From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

Erika Kirk forgave her husband’s alleged assassin Sunday during a speech at the memorial service for Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, saying he would not respond with hatred.

The accused assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was arrested by police on the evening of Sept. 11, roughly 33 hours after Kirk was fatally shot while taking part in a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University.

In the midst of an emotional speech, Erika Kirk recounted the Biblical account of Jesus Christ on the cross forgiving those who crucified him.

WATCH:

“On the cross, our Savior said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,’” Mrs. Kirk said, choking up with emotion. “That man, that young man… I forgive him.”

The audience erupted in applause and emotion for approximately 45 seconds as Erika Kirk broke down in tears.

“I forgive him because it is what Christ did,” Mrs. Kirk said. “It is what Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love, and always all. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”

Prior to forgiving the assassin, Mrs. Kirk told a capacity crowd that filled up State Farm Stadium why Charlie Kirk went to the college campuses.

“Charlie passionately wanted to reach and save the lost boys of the west, the young men who feel like they have no direction, no purpose, no faith and no reason to live. The men wasting their lives on distractions and the men consumed with resentment, anger and hate,” Erika Kirk said, choking up at times. “Charlie wanted to help them. He wanted them to have a home with Turning Point USA, and when he went onto campus, he was looking to show them a better path and, a better life that was right there for the taking. He wanted to show them now. My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life.”

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Vijay Jayaraj

A coordinated offensive unfolded with precision Sept. 2 against five scientists questioning the popular media’s most sacred bogeyman – the hypothesis that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide threaten to overheat the planet.

The scientists attacked had written a report published in July by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”

Delivering virtually identical narratives, proclaiming that 85 “climate experts” had discredited the DOE report, were CBS, NPR, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters and others.

Language in the news reporting was nearly indistinguishable, and the focus identical: a number (“85” or “dozens”), a designated group (“scientists” or “experts”) and a verdict (“flawed,” “lacks merit,” “full of errors”). This is not the natural variance of independent newsrooms pursuing a story. This is the result of a shared press release, a common source or a backroom agreement to push a common story line.

It was a master class in singing the same tune that would make any propaganda ministry proud – a calibrated flash mob of climate-fear messaging in an explicitly partisan tone.

Fooling The Public

The first volley of the assault was a classic ad hominem attack. The authors of the DOE report, five of the world’s most distinguished and academically rigorous researchers of climate issues, were immediately branded as the “Trump Team.”

This is a deliberately dishonest tactic. The authors – Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer – are not political operatives. They are scientists with decades of experience and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications.

Dr. Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the Department of Energy under President Obama, a fact conveniently omitted from most of the media’s hit pieces. Drs. Christy and Spencer are world-renowned for developing the first global temperature dataset from satellites, for which they received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

No mention that Ross McKitrick is a Canadian academic with no political ties. No mention that Judith Curry stepped away from academia partly because of the politicization of climate research and previously had been much sought after for her research into hurricane intensity.

Most critically, the authors themselves have stated that there was no oversight or compulsion from anyone in any government department during the creation of their report. They say they crafted the report independently, with no interference from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. But the media gloss over that. Instead, the scientists are derided as the “Trump team.”

In stark contrast to the vilified DOE authors, the 85 individuals who signed the critical letter were anointed as “climate experts” and “leading scientists.” Yet, the list of signers is padded with individuals whose specializations are, to put it generously, tangential to the core issues of climate science.

The strategy is clear: assemble a gaggle of academics, label them “climate experts” and use the sheer number to create an illusion of overwhelming scientific consensus against the DOE report.

Sell Lies, Instill Fear With A ‘Black Mirror’

Adding to the theater, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have announced a panel to review the DOE report. But here’s the twist: The panel is headed not by a climate scientist, but by a biologist. Out of the panel’s members, only a few have direct expertise in atmospheric science. Yet the announcement was trumpeted as if the nation’s top climate experts were mobilized.

Predicting catastrophe is a media business model. NPR warned of “irreversible” sea-level rise in 2023, ignoring tide gauge records that show no acceleration beyond historical norms. News outlets regularly report on “unprecedented” floods, yet data indicate no uptick in floods due to climate change.

If everybody believed climate impacts were manageable, the case for sweeping carbon taxes, bans on fossil fuels and subsidies for wind and solar energy would collapse. That’s why the DOE report – noting forecasting uncertainty, adaptation possibilities and economic trade-offs – is so threatening. It undermines a narrative of an “existential” threat or imminent collapse. So, the media did not debate the five scientists; they sought to destroy them and their report. Not with data, but with labels.

This is a psyops initiative like depicted in the Netflix dystopian series “Black Mirror.” The media outlets are not mirrors reflecting reality; they are black screens projecting a manufactured one. They have become instruments of a political agenda, sacrificing journalistic integrity to enforce a specific viewpoint on climate change. They operate not as individual watchdogs but as a wolf pack. They decide what you should think and seek to broadcast it in unison until you do.

I’d encourage you to read the DOE report for yourself or at least countervailing opinions of it. Scrutinize the credentials of those who attack it. Ask the hard questions that the journalists refuse to. The black mirror can only hold power over you if you consent to stare into it. It is time to look away and see the world as it is, not as they tell you it is.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.