What's Wrong with the French? They're Letting Climate Propagandists Decide Who Is Spreading Climate Misinformation?

European leaders have completely lost their bearings. Whatever the issue, they have gone fully politically correct and, by that, I mean they have dropped any pretense of caring about anything or anyone remotely critical of their ruling classes. They encouraged unrestrained invasion by Mideast migrants who want nothing less than to obliterate their culture and substitute Sharia law that treats women and children as chattel. They have gone green to the point they have created unaffordable electricity and stymied any hope of economic survival. And, they are no stifling any semblance of free speech.

Free speech has never been a priority for Europeans but they’ve now gone completely bonkers on the subject. They want nothing said that remotely criticizes or challenges the narratives that keep them in power and enrich them financially. I’m talking about about their desire to protect the BIg Green Grift, of course.

This story illustrates the extent to which they will go to squelch any talk not advancing the narrative behind the grift. It's about the French media and an ongoing study (to which no link is offered, of course) reportedly being done by Data For Good and QuotaClimat. The study criticizes media of all sorts for “climate misinformation,” a euphemism questioning the climate narrative favored by elites. More on that in a moment.

I asked Grok about Data for Good and got this:

One prominent group is Data for Good France (dataforgood.fr), a French nonprofit that mobilizes data scientists, developers, and other tech volunteers to work on projects for the public interest. They tackle issues like environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and public health, partnering with NGOs, public institutions, and sometimes private entities. Their model is volunteer-driven, focusing on short-term, high-impact projects—think hackathons or sprints to build tools like apps for tracking air quality or analyzing social inequalities.

Another possibility is Meta’s Data for Good program, which has a strong European presence. It provides researchers and nonprofits with aggregated, anonymized data from Meta’s platforms (like Facebook) to study societal challenges. For example, during COVID-19, they shared mobility data to help academics in Europe track virus spread and inform public health responses. This program operates globally but has been active in Europe, collaborating with universities and organizations like LMU München.

There’s also data.org, which, while global, has ties to European initiatives through partnerships. It’s backed by the Rockefeller Foundation and Mastercard, aiming to build data science capacity for social good. In Europe, they’ve supported projects like training programs for nonprofits to use data effectively, though their focus is broader than just Europe.

Funding for these varies:

Data for Good France relies on volunteer efforts and partnerships with organizations like the French government or NGOs. They don’t have a single funder but often get in-kind support (e.g., tech resources) from companies.

Meta’s Data for Good is funded by Meta itself, as part of its corporate social responsibility efforts. No external grants here—it’s their data, their program.

data.org gets its money from big philanthropy—Rockefeller and Mastercard primarily, with potential for additional grants from European partners depending on the project.

So, Data for Good is apparently a joint enterprise of the Rockefellers, the French government, Mastercard, and Mark Zuckerberg. Alrighty then. What could be wrong?

How about QuotaClimat?

QuotaClimat is a French association founded in early 2022 to push for better media coverage of ecological issues, like climate change and biodiversity loss. It argues that environmental crises aren’t getting enough attention in public discourse—citing, for instance, that these topics often take up less than 3% of media space. The group works with journalists, citizens, and other organizations to quantify and improve how media handles these issues, running projects like the Observatoire des Médias sur l’Écologie to analyze coverage. They’ve also done advocacy, like the #DernierDébat campaign during France’s presidential election, which got climate questions into a key debate.

Funding-wise, QuotaClimat collaborates with public and private partners. They’ve received support from French government bodies like ADEME (Agency for Ecological Transition) and Arcom (media regulator) for specific projects, particularly the Observatoire. They also work with nonprofits like Data for Good and Climat Médias, and private companies like Mediatree and eleven strategy, though it’s unclear if these are direct funders or just collaborators. Membership fees and donations through platforms like HelloAsso contribute too. Exact funding details aren’t fully public, but it’s a mix of grants, partnerships, and grassroots support. No single entity seems to bankroll them entirely.

An advocacy group, then. Not a BS detector but a BS producer.

And, these are some quotes from the article to illustrate the insanity of the anti-speech arguments (emphasis added):

The research focused on news and information programs from 19 French TV and radio channels, including both public and private broadcasters. Only programmes officially classed as ‘news’ by French regulator ARCOM were included.

Using a prototype AI tool, thousands of news segments were scanned for climate-related keywords and statements. AI-flagged segments were then manually reviewed by experts to verify whether they contained climate disinformation using scientific and journalistic criteria.

Over the first three months of 2025, 128 verified cases of climate disinformation were identified, roughly 10 per week.

Which outlets were most guilty of climate disinformation?

