Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen
Those of you who closely watch the media — newspapers, broadcast & streaming news, national magazines, national public radio — may have noticed that all the news about climate change is beginning to sound the same — regardless of outlet (there are a few sensible exceptions). This is no accident. In fact, it is an organized movement among American journalists.
I have written here before about the Editorial Narratives at the New York Times. Here’s the working definition I proposed for Editorial Narrative:
“Editorial Narrative: A mandated set of guidelines for the overriding storyline for any news item concerning a specified topic, including required statements, conclusions and intentional slanting towards a particular preferred viewpoint. A statement from the Editors of “How this topic is to be presented.”
In that essay, I quoted Michael Cieply when, in November 2016, he told the world about the NY Times’ Editorial Narratives:
“It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse [of that at the LA Times]. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”
I don’t know how many readers took this bit of news seriously or how many readers realized the implications of the exposé. Personally, I was not surprised, as I had long suspected it. But the implications of this are quite disturbing. It means, in layman’s terms, that the news that you read has been pre-determined by the Editors and has little to do with actual events (real news) that happen in the real world. Those of you who have recently read Orwell’s 1984 will recognize some of the features of the Ministry of Truth (writ small at the NY Times’ “Page One meeting”). At the NY Times, the profession of journalism has been turned to the task of pushing the narratives of editors down the throats of the people. Newspeak is rampant.
While I found Cieply’s revelations unsettling, I find the following story truly frightening in its ability to threaten the very underpinnings of democracy.
The story starts earlier in the year with a conference planned and held at the behest of Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation (“along with partners such as The Guardian”). You can watch the conference online (YouTube). The outcome of that conference is a growing cabal of journalists and their editors: (in their own words):
“How does the media cover—or not cover—the biggest story of our time? Last fall, UN climate scientists announced that the world has 12 years to transform energy, agriculture, and other key industries if civilization is to avoid a catastrophe. We believe the news business must also transform.”
“The Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation assembled some of the world’s top journalists, scientists, and climate experts to devise a new playbook for journalism that’s compatible with the 1.5-degree future that scientists say must be achieved. We also held a town hall meeting on the coverage of climate change and the launch of an unprecedented, coordinated effort to change the media conversation.”
source: https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/climate-crisis-media.php/
Journalists around the world are being contacted by email by CJR with a message that includes this appeal :
“Our ask of you is simple: commit to a week of focused climate coverage this September. We are organizing news outlets across the US and abroad—online and print, TV and audio, large and small—to run seven days of climate stories from September 16 through the climate summit UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres hosts in New York September 23. The stories you run are up to you, though we can offer ideas and background information and connect outlets looking for content with content providers looking for outlets.
We’d be happy to schedule a phone call to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
What is their playbook? What’s the narrative they expect journalists to stick to?
It starts with this: “Transforming the media’s coverage of the climate crisis” and morphs into a “FAQ” titled “The media are complacent while the world burns” with these ideas and suggestions like these:
1. Climate is a crisis.
2. The Green New Deal is “a plan to mobilize the United States to stave off climate disaster and, in the process, create millions of green jobs.” and the GND has massive public support. [ NB: see Postscript at the end of this column. ]
3. Climate is the “biggest story of our time”.
4. Journalists should push the “….warning that humanity has a mere 12 years to radically slash greenhouse-gas emissions or face a calamitous future in which hundreds of millions of people worldwide would go hungry or homeless or worse.” and that “our civilization today faces the prospect of extinction”.
If this all sounds like a Climate Pragmatists Worst Nightmare, then you are starting to understand correctly. The CJR/Nation/Guardian cabal is working on a “handbook” to help news organizations “get the story right”. In other words, they are writing the Climate Journalism Narrative – a point for point list of what every climate story should say and how it should say it (and, remember folks, ”every story is a climate story”). They call on journalists to “Learn the science” suggesting that instead of actually reading anything containing the science of the climate, such as the real science sections of the IPCC AR5 report, they recommend that journalists read “Four recent books—McKibben’s Falter, Naomi Klein’s On Fire, David Wallace-Wells’s The Uninhabitable Earth, and Jeff Goodell’s The Water Will Come—are good places to start.” — all of which are extreme climate alarmist propaganda.
