Guest post by Robert Zimmerman
If anyone had any doubt that the global warming movement is undergoing a serious collapse, this so-called news article from Spiegel Online, entitled “Naked bodies and a new Messiah: Green groups are trying to sex up climate change,” probably lays that doubt to rest. Key quote:
Environmentalists and scientists are concerned about the massive drop in public interest in the topic over the last year. Now they are looking for new strategies to turn the tide. They’re searching for so-called “mind bombs” — highly emotional images that reduce a complex problem down to one core message.
Sadly, the article never asks the fundamental question: What do “mind bombs” have to do with facts, data, and proving your theories are correct in the real world?
The answer of course is obvious: Nothing.
Every tactic outlined in the article above is either a superficial public relations stunt or an effort to spin facts so emotionally that the general public will be mesmerized into doing whatever the global warming activists want.
The article’s author, Axel Bojanowski, describes in very enthusiastic terms a variety of tactics the environmental movement is considering in order to influence the public debate. These include:
- An emotional appeal, such as using dramatic pictures (a dying polar bear, a drowned city) to change minds.
- Sex.
- The search for a new Messiah to replace Al Gore.
- A new scientific language. To quote:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also wants a more careful use of language. The international body sent scientists a code of conduct concerning their interactions with journalists. Scientists should avoid using words such as “risk” and “uncertainty” in interviews, the letter read, to prevent misunderstandings — and to keep from doing the climate protection movement any further damage.” [emphasis mine]
- And finally, a new kind of journalism, where journalists become a sort of propaganda wing of the environmental movement:
Climate activists have begun directing millions in funding into training programs for environmental journalists, with the goal of encouraging what’s known as “advocacy journalism.” This type of reporting is “pretty much dead in Europe,” says Markus Lehmkuhl, a media expert at Berlin’s Free University. British science journalist Alexander Kirby warns that journalists who remain neutral on the issue could endanger the cause of climate protection, but many of his colleagues refuse to take sides.
In the case of this particular story, Bojanowski seems particularly eager to be a propagandist. For example, I find it very revealing how he describes the horrific 10:10 environmental video, where young children were blown to bloody shreds for refusing to join an environmental campaign.
One commercial in a campaign by the British-based environmental organization 10:10 showed a teacher blowing up two students who were skeptical about cutting their carbon emissions, with fountains of blood spraying the others in the class. Other 10:10 videos have the same fate befalling recalcitrant office workers and footballers. But the campaign proved a dud — it sparked massive protests and was quickly withdrawn.
It is very clear Bojanowski never saw the 10:10 video, as everything he describes took place in one commercial, not several as he implies. To understand how badly he describes this “public service” ad, it is worth watching it again:
All in all, I’m not sure what disgusts me most: the desire of environmentalists to propagandize us, irrelevant of the facts, or the unwillingness of a professional journalist to do his job and ask some basic skeptical questions. Either way, the inability of these ideologues to deal with facts and openly debate the issues face-to-face provides us a clear signal of the coming collapse of their movement.
cross-posted at behindtheblack.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sex?
Maybe Pachauri can write a new sleazy novel about some old warmist meeting young green girl?
What is it with the South Americans and Africans lack of interest in climate change? Perhaps something was lost in translation, such as credibility, or maybe their BS detectors are more up to speed.
Alternatively it “can also be not news because it is” because people are suffering from fear fatigue and the press knows this. It could also be down to the rather nippy winters the NH has been having lately. It could be because of growing scepticism among the public.
Mind bomb = New Age version of the Big Lie.
“Send money or the polar bear gets it!”
re: ” This type of reporting is “pretty much dead in Europe,” says Markus Lehmkuhl, a media expert at Berlin’s Free University.”
Uh… this speaks volumes. Does this “media expert” not read der Spiegel, or La Monde, or the Guardian? Does he not listen to BBC or other nationalized radio/tv outlets? We have been getting NOTHING BUT global warming advocacy from the EU media for decades. Ditto for other hot-button topics, but the AGW advocacy thing is particularly egregious in the European media.
We have the best instant sound-bites for changing opinions rapidly in a shallow minded public. The graph posted a few weeks ago showing reported annual temperatures versus number of stations needs very little added explanation to blow AGW “to hell.”
And we need to do that because Obama and so many others are still wrecking economies and starving the world’s poor in service of their lies. CO2 still grows plants = food to eat, and still benefits growing bird embryos according to the three whole studies I have seen on non-burrowing terrestrial vertebrates in different CO2 levels.
