Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that.
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfulleThe Media Campaigns That Promote Dubious Science Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that. But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfullerr
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Right, but you will find bandwagons in parades, and parades always have organizers and leaders. Those who cheerfully follow along, ‘camp followers’ perhaps, may have only a dim glimmer of the purpose of the parade. But the organizers know what they are doing. They have goals, and while those goals may be venal and self-serving, they may also be ideological and antithetical to the life of a free society. If objective scientific inquiry is destroyed in the process, chalk it up to ‘collateral damage’.
The difference between a parade—a movement of true believers—and a conspiracy is that the latter is secret. The paraders all don the same color shirts and loudly proclaim their allegiance to the cause. Then watch out.
/Mr Lynn
Here’s a form of collusion, where everybody is on the same page because they share common and explicit values and particular goals that may properly be called a con-spiracy:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/18/the-tribal-outcast/#comment-14980
from there and the next half dozen posts before and after show the dainty schemers counting the fish in Watts’ pond.
They imagine themselves, in the favorite phraseology, shapers of opinion and movers of men (that’s what they imagine a gossip is) and they count themselves equal, those who think up politically correct terms such as ‘androgynous docking mechanism’, with the real engineers who do the nuts and bolts.
There’s obviously a lot of easy money (as is noted by the author, for his own good reasons) in providing talking points. No real scholarship is required, just skill at identifying hot buttons and yankable chains.
What is content, value, purpose of this article? To whom and for what?
The author wants to ingratiate, engage and add to his ‘fan base’. Hit count goes on the old resume as advertisers and the other ‘shapers and movers’ agree it’s got the smell of money.
The internet is anarchy in the fast lane. Ad hoc principia sapientiae.
Mr. Fuller,
Having read your article I have three points for your consideration.
Being certifiied as paranoid does not preclude a plot against oneself.
More people on the bandwagon increases the volume but adds nothing to the tune.
‘The meek shall inherit the Earth’ has no precedent.
Thomas: Thanks for another very interesting article. I have a question about the idea that media campaigns “ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035”. Although I’m sure you’re right that the media campaigns often ignore or misrepresent the scientists, I do think that some of the dodgy claims you mention are also in AR4. Perhaps you are making a distinction between what “IPCC scientists” say, and what “AR4” says? If so, what does this say about the IPCC?
Tom,
You forgot one key point in your excellent post: most reporters are just plain lazy. The days of the hard digging investigative reporter are long gone. If in the field, they would rather sit in the bar and drink than actually go out and dig up a story. If in the news room, they would rather just get it from the internet.
I can’t find the reference now, but someone on another discussion board pointed out a pro-AGW web site (sort of an ICECAP for true believers) that provided almost daily canned news stories on climate change that wound up being re-printed in hundreds of newspapers around the country. I doubt if any of the reporters that used them even thought twice about verifying them. Besides, they were just reporting the consensus. (Hopefully ClimateGate showed some the ring in their noses)
It may not be a cons…acy, but the people running that site have a major influence on what ‘global warming’ information gets into the main stream media.
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
No conspiracy required, just the politics of opportunity. “climate change” has become all things to all men. Extending the role of the UN, Grabbing your share of a trillion dollar carbon market, a better deal for Africa or simply wanting to save a Marmoset or two. Without straying beyond the peer reviewed literature “climate change” has something for everybody. It would be easy to see it as an organised conspiracy but like the Baptist and the Bootlegger they all have very different goals.
if you dig deeper, there WERE IPCC scientits, saying about glacier numbers pre 1997…
The lead authors, etc, decided to leave it in for effect..
post climategate, there the indian glaciologist, saying it was rubbish, this is when Pachauri. called them/it voodoo science..
It turned out that Pachauri had been informed by IPCC scientists, that it was a mistake, when he said this..
Tom Fuller is correct on this.
It’s the head of the hydra, lead authors, etc, that are the biggest part of the IPCC problem. Even Steve Mcintyre, is an ‘acredited’ IPCC scientists – he was involved you know. bring him in, to ignore him, stratgey.
