‘Climate Misinformation’: Think Wrongly, Pay Dearly

For the first time in France, a private television channel, CNews, has been convicted of ‘climate misinformation’. The debate on climate change is no longer a matter of conflicting arguments or scientific controversy; it is now an official doctrine that cannot be questioned or even discussed without breaking the law. Meanwhile, on public service television, falsehoods and inaccuracies on the same subject are repeated without any contradiction.

This is a first in France: the news channel CNews, owned by conservative Catholic billionaire Vincent Bolloré, has just been ordered by the council of state to pay a fine of €20,000 for ‘climate misinformation.’ 

This is a further step towards the establishment of a ministry of truth. Until now, financial penalties have been limited to comments deemed hateful but have spared the sphere of scientific debate. Even though there is no absolute consensus on the issue of global climate change, and even though, according to the rules of epistemology, a scientific theory must be refutable in order to be valid, the Council of State, through its decision, validates the idea of an official, authorised body of knowledge with echoes of Lysenkoism.

The charge is noted by the left-wing newspaper Libération: “On the air, a supporter of Zemmour had made climate-sceptical remarks without any contradiction.” The crime is therefore multiple: a supporter of Zemmour was involved—and not just any speaker; the comments were ‘climate-sceptical’ and had not been formally refuted, proving that the guest was mired in the darkness of ignorance and heresy.

“Anthropogenic global warming is a lie,” said columnist and economist Philippe Herlin on the programme Punchline été on August 8th, 2023. The condemnation for these remarks, which were deemed unquestionably outrageous and dangerous, was handed down by ARCOM, the independent media regulatory authority, and was subsequently confirmed by the Council of State, France’s highest administrative court.

Speaking from an economic rather than a climatic or scientific perspective, the columnist, from the height of his own area of expertise, continued his argument by stating that attributing climate change—which he does not deny—solely to human activity—which he disputes—subsequently justified excessive state interventionism, which only served to further increase public spending.

For the left-wing press, the anthropogenic origin of climate change is now an accepted and settled matter, since the hypothesis has been endorsed by the IPCC. However, there is no universal scientific consensus on the subject, and debates exist outside the IPCC—even if they are met with opprobrium. The condemnation of CNews for Herlin’s comments is all the more shocking given that he does not venture into a battle of scientific arguments and figures, but points to the political risk that ultimately accompanies the idea of blaming humans for rising temperatures.

This is a serious matter for several reasons. First, because it reflects a growing criminalisation of thought. Second, because the idea that false statements about the climate and the environment should be systematically refuted live on a news channel as a guarantee of reliability only works in a certain ideological direction, and not in the service of a universal truth: on related subjects, environmental activists regularly spout erroneous facts and figures on television without ever being contradicted. 

Just recently, writer and climate activist Didier van Cauwelaert, appearing as a guest on the programme, claimed in a diatribe against artificial intelligence that “a medium-sized data centre consumes as much as a city of 500,000 inhabitants: 7 million litres of water, the equivalent of 60,000 households.” He denounced this as an environmental scandal. Alarmist, he added that to enable them to operate, “we cut off water to farmers, sometimes even to hospitals.” All of this is pure fabrication, as notes from the X community were quick to point out: in France, almost all data centres use closed-loop cooling with very low water consumption. Overall, the figure of 7 million litres of water is completely overestimated and is not based on any statistics. Furthermore, in France, a town with 60,000 households has a population of 120,000, not 500,000. Despite his fanciful figures and peremptory tone, van Cauwelaert was not contradicted once on the programme, where journalists nodded knowingly. And it is safe to assume that France Info, the channel that gave him airtime, will never be sanctioned for allowing him to say just about anything he wanted.

The Council of State’s decision naturally provides extraordinary encouragement to environmental activists, who will now be on the hunt for ‘climate fake news’. According to the communist newspaper L’Humanité, since January 2025, environmental associations have identified 529 instances of ‘climate fake news’ in the main French media. This is a financial windfall and will further clog up the courts under the orders of the thought police.