As near as I can tell with severely inadequate data, more CO2 increases human longevity (at relevant levels). Its your life people. Make the truth known.
It can also be not news because it is “accepted science.”
Those newspaper articles are not about science. They are about politics. Specifically how to enforce Kyoto and its successors.
The fall off is therefore extremely serious for the co2-AGW believers, as it shows that it is losing political traction.
The number of scientific articles continues as before, precisely because the science is massively in dispute.
Der Spiegel takes a long time to get these things out beyond German borders it seems. Much of this is old news already.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/10/i-have-a-nightmare-activists-search-for-a-climate-martin-luther-king/
“ the desire of environmentalists to propagandize us, irrelevant of the facts, or the unwillingness of a professional journalist to do his job and ask some basic skeptical questions.”
It’s NOT about facts. It’s about the:
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
Why isolate the “blame” on environmentalists and professional(?) journalist? What about all the other money grubbing people that just want more and more and more:
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man’s world
The “so-called” scientists, the politicians, the global big business people, the attorneys, etc. It’s all about:
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a rich man’s world.
They figured it out a long time ago and “use” the poor saps that are eviro nuts and mindless news people in protecting their turf – income. Does anybody here actually think any of these people stop for even a micro second to consider the “facts” or unintended consequences or what if any “good” they are actually doing – if doing so meant the end of their funding?
Cut off their source of money and watch what happens…. suddenly, magically, there will be no global warming problem.
I saw a Global Warming class being advertized and decided to take part. I was encouraged by the fact that the write up described how a vigorous debate was going on and that the presentation wanted to talk about the science. After the presentation there was going to be a chance to have a vigorous conversation and hash over the information presented.
I suspected that it was likely the science presented would probably not be what I’d describe as classical science and guessed the overall slant would be contrary to my views. But what the Hey ? If you can’t process information and use it to argue your point of view in a polite informed manner then what’s the point in having a point ?
And you never know I might learn something new and meet some interesting people. So I gave it a whirl.
The upshot ? Course cancelled due to lack of interest. Conclusion ? Stick a fork in ’em, they’re done.
I would have liked the chance to make my point though…… maybe next time ?
etudiant says:
January 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I’d love to know what you’re buying in the market – it sounds like a dead sure short to me!
Love your chart savvy. /sarc
“— and to keep from doing the climate protection movement any further damage.” “
Interesting that they are blaming the scientists for damaging the movement. Obviously nothing to do with loss of credibility…
And finally, a new kind of journalism, where journalists become a sort of propaganda wing of the environmental movement:
In Australia this is already a done deal. Note the high representation of Oceania in the top graph and then think about the actual population levels…
“Climate activists have begun directing millions in funding into training programs for environmental journalists, with the goal of encouraging what’s known as “advocacy journalism.” “
They get millions – where’s my big oil cheque???
I agree with Stephen Racey
Lack of coverage does not imply issue is dead. It just means it is not controversial.
In Australia and worldwide, climate change pseudo-mitigations are being legislated, regulated and subsidised without coverage – it is just being done as a fact of life now.
Climate Change now permeates our governments, law and business like a disseminated cancer – there are hundred of references to Climate change in law – planning and environmental, whole schools in universities are virtually taken over by it, businesses routinely incorporate carbon reduction – e.g. Qantas just announced a big biofuel project and on and on.
Our Australian has only one tame scientist and “The Committee is starting from the position that a carbon price is a necessary economic reform…”. See Jo Nova’s thoughts on . No one cares any more what the science says – the caravan has moved on towards the green utopia on the horison.
What we need to do is communicate to the public that: Climate fear mongering is a new form of organised white collar crime robbing the entire society. Apart from the fraudulent scientific basis and ‘unfit for purpose’ mitigations in the whole industry, there are numerous examples of outright criminal activity in carbon trading in Europe costing billions, accreditation frauds, carbon credit frauds in forestry etc.
The general public don’t care about science integrity, truth or principles or even waste of tax money! They care about their personal welfare. We need to convince them of the fact that they are being robbed blind every day by the climate scam:
“Climate Scam policies are robbing YOU every day”
“Climate Scam industry is robbing YOU every day”
“How much did the Climate Scam rob YOU today?”
“What do “mind bombs” have to do with facts, data, and proving your theories are correct in the real world?”
It’s not about facts. It’s about emotions and feelings and the ends justifying the means. The environmental movement has wanted to limit population, limit energy use, limit land use, and send us all back to the stone age for a long time. Climate change is just the latest means to achieve those ends. They don’t care if Global Warming is a fact, just that it is a useful tool to get what they want.