A long time ago I recognzied what I dubbed “mutally beneficial acts” or “convergent interests”. The concept is that an action by one is recognized as being in the financial, political or personal interests of another, and so is copied or promoted. Where there is a loose community of like-interested people or groups, the idea can be broadcast and supported before it even comes out, and so appears to be coordinated, though it is not. It explains the appears of conspiracies where there are none, of collusion where there is none. Even gas prices jumping up “simultaneously” for different providers across the city or country are explainable by the concept. We do not need the far-left or far-right to propose Fifth Columnists in our midst. Just observant and self-aware individuals trying to maximize their own ideas.
Mark S says:
September 13, 2010 at 6:48 am (Edit)
So are you saying that the Website RealClimate is part of a media campaign promoting dubious science? Do you have any proof of this? I mean, *any*?
And how about your wild conjecture “They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know.” Can you provide any examples where this is the case? If the conspiracy is as widespread as you say there should be dozens of examples you can come up with.”
#######
Mark, we cover this aspect of the corruption of science in our book, although we both would have loved to give it more space. let me first give an example, and then quote what we wrote. There is more, maybe a post.. Anyway, one example of how research is twisted, is the area of tree rings. In particular the FAILURE to follow up 20 years later and “update the proxies” many key proxies, like bristlecones and yamal” have not been updated in over 20 years. That data, if it showed a divergence, could upset a huge applecart. In fact one reasearcher did do some updates and her research is ignored. she was told not to answer questions about it from steve mcintyre. but we have her data and it does throw doubt on bristlecones. The point is, nobody wants to look at data that may cause problems for the theory. money does not change the answers of a given science, money changes the QUESTIONS ASKED. And now a long excerpt from the book. I need new shoes:
In order to understand the subtle ways in which funding, policy interests, and personal interest twist the publication process, we need only turn to David Michaels, author of “Doubt is their product.” In a Washington Post editorial he describes the corrosive effect of funding. Ulterior motives don’t usually result in fraudulent studies, ulterior motives change the questions that you ask.
“By David Michaels
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Wal-Mart and Toys R Us announced this spring that they will stop selling plastic baby bottles, food containers and other products that contain a chemical {BPA} that can leach into foods and beverages. … Congress is considering measures to ban the chemical. But is there enough evidence of harmful health effects on humans? One of the eyebrow-raising statistics about the BPA studies is the stark divergence in results, depending on who funded them. More than 90 percent of the 100-plus government-funded studies performed by independent scientists found health effects from low doses of BPA, while none of the fewer than two dozen chemical-industry-funded studies did. This striking difference in studies isn’t unique to BPA. When a scientist is hired by a firm with a financial interest in the outcome, the likelihood that the result of that study will be favorable to that firm is dramatically increased. This close correlation between the results desired by a study’s funders and those reported by the researchers is known in the scientific literature as the “funding effect.”Having a financial stake in the outcome changes the way even the most respected scientists approach their research. ”
As Michael notes, if a scientist is hired by a firm with a financial interest, it changes the results and the structure of the science. If this holds true for companies that have a profit motive then it would seem to extend to research centers, universities, and labs who survive on the funding they get. For example the Tyndall center, discussed below, is dedicated to finding ways to adapt and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Such a mission presupposes that the climate will change in ways that are harmful. Michaels continues:.
“Within the scientific community, there is little debate about the existence of the funding effect, but the mechanism through which it plays out has been a surprise.At first, it was widely assumed that the misleading results in manufacturer-sponsored studies of the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical products came from shoddy studies done by researchers who manipulated methods and data. Such scientific malpractice does happen,but close examination of the manufacturers’ studies showed that their quality was usually at least as good as, and often better than, studies that were not funded by drug companies. This discovery puzzled the editors of the medical journals, who generally have strong scientific backgrounds.
Richard Smith.. has written that he required “almost a quarter of a century editing . . . to wake up to what was happening.” Noting that it would be far too crude, and possibly detectable, for companies to fiddle directly with results, he suggested that it was far more important to ask the “right” question. ..Smith, Bero and others have catalogued these “tricks of the trade,” which include …. publishing the results of a single trial many times in different forms to make it appear that multiple studies reached the same conclusions; and publishing only those studies, or even parts of studies, that are favorable to your drug, and burying the rest.”