Covering Climate Now movement is organizing:
“A focused week of coverage
We’ll work to organize as much of the news media as possible—large and small, national and local—to commit to one week of focused coverage of climate change this September. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, is convening a summit in New York on September 23, where nations are urged to show how they will limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We propose a week of concentrated climate coverage in the lead-up to the UN summit, beginning September 16.” [ source ]
Don’t be fooled, they are not planning any real journalistic attempts to explain the complexity of the wicked problem called Earth’s Climate and the current controversies surrounding the issues involved. They are planning an intensive propaganda campaign across as many media outlets as they can convince (or shame) into signing on to participate.
I have laid out my position on the Climate Question here at WUWT ( here and here ). I encourage climate realists, especially those with a broader reach into mainstream media, to begin now to plan for their own counter-campaign to help neutralize the propaganda blitz envisioned by CJR/The Nation/The Guardian cabal for September 2019. We too are journalists, even if in just a small way. I for one will be following the Covering Climate Now propaganda campaign and will update the readership here with details from their promised propaganda ”handbook”.
The science is very plain on such issues as US wildfires, hurricanes (US and worldwide), US flooding, so-called heat waves and weather extremes. Opinion columns and essays in national newspapers and magazines (both print and online) and video commentary for broadcast and streamed news stations, laying out the simple truth, with graphs, numbers, and images, can and will help cut the ground from under the alarmist propaganda effort.
If we, the readers and contributors here, don’t make the effort to counteract this planned act of ideological sabotage of the American mind, who will?
# # # # #
POSTSCRIPT: One of the propaganda points that will be pushed by the Climate Journalists Cabal is: “Not only do most Americans care about climate change, but an overwhelming majority support a Green New Deal—81 percent of registered voters said so as of last December, according to Yale climate pollsters. Trump and Fox don’t like the Green New Deal? Fine. But journalists should report that the rest of America does.”
This is an example of how warped the journalism being promoted by the Covering Climate Now group is. It is true that a poll by “Yale climate pollsters” (in reality the activist department Yale Program on Climate Change Communication) found, in December 2018: “The survey results show overwhelming support for the Green New Deal, with 81% of registered voters saying they either “strongly support” (40%) or “somewhat support” (41%) this plan.” There’s the 81%.
What a great quotable quote!
The reality is a bit different. The pollsters asked this question:
“Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy. How much do you support or oppose this idea?”
And got this result:
Now that looks pretty definitive, doesn’t it? But here’s the real deal….the poll is taken in the first weeks of December 2018. The Green New Deal (in its current form) was announced the week following the November 2018 mid-term elections. So, less than 3 weeks after it is announced, put up on the web, taken down again, put up again (you remember the story), the climate advocacy group at Yale does a poll, preceded by a glowing recommendation of the GND, and then asks “How much to you support or oppose this idea?”
So, our Climate Journalist Cabal is not misrepresenting the poll…they are just misrepresenting the whole concept of public support for the GND.
The same poll also asked:
“How much, if anything, have you heard about a policy being proposed by some members of Congress called the Green New Deal?”
The resounding answer?
“Nothing at all”
The same poll, the same cohort (same people polled), a greater percentage than those purportedly “supporting” it had heard “nothing at all” about the GND.
For those that interpret polls, this means, bluntly, that the “supporters” were responding solely to the pollsters “introduction” about the GND — they really didn’t know anything at all about it.
