no place in the scientific process. Science relies on open discourse, critical thinking, and evidence-based conclusions, not on silencing dissent through draconian measures.

Scientific consensus, including that on climate change, is reached through extensive research, peer review, and the accumulation of evidence from multiple independent studies. It is built on transparency, reproducibility, and rigorous testing. The tactics described in the comment are antithetical to the principles of scientific inquiry and integrity.