Here we see all the tricks employed by Mann and the rest of the Team. In drugs test as Michael notes, companies publish the results of a single test many times to make it look like multiple studies say the same thing. In climate reconstructions McIntyre has catalogued the same trick with multiple authors using the same climate proxies and then claiming independent verification. They also, as we have seen engage in publishing studies or data that are favorable, while burying the rest. Hiding the decline. Michael continues and discusses how “meta analysis” is created, analysis that describes the AR4 chapter 6 process:
“The problem is equally apparent in review articles and meta-analyses, in which an author selects a group of papers and synthesizes an overall message or pattern. Decisions about which articles to include in a meta-analysis and how heavily to weight them have an enormous impact on the conclusions. …….It has become clear to medical editors that the problem is in the funding itself. As long as sponsors of a study have a stake in the conclusions, these conclusions are inevitably suspect, no matter how distinguished the scientist.”
What Michael argues for tobacco companies and other funded science seems to clearly hold for climate science, especially in light of what the Climategate mails reveal. Michaels answer is to de link sponsorship and research and establishing research groups with an independent governing structure. For example the Health Effects Institute was established by the EPA and manufacturers. Noteably the HEI
has an independent governing structure; its first director was Archibald Cox, who famously refused to participate in President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” meant to help cover up the Watergate scandal. HEI conducts studies paid for by corporations, but its researchers are sufficiently insulated from the sponsors that their results are credible.
Climate science . In particular the compilation of a global temperature index, needs an Archibald Cox.
What I am missing in all this political speculation about who benefits and how from the climate alarmism is any mention of an industry that directly benefits from it. And I don’t mean carbon traders and renewable energy companies.
What I am talking about is the insurance industry. Especially those companies that back-insure many of those insurance companies that you and I deal directly with.
For them an increase of perceived risk when in fact there is none is an easy justification to increase rates, aqcuire more clients and make much more money. The more people get (and pay) for insurance that is not needed the more money they make.
Things like creating a public perception of an increase of extrem weather events, sea level rise and so on is a clever business strategy to increase profits for those insurance companies that insure against natural disasters.
No wonder quite a few large insurance companies are funding groups and institutes that promote climate alarmism.
To follow up on my previous comments. It is still all about the money, because with money comes power, and we all know what comes with power.
Environmental issues are there – dioxin is a problem, heavy metals are a problem, local pollution is a problem. The sad thing is Government, in all its forms, exacerbates the problem – local governments are the largest polluters in the world – they pour gigatons of waste into our waters every day.
A real environmentalist would be hard at work to stop Governmental pollution. Stopping that fixes 85% of the world’s pollution problems.
Someone tell EXXON, they are paying for Bob Ward, over at the Sceince and media centre….
Why ExxonMobil must be taken to task over climate funding
ExxonMobil should keep its promise by ending its financial support for lobby groups that mislead the public about climate change, writes Bob Ward
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jul/01/bob-ward-exxon-mobil-climate
EXXONMobil help pay the salaries of the Science and Media Centre…
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/funding.htm
Fiona Fox – Director – Science and Media Centre
Bob Ward on the board.
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2010 at 9:03 am
I like your writing when you’re in top form like that, Mr. Mosher.
This may sound very simple-minded, but would you mind explaining why it’s wrong to falsely represent reality? My reason leads me to believe that being able to define right and wrong would be an end run around the complexity of the infinite permutations of falsehood. It would be very useful to have a ‘bumper sticker’ statement of what is the objective standard of values – so anybody could use that to make instant sense of whether something is right or wrong without having to become mired in false statistics.
In other words, can you express, explicitly, the Principle at root?
Stephen Mosher at 9:03
“she was told not to answer questions about it from steve mcintyre”
perhaps should read;
she was told not to answer questions from Steve Mcintyre about it
Well, I would like to say that I disagree with Thomas Fuller in this case.
Very much so.
What do you call it when a very big, a VERY BIG organisation tries to take the freedom away from all citizens on this planet? By just signing a few sentences in Copenhagen?