What does the public really think about the seriousness of climate issues? The Pew poll of January 2019:
The Climate Journalist Cabal has already stated that it plans to use this near-total misrepresentation as part of its propaganda campaign. What they will do with other topics is not hard to imagine.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
This is an Opinion column. It is my opinion alone, the opinion of Kip Hansen and may not represent the opinions of the editors, moderators, or owners of this website.
All are free to disagree with me — but I am unlikely to argue or try to change your mind if you do.
I am disturbed by this type of organized attempt to misrepresent the facts of the climate controversy.
I acknowledge that the authors at CJR, The Nation, and The Guardian may actually believe that they are doing something good by ramping up climate alarm. I strongly disagree — it is at best misguided and goes morally downhill from there.
# # # # #
I suppose this UN climate conference in September will have Trump weighing in on the subject. That ought to be fun! 🙂
Tom ==> President Trump will probably not attend or speak — he will invariably “twit” — which is the world’s worst sort of communication on any subject. There will some controversy when US government employees who are Climate Alarm Advocates wish to appear in their professional roles but intend to spread their private opinions on climate. Look the the RealClimate crowd to try to get in on the UN Climate bonanza.
Kip, its “tweet.” And President Trump uses it to bypass the MSM filters; to great effect!
Additionally, I am sick to death of scripted politicians.
DF
I think “twit” is a more accurate description.
Dave & Clyde ==> I use the word “twit” to describe both the message sender and the message sent. I think the twit-iverse is an abomination and is causing a great deal of harm to society.
Other than that, I don’t have any strong opinions about it.
Kip, advancing technology always irritates some.
Clyde, do you think “twit” accurately describes our highly successful President?
Dave ==> I use the term “twit” to apply to ANY twit-verse user — without discrimination. for most people and under most circumstances, my advice is “Don’t be such a twit!” No politics are involved.
Much of my objection to the twit-iverse is esoterically philosophical — as are my reasons for avoiding all Apple products.
Don’t take it too seriously.
Kip, I don’t use Twitter but it does have a powerful impact on society, both for good and bad. I only use Facebook to keep track of distant middle daughter and niece, nobody else.
Apple developers are control freaks; I avoid their products. My interactions early-adopting Apple people left me with a bad impression because they were mainly socialists. I still refer to them as “Mac Attackers.”
Kip, I agree with you.
In Canada, we have the CBC which is hopeless. Since they passed a motion declaring a “climate emergency”, CBC has had a good number of “experts” pushing the agenda. They ignore any skeptics and i have yet to wee one interviewed. Most of the newspapers are the same.
Postmedia (Sun) will print some letters and some of their editorials write opposing the climate tax, but they will still not print the basics challenging whether emissions actually do cause a temperature increase.
Gerald Machnee ==> When the government/political parties take over or control the broadcast media, trouble brews and begins to spread like a fungus. These media outlets — PBS(US), NPR (US), CBC (Canada), BBC (UK) — are called PUBLIC tv/radio — bu they are actually politically controlled to a great degree — in the last US presidential election one would have thought the NPR and PBS were simply media outlets for the Democratic National Committee.
It is so bad here in the central Hudson Valley of NY that I refer to our local NPR (radio) station as ‘WDNC”.
The party leading the way for slavery reparations in the US is the party that at the very same time seeks to enslave everyone via the excuse of “climate change. Make no mistake, socialism is a form of enslavement and the first to be taken hostage is truth itself, by which then reality is then made plastic to be molded by ideology.
In addition to planning our own scientific intelligent counter-campaign to help neutralize their propaganda blitz, I would like to see a join-them-in-a-one-upmanship campaign that spreads such ridiculous claims about the “imminent CAGW apocalypse” that even the radical greenies will cringe from embarrassment – claims such as:
1) It will be hot enough to fry eggs on a sidewalk in Barrow, Alaska next summer.
2) By 2021, 50% of the ocean’s whales will experience chemical burns to their skin from the increase in ocean acidity.
3) etc. etc. (This shouldn’t be too difficult because who does sourcing anymore?)