It would be an environmentalist dream to have a button that would not only reduce the population but get rid of their detractors at the same time. That’s why these little eco-fascists were taken by surprise to discover that normal people were offended by seeing their ultimate fantasy taking shape in video form. I say let them continue to produce highly emotional images (mind bombs) to convince the public of their position. It might serve to wake people up to how far these control freaks will really go to get what they want.
The alarmists keep engaging and fooling the public by reporting that prolonged droughts are due to man-made warming, prolonged rains and winter are also due to man-made warming.
There’s a nefarious side of me that suggests if promoting AGW might get this declining, single, middle-aged man at least a modicum of sex, as the above post suggests to employ as a vehicle to promote AGW hysteria, then I just might do it. But then, dastardly conscience gets in the way. Instead, I have made it a mission in my life to attempt to brighten the lives of others. The other day I had a delightful young waitress. I discovered she had a daughter & I asked her if her daughter was as pretty as her mother was. This wonderful mom said, “Prettier”. When I left I told her that she had brightened my day. She didn’t thank me but instead said, “You have brightened mine.” Why does taxpayer money have to go to people who wish to darken our days? Who employ fear rather then persuasion? People who denigrate the wondrous creation (OF NATURE) of a sentient living organism upon this planet? Ultimately they must be fought with logic.
All in all, I’m not sure what disgusts me most: the desire of environmentalists to propagandize us, irrelevant of the facts, or the unwillingness of a professional journalist to do his job and ask some basic skeptical questions. Either way, the inability of these ideologues to deal with facts and openly debate the issues face-to-face provides us a clear signal of the coming collapse of their movement.
I read this as reflecting a deeper cultural issue; as a society “western civilization” has come to a point of diminished capability for critical and integrative thinking. This is reversible, and I am not positing some previous golden age of “rationality”. But we are sloppy and as a culture we need to vigourously lift our game. Sites such as this one is part of the process of fostering critical and integrative thinking.
In Oz we have a radio program entitled “The Science Show”. A recent embarrassment was an interview concerning a recent paper about the imminent demise of penguins in Antarctica. I guess that since the polar bear campaign was successful, then penguins are seen as a good emotive target too.
Could this possibly be “the worst paper ever written”?
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3065125.htm
Click on “Show Transcript” & “View Comments”
NoAstronomer says:
January 4, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Why is ‘sex’ only second on the list?
Their primary purpose is the acquisition and maintenance of power over other humans…
Frankly – I think that trying to use sex as a manipulation technique is poor strategy. It’s simply too easy to get to hold much real value.
“Scientists should avoid using words such as “risk” and “uncertainty” in interviews…”
To be replaced by “doubleminus bad”?
This is despite every single news item on TV having a backdrop of floods, calving icebergs, deserts, etc?
Yup. Could not agree more.
Could that be because the ‘problems’ are so hard to prove?
This does not gel with the “Critical debate” idea before, however!
Regarding the Climategate report it links to, there are a couple of interesting quotes:
Now this ‘memo’ appears to have been reported by ABC, but I cannot find it. It is very widely copied, with two or three exact phrasings, all over the net. It appears to be the root of the ‘Big Oil’ conspiracy theory as far as I can see.
I would be very interested in finding out what the “…” (dropped in some reports) is hiding, however. It seems as though it could be important.
This has also been very widely reported in the exact same form, but I cannot find the original.
Myron Mesecke says:
January 4, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“They’re searching for so-called “mind bombs” — highly emotional images that reduce a complex problem down to one core message.”
That’s been their problem from the beginning. Overstating, exaggerating, embellishing, instead of sticking to the facts and truth. When their big bad wolf fairy tales didn’t come true people started to see them for what they are.
I agree with Myron – this is simply perpetuating bad strategy. They are on the wrong side of the physical facts and that does not bode well for the longevity of their movement. Reality bites.
Anoneumouse says:
The interesting fact derived from that graph is.. Europe…..predominately left wing governments, predominantly European Union (Fabian) and from a UK perspective “Common Purpose”.
——————-
To be pedantic:
Europe has a population more than twice that of the US so, especially given the numerous different countries and languages, it’s not surprising if there are more newspaper articles in Europe on pretty much any subject of global interest than in the US.
To paint CAGW issue as purely a left wing issue is simplistic at best. For example in the UK all the parties with a prayer of gaining any sort of power are completely warmist, including the Conservatives. Only 3 MPs out of a total of more than 600 voted against economically suicidal legislation on AGW. There was virtually no debate.