What do you call it when the Obamas, the Rudds, the Browns, the Merkels, etc etc gang up and goes to Copenhage to sign up on the end of freedom?
When all the dust is settled, and the historians look back, it will NOT be forgotten what they tried to lure them into signing.
So if we dont call it a conspiracy, its just a matter of word-play. We can choose what to call it. I call it a conspiracy.
And what was it that stopped them? one person stopped them.
The person that leaked some emails from CRU. No doubt about that.
That person deserves the Nobel Peace prize. He/she saved millions of lives.
So if they had signed the original petition, the question would be; Would the constitution in each country have protected us against these elected official’s follies?
I’m not sure whether the Norwegian constitution would have saved us.
One can only hope.
TJA says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:13 am
Are you one of those anti-science right wingers I have been hearing so much about?
Are you one of those anti-science left wingers I have been hearing so much about, since the French Revolution was funded by the same who fund the Global Warming Scam and whose purpose was and it is a rosy world of no ethics, abortions, gay marriage, stem cells from chopped aborted babies, etc,etc.?
I hope you write a bigger post about the funding effect.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tightened+muzzle+scientists+Orwellian/3515345/story.html
Dubious politicians and their dubious mandarins
also promote dubious science and warp science
to their own ends–
regardless of what any constitution or
law might say —
and then it will take ten years in court to
maybe rectify the situation.
e.g. Canada
I actually think the Mosh man could do a great post about that. Hope he does.
kwik says:
September 13, 2010 at 9:37 am
So if we dont call it a conspiracy, its just a matter of word-play. We can choose what to call it. I call it a conspiracy.
And what was it that stopped them? one person stopped them.
The person that leaked some emails from CRU. No doubt about that.
That person deserves the Nobel Peace prize. He/she saved millions of lives.
—————————————————
An absolute prince of pirates if there ever was.
We never have too many heroes to admire and inspire.
May he remain anonymous, too, for as myth he is ideal.
Nobody has an infinite war-treasure chest, and neither do these piggy-backers have infinite money supply.
That goes double with political support.
They have erred with some very bad journalism, and have a lot of egg on thier faces.
They have a lump to swallow, and it comes in the form of opportunistic politicians who are feeling the squeeze of anti-incumbentism.
So, they are fighting off the label of “Loser” by backpeddaling, and the politicians not easily swept away by thier dog-piling press releases are harder to connect with.
It’s a squeeze-play they find themselves in.
Money, power and utopian dreams explain it.
Money = advocacy & climate funding, government taxes, carbon credits market
Power = Advocay influence, government control, enforced utopian dreams
Utopian dreams = wattle and daub, reduced populations, retarded industry
Nothing like this happens on the other side of the coin either…sheesh, get real. Most the junk we are subjected to on a daily basis is BS. Folks just need to have an ability to see through BS, and life is good.
“There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.”
Oh come on, there emphatically is a conspiracy, a massive conspiracy. Greenpeace and the WWF wouldn’t have made any progress at all if it hadn’t been for the, so called, ‘scientific’ basis of AGW theory.
Obviously they have been caught red handed in their outrageous Himalaya glacier scam and desertification of the rainforest scam. But their malign influence is all over the science.
Key elements of the IPCC for example have clearly conspired to bury the enormous amount of peer reviewed literature that refutes everything from the very existence of a ‘greenhouse effect’, to the recent observed precipitous fall in global average temperatures, to the clear negative feedbacks of atmospheric water vapour, to the burgeoning polar bear population, to the dramatic growth of arctic sea ice.
On the back of this conspiracy, every major national science body in the world has conspired to agree with the IPCC’s findings. How thankful we’ll all be for the tireless work of the 3% of maverick climate scientists and blogs like this that have done their part in exposing the conspiracy for no reward whatsoever, other than the thanks and recognition of future generations from saving us all from our collective folly.
I’m willing to believe that there is no conspiracy on the lower levels, but have you ever read en masse what the Green planners really are aiming for? These are actual quotations from the original leaders and philosophers behind the main drive. It sounds pretty scary, if you ask me.