…and include advertising for special survival hydration equipment since municipal water supplies will be drying up in the near future.
This tactic is akin to using chaff to jam true radar detection.
“noaaprogrammer June 22, 2019 at 8:22 pm
1) It will be hot enough to fry eggs on a sidewalk in Barrow, Alaska next summer.”
This was actually shown in new media in Australia last year, in the middle of summer on a typically hot day. Eggs cooking, rather slowly I might add, in a iron pan on the hood of a car that had been baked in the sun all day. This was proof the world was getting warmer due to climate change, and of course, our CO2 emissions.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/we-get-it-australia-its-really-fucking-hot
Excuse the language, it’s not mine.
Patrick ==> If one places a black cast iron skillet out in thre direct sun on a summer’s day almost anywhere in the tropics, it will truthfully get hot enough to cook eggs — I have raised blisters on myself picking up dark colored tools and things off the deck of our sailboat in the Caribbean. Leaning against a dark painted car can really bean experience…..
Kip,
And in August in Phoenix (AZ) even the chrome handles on car doors get too hot to touch comfortably if the car sits in the sun. I found it impossible to work on a car in the Summer in Phoenix because even if I wore gloves, I’d inadvertently touch the frame of the car with some other part of my anatomy that I wanted to keep. Hence the joke about how you can tell the Phoenix native: He is the guy who parks his car at the far end of the parking lot to take advantage of the ‘shade’ from the light pole.
Clyde Spencer ==> Good one….you know that at sea, on a small vessel like our sailboat, shade is a treasured commodity, often simply impossible to provide for yourself if you are underway . . . . the ridiculous contraptions we have tried over the years. (we did have a scrap of shade under the bimini right at the helm — usually just shading one’s top half.) In side the cabin, it was often debilitatingly. hot as the sun beat down on the cabin top.
noaaprogrammer ==> I thought I saw those quotes in the Guardian…..
Not 1 reporter in 100 has ANY understanding of ANY science based issue as related in the media.
Ask 100 reporters, in their own words, the definition of the term “climate” or what makes up the “climate”
Not one will have the ability to clearly state the scientific basis for the term in their own words.
Ask 100 randomly selected reporters. What is the science basis for the term “global warming” and the approximate quantity of warming that is central to the issue.
Not one will be able to give a clear answer from their own understanding.
Ask them their level of understanding of any science based issue of their choosing, or the name of any science class they attended while in college, and what they learned in that one class, or their grade.
I’m sure the fumbling, incoherent babble that follows will be both laughable and profoundly saddening.
bwegher ==> Journalists should have sharp minds, good writing skills, good critical thinking skills and the ability to absorb new information and translate it into understandable prose for their readers. They should also be able to write dispassionately to explain both sides of a controversy.
CJR and other “schools of journalism” have come to believe that the world needs nothing but hard hitting “investigative” reporters to expose the world’s ill’s. Thus, there is no explaining of the differing positions and opinions on societal topics — journalists instead take a side (or are assigned a side by their editors), write a piece praising the approved side and vilifying the opposing view.
Ridiculing the alarmist narrative is easy. We need more Joshes. There is no crisis. Socialism is the problem not an answer.
I am laying on the beach chair with a drink containing CO2 that flowers near by desperately want. My thermometer shows daily min 5 C, max 35 C and current 22 C.
Alarmist propaganda office writes fake news describing warming from winter to summer and night to day as a crisis. Predicting that is block of Arctic ice will melt by August.
I am sure that you can draw better ones.
What was the reaction from Beijing and Delhi?
Burn more coal 🙂
Coeur de Lion ==> If I get some idea of the international acceptance of CJRs campaign, I”llpost it here at WUWT.
Kip, have you thought of creating or starting another media narrative web site to compete against CJR? One that pushes a “truth” narrative.
