Continuing Slump in Global Media Climate Agitprop Bodes Ill for Future Net Zero Support

Decades of careful grooming of incurious journalists designed to whip up a non-existent climate emergency have failed to halt a dramatic continuing collapse in mainstream media stories backing the Net Zero fantasy. Last year saw a 14% global slump in climate-related stories compared to 2024, which was already 38% down on peak Greta hysteria in 2021. Perhaps there is only so long that once trusting consumers are prepared to read, let alone pay for identical, narrative-driven drivel that is often so one-sided that it is an insult to the intelligence. Exhibit 1: the BBC’s October 2023 classic – Climate change could make beer taste worse. 

The greatest declines over 2025 were found in Africa, the Middle East and North America. Interestingly, the failed Amazon COP30 meeting in November 2025 was followed the month after by coverage falling off a cliff in Latin America (-61%), Oceania (-52%) and the European Union (-41%). A period of private grief seems to have given  the long-suffering public a merciful break from the relentless cacophony of climate catastrophising. 

News of the continuing falls in climate change and global warming coverage are contained in the latest annual report from the Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) at the University of Colorado Boulder. To produce its latest findings, MeCCO tracked the volume of newspaper, wire services, radio and TV climate stories across 59 countries and seven regions. The work is said to have used a consistent methodology since 2004.The graph below shows clearly the spikes in the Greta hysteria around the start of the current decade, and the earlier Gore grift that followed the release of his ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ film.

University journalism course often run climate modules but prospects for aspiring students looking to make the world safe for Net Zero fanatics do not look good. The Guardian can only do so much, but in the UK, coverage was 34% down in the 12 months to November 2025. In the USA, the sackings have started with a vengeance. Last year, new managers at CBS News removed most of the climate crisis team. Recent reports suggest that everyone on the climate beat has now been binned. In February 2026, the Washington Post cut 14 climate writing positions, leaving only five journalists in place.

Last year was a bad time for the climate groomers that are largely funded by Green Blob billionaires seeking societal upheaval by depriving modern (and developing) industrial countries of vital hydrocarbons. Groomed journalists working in narrative-driven mainstream media are seen as key to driving up fear of the invented climate crisis. One of the first lessons taught to useful idiot fear mongers is that the opinion, often incorrectly referred to as a theory, that human cause most if not all recent  climate change, is ‘settled’. The incurious are not encouraged to ask if this is the first scientific opinion to be declared settled, or at least the first since the Roman Popes of old adjudicated ex cathedra on these matters.

In the UK, the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ) is a respected industry-based charity that has operated since the 1950s. But its climate change training is laughable. In what other investigative fields are journalists encouraged to rely on a claimed ‘consensus’, and encouraged not to disclose alternative views? What quicker way is there, it might be asked, to replacing the writer with an AI tool? Funded by the Google News Initiative (GNI), the NCTJ offers a free e-learning course on climate change reporting. As with all climate science grooming agitprop sessions, there is a warning about avoiding ‘false balance’. In effect, this means denying publicity to sceptical scientists who investigate opinion by following the time-honoured process of scientific falsification.

GNI is a major funder of the attempts made to silence dissenting climate opinions. One of the major weapons deployed involve so-called ‘fact-checkers’ which, in the Daily Sceptic’s own experience, do little more than attack inconvenient science findings with opinionated claims of ‘misinformation’. Discussing the underlying science does not appear to be a priority, rather the negative verdicts are helpful in cancelling advertising, and diminishing impact in the social media sphere.

In the UK, GNI is a funder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Until recently, this operation ran a six-month groomer for climate writers under its Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN) operation. The course has also attracted considerable funding from the former Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn, and over four years it hosted around 800 journalists from 80 countries. Alas, the indoctrination pitstop pulled down the shutters late last year. The “flagship online course” will no longer be setting tasks asking participants to write a news story showing why mangoes are less tasty this year due to climate change. We can only pray that similar restrictions now apply to other climate-challenged comestibles.

It seems the world is getting tired of clickbait, centrally-determined climate claptrap that for too long has provided an unscientific base for the Net Zero fantasy. Pseudoscience gaslighting has allowed rigged computer models to predict headline-grabbing Armageddon ‘tipping points’, and contributed to the mainstream spread of unchallenged lies that extreme weather events are getting worse. Good news stories such as the major ‘greening’ of the Earth are ignored, while the vital role played in this by the gas of life carbon dioxide is downplayed. None more so than SciLine, a Green Blob-funded operation connected to the Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of Science. “In many cases, CO₂ disproportionately favours weeds over crops causing more problems for agriculture”, it helpfully notes in its guide to journalists.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.