In 2024, Sud Radio was the first media outlet to receive a formal warning from ARCOM specifically relating to climate change denial…

ARCOM issued an official legal sanction (mise en garde) under the 1986 Leotard Law in July 2024. The research found that, despite these sanctions, the outlet has continued to broadcast misleading climate information.

Another offender was CNews, a 24-hour news TV channel that is the second most watched in France after BFM TV. Despite being fined €20,000 in 2024 relating to climate misinformation, researchers discovered a high volume of misleading or false climate narratives in the last three months…

Also implicated in the study were LCI, which the report says broadcast misleading claims about electric vehicles, and Radio Classique, which was found to have aired an extended segment with known climate science denier Christian Gérondeau.

Europe 1 and RMC were also flagged for hosting or amplifying narratives that discredit climate science and climate solutions.

The ‘watchdog’ channels you can trust:

It’s not all bad news. Some of the channels investigated were credited as being ‘watchdog channels,’ committed to providing balanced and unbiased reporting…

Named in the report as a ‘watchdog channel’ is RFI (Radio France Internationale), which aired more climate-related topics than any other outlet…

Other outlets were free from climate errors, including France Inter, France Culture and Arte, although overall, they had a much lower prevalence of climate-related topics.

Which topics are most likely to be victims of disinformation?

The report identifies the most common topics targeted by disinformation in French media, and they align closely with the major pillars of the green transition.

Energy was by far the most targeted topic, representing 50 per cent of disinformation cases. Specifically included in this was disinformation focused on renewable energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear.

Among the misleading claims, researchers found statements suggesting renewables are unreliable or harmful, more polluting than fossil fuels, and that France doesn’t need to move to renewables because of its strong nuclear infrastructure.

These included claims that EVs pollute more than fossil-fuelled cars, that battery production outweighs climate benefits, and that they simply don’t work in a real-world scenario. These statements directly contradict the scientific consensus on the electrification of transport.

In 13 per cent of cases, climate science was discredited in a variety of ways. Some denied that climate change is happening, and others denied that it is caused by humans. These claims were often tied to political agendas or conspiracy theories.

As well as directly presenting climate disinformation, the worst offenders in French media were also accused of discrediting climate scientists, environmental activists, and even other journalists covering climate-related topics.

Why this study is important in the current media landscape:

The news we read and digest actively shapes public understanding and trust, so knowing what information is being shared is crucial…

There was also clear evidence that political motivation was behind certain broadcasts. Disinformation spikes were identified around elections, policy rollouts and major political events.

This timing shows how climate disinformation is often used strategically to manipulate public sentiment and influence voting behaviour.

Most importantly, the research proves a scalable detection model for climate disinformation, which could be rolled out in other countries.

How to stay safe from climate disinformation:

The study calls upon media outlets, regulators and civil society at large to take action to quash climate misinformation.

Civil society - me and you - is seen as the front line of defence against climate disinformation. Readers and viewers of concerning reporting are encouraged to speak up, and to hold media accountable when they publish misleading content…

It also recommends diversifying news sources so we don’t become trapped in an ‘echo chamber’ of false information and to support independent journalism that provides well-balanced reporting.

The report places significant responsibility on media outlets to improve the accuracy of their climate reporting and calls upon them to raise their standards and eradicate misinformation. It recommends more climate science training for journalists, better fact-checking standards, and a move away from ‘infotainment’ disguised as news.

It also makes clear that in France, ARCOM must play a more active role in addressing climate disinformation in traditional media, demanding a faster response, better enforcement and follow-ups on repeat offenders.

Crucially, the report notes that disinformation thrives in a vacuum. Across all news reports, climate-related topics made up just 2 per cent of airtime. Increasing the frequency and depth of climate reporting will help support more balanced, informative media messaging.

ARCOM, or Autorité de Régulation de la Communication Audiovisuelle et Numérique, is France’s regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication. Yes, like the UK, the French have made censorship government business to protect the ruling class. Nothing is surprising about this, of course. The French just told their Premier's chief opponent she couldn’t run for office for five years. Moreover, she beat him in the last election and he's still in office, which really puts everything in a nutshell. France is no democracy. It’s an aristocracy and the aristocrats are demanding the climate scam

But, what's wrong with the French people? I know their 18th century revolution didn't work out so well in the end, but couldn’t we have a few more yellow-jacket protests at least? Isn't it time to throw the bums out? Have the Animal Farm vapors been inhaled so deeply as to leave them voiceless? France, Germany and the UK citizens seem to have given up their aristocracies, the Rockefellers and Mark Zuckerberg types.

#DataForGood #QuotaClimat #ARCOM #France #FrenchMedia #FreeSpeech