Brendan ==> There are almost TWO BILLION web site on the internet todat — another one won’t make much of an impact. WUWT gets far more traffic than any other climate related website — bar none- There is no comparable site on either side of the Climate Divide.
What appears here is talked about and re-blogged many times over.
Anthony Watts has done a terrific job and has made a deep impact (at great personal cost, btw).
What we (readers/authors) need to do now is reach out an translate success here into success in more mainstream media. Many of the authors here, “big names” do publish in mainstream media. Some appear on national television and some testify before US Congressional committees. Thjat’s the kind of reach we need.
Kip, if you are going to start some counter-initiative can I offer to you a document I spent many weeks working on last year and published on the web? It is a simple but easily comprehended graphical summary of the weather/climate in Ireland over the last 200 years based on records at Armagh Observatory since 1796. Any member of the public can read and understand it in around just 3 minutes. It has received a very good reaction from those who have read it and considerable alarm from some climate catastrophists who were deeply concerned at its inescapable conclusions particularly in the context of Ireland declaring a climate ‘emergency’. I have struggled to get it any publicity as you can see in the views of it. I tried to get it published here at WUWT but no one ever responded to me.
Just google: 200 years climate change Ireland scribd
Wasn’t able to give the link on my ipad. Some screen shots from it are below (and the link to the full doc):
And the document itself is here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/382781490/Climate-Change-in-Ireland-Over-the-Last-Two-Centuries
Joe ==> Thanks for the input — scribd wants my credit card number to download the paper. Can you please email it to me at my first name at the domain i4 dot net ? With a real world name as author, please?
Kip – emailed to you there now. Joe
The funny side of all this is the socialists agenda does not know where to draw the line.
In London England later this year there will be a no car day in the central area. An idea prompted by climate alarmists and supported by the London Mayor Sadiq Khan. The champions of the idea are using phrases like we “must take back our roads, we own the roads not the cars” The villains in this game play are clearly drivers of cars. The supporters are also gushing with their thoughts on social media and in the comments of papers carrying/promoting the event. One caught my eye among many with a common complaint. The writer demanded we should also ban bikers from riding through on that day to ensure there are less cyclist pedestrian incidents which are becoming common place on London streets these days. The new villains are now aggressive cyclists ignoring red lights riding on pavements overtaking buses not respecting pedestrian crossings and so on.
I wonder what the next campaign in London will be? Maybe banning aggressive walkers, you know the ones, they just want to get in front, they can’t amble around like the rest of us, always wanting to get somewhere.
By the way, it is all cars to be banned not just the usual fossil fuelled ones. All those hybrids, banned, all those full battery powered BMWs and Teslas’ anything with powered wheels will be banned.
I just hope they don’t have an emergency on the day and ask for an ambulance or police car….
“Rod Evans June 23, 2019 at 1:47 am
I wonder what the next campaign in London will be? Maybe banning aggressive walkers, you know the ones,…”
Yes I do. They are the ones who step on the cracks in the pavement (PC Savage skit, UK 80’s comedy TV Not the 9 O’Clock News).
Rod ==> What an absolutely mad idea — the result will be the same as a National Strike….no one will get to work, nothing will be accomplished other than a hit on the economy.
I think readers here (WUWT) in the UK should support the idea, and cheerlead for it — heck, expandit to the whole country. Then maybe the public and the government will realize just how important automobiles are to their society and economy.
Look at it from the bright side. The 95% has gone fown to 81%.
When it gets down to 48% then we will declare we have won…..won’t we? What could possibly go wrong….?
Too close to declare a win, another poll will be needed, a peoples vote….you get the picture the COGS don’t recognise defeat.
It’s a game without end, up the ladders and down the snakes.
Warren Buffet, who has invested in Newspapers in the past, believes that only a few papers will survive and that they will do this by going digital and serving a national audience, rather than just local. But a national audience means that you can appeal to a group that has particular political leanings. So you have The NY Times and Washington Post as left leaning outlets and the Wall Street Journal leaning right. So subscribers pick the political views they subscribe to. Add to that polling methods designed to convince rather than enlighten. What you end up with are media silos where there is no give and take of ideas, just self support of existing biases. No wonder political polarization is getting worse.
Perhaps a bigger problem is whose subscribing. Digital subscriptions aren’t cheap so the readership is mostly affluent. You’re likely not reaching 70% of the population.
Then there’s the issue of polling. How do you reach a broad cross section when media appeals to groups in political silos and phone polling in the cellular age competes with junk calls making up 90% of calls coming in.? In fact, even exit polling, where the problems of silos and cell screening don’t exist, can’t even get results right.
While I agree with many here that the CJR has become a propaganda tool, it only feeds certain liberal silos to support pre-existing bias in a wealthy demographic. As angry as conservatives may be, I’d suggest it leads to progressive policy positions out of touch with mainstream political desires that sound good inside the silos but not at the pols.
Sean ==> Digital newspaper and news outlets are out-competing newsprint papers by a large margin. The NY Times (much maligned by me) is doing pretty good at it (I myself am a subscriber and have been for many years.)
It is my understanding that the vast majority of people get their news from broadcast TV and digital press (and unfortunately, “late night comedy” shows). It says something about our Nation that so many actually believe late night comedy is a reliable source of national news.
Not only in the US, but a planetary scale propaganda.
Here is an example of exposed planetary editorial hipe pushed to the maximum idiotic nonsense :
Petit_Barde June 23, 2019 at 5:21 am
Not only in the US, but a planetary scale propaganda.
Here is an example of exposed planetary editorial hipe pushed to the maximum idiotic nonsense :
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
First chuckle of the day (-:
Petit_Barde ==> Yes,I’ve seen that graphic — it uses the propaganda technique of creating the impression that “everyone says so, so it must be true”. The is exactly what the CJT/TheNation/The Guardian cabal is trying to take advantage of by organizing an international propaganda blitz.
The truth of the matter may be much more prosaic. News outlets sell dramatic content because drama sells their product. ‘Man Made Climate change’ is a big, dramatic (Though mostly imaginary) problem requiring big, dramatic ‘solutions’. In lieu of a war or other global disaster this is what the news media sell to us.
No matter that the theory behind anthropogenic climate change is unproven and all the prognostications of doom, from sea level rise to ocean acidification and runaway warming, have failed to arrive as promised. No matter that the much touted climate ‘models’ consistently fail to match reality. Or as a ‘science’ the anthropogenic models have more in common with a newspaper astrologer. News media outlets will keep pushing this narrative because it keeps them afloat, especially in today’s much less profitable media marketplace.
Bill Sticker ==> Personally, I don’t believe that people buy newspapers, or tune into broadcast TV, to see the latest [ridiculous] alarming climate prediction. But there is no doubt that “the world is doomed” attracts the eyes and mind of a great many people –,most;y those who are doing so well that they have nothing to worry about — the young and restless youth of the middle and upper classes, university kids with no interest in the subjects they should be learning, young rebels without a cause worthy of their attention. I sympathize with the Climate Warriors….without the climate fight, they would be bored to tears and would drug themselves into oblivion. Unfortunate that their cause is misguided — there are so many truly worthy things they could be doing.
Who was it that said “That which the left accuse you of, is what they are themselves doing”?
The extremists push the narrative that Murdoch666 dictates to his minions, who dutifully “report” exactly what he tells them to and thereby somehow forces voters to elect politicians they don’t support to enact policies they don’t support. While he actually runs the most diversely opinionated teams, from strongly right wing to hard left socialist / alarmist.
Meanwhile, the NYT tells their writers what FakeNews to write each day. Climate hysteria, Russian Collusion hoax. And Trump666 = Hitler because he calls them out on it.
Here is some amazing propaganda about carbon dioxide capture. Sure the physical process works, but at $250/tonne, poor people will lose out. The justification parts of this are sickening. And all based on never questioning the carbon-is-bad meme.
https://youtu.be/XHX9pmQ6m_s
It all comes down to “follow the money”
Ad revenue supported agenda bias has been replaced by oligarch supported agenda bias. Truth, science, and fact checking of advocacy claims were never even on the road map.
Polls.
I don’t do polls or pay attention to them. (Except those like Anthony has put here at times regarding the functionality of WUWT.)
Anymore, whether for a product or politics, “poll” results are just fodder to sell a product or political view.
“4 out of 5 proctologists prefer our BS to their BS.”
From Wiki:
PS: I “appreciate all the support” too….
Niccolo Machiavelli Quotes
Italian Writer (1469 – 1527)
“Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries – for heavy ones they cannot.”
__________________________________________________________
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/niccolo_machiavelli
https://www.google.com/search?q=macciavelli+citations&oq=macciavelli+citations+&aqs=chrome.
The Narrative is also neing implemented in TV Shows – in the space of a month 5 different shows all had climate change come up (The Last OG, Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell, and I can’t recall the otehrs) but the shows are all aimed at the young adult market (Adult Swim showed most of them). It was an obviously blatant concerted effort with direction having come down from above to force it into the script. People think the world is headed for 1984 propaganda and control but it’s more like Brave New World’s version of population control
Those of you who closely watch the media — newspapers, broadcast & streaming news, national magazines, national public radio
It’s long past the time for everyone to stop doing just that. Find truthful sources — might not be easy, but they exist.
beng135 ==> It is NOT easy, as you already know. The hardest part is finding exacting sources on current events and controversial topics. (See my series on Modern Scientific Controversies — google “Kip Hansen” “Modern Scientific Controversies” ) and The Goog will list them for you.) In controversies, even what would appear to be definitive reliable sources can be entirely wrong — see the Salt Wars.
Readers might consider forwarding to local newspaper editors any articles that highlight news that works against the grain of the Global Warming propaganda.
For example, the recent Glacier National Park story; news about ski resorts staying open for more months this year; the delayed plantings of corn and soybeans in the Midwest; the risk of an early freeze this year, and so on.
Given the cool weather in the continental United States, this is a risky year for a September Global Warming push.
In their own words
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/24/cjr/
Chaamjamal ==> Thank you for this link! Terrific.
Kip
I just discovered why the September date was selected for a nationwide coordinated promotion of an existential climate catastrophe.
Check https://www.perspectives.cc/fileadmin/user_upload/Transition_pathways_for_the_CDM_2019.pdf
and go to page 42/79.
“During the meetings of the subsidiary bodies and the COP itself, stakeholders can act as observers to the UNFCCC and share their inputs and perspectives in so-called “side events”.
“In addition to the meetings of the subsidiary bodies and the Conferences of the Parties, the global conference “Innovate4Climate” (I4C, formerly “Carbon Expo”) organized by the World Bank since 2004 and the related regional “climate weeks”, can act as platform for various stakeholders to interact with negotiators. In 2019, the Africa Climate Week took place in March in Ghana, I4C was held in Singapore in June, the Latin-American Climate Week will be hosted in Brazil in August and the Asia-Pacific Climate Week will take place in September in China.
“The Climate Action Summit hosted by the UN General Secretary in September 2019 in New York aims to provide a general push to the negotiations.”
As the couple of pages prior to that quote indicate, there are problems in the transfer of existing carbon credits to the new Article 6 provisions of the Paris Accord. Poor countries are not happy with their slice of the carbon money pie.
There are two big meetings left to try to resolve it. Also check out P.A. Article 6.6 and ponder what it is there for and why all attention is drawn away from it.
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Johor ==> You do get around….
Yes, the whole idea is a massive, preferably worldwide, media propaganda blitz in support of the UN’s climate position.
Thanks for the link to the pdf – very useful.