Yale study confirms Democrats as champions of climate alarmism propaganda politics

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Los Angeles Times latest climate alarmist campaign article clearly reflects the limited effectiveness of effort by propagandists to foist scientifically unsupported alarmism schemes upon the public.


The article addresses a Yale Program on Climate Change Communication which found that only about a third of Americans broach the climate change subject in discussions.

The article notes:

“Barely more than a third of Americans broach the subject often or even occasionally, according to a recent survey by researchers at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.”

The Times article clearly focuses on the need for alarmists to push the purely politically hyped “climate consensus” opinion upon the public clearly demonstrating that those championing the climate alarmist propaganda campaign need to stay clear of actual scientific data issues which have so badly undermined the contrived politics of climate alarmism.

This emphasis on pushing the flawed opinion politics of “climate consensus” versus actual climate science data is reflected in the article as follows:

“The more we talk about global warming, the more we might move the needle on public opinion, the Yale team reported Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers found that simply increasing the frequency of climate-related discussions shifted people’s perceptions of the scientific consensus around human-caused warming as well as their own attitudes on the matter.”

The article presents the clear distortion and deception used by climate alarmist propagandists who make the completely misleading and erroneous claim implying that climate change is driven by man made actions. Additionally the article notes how Democrats lead the climate alarmist propaganda campaign as reflected in the article as follows:     

“In general, you tend to think that people around you share the beliefs that you have. So the most accurate folks were liberal Democrats. They were off by just 6 percentage points, guessing 63% instead of 69%. That’s likely because liberal Democrats know a lot of other Democrats, so they correctly believe that a lot of people around them believe climate change is happening.”

Additionally the Times article further cements its deception by highlighting the phony “97% climate scientists agree” baloney as follows:

“Studies show that 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening.”

The Times article then caps its climate alarmist distortion and deception anti-science hype by noting the following claims:

“It’s almost comical how often weather is used for small talk. But that’s a good entry point. For instance, you could mention that there are temperature records being broken all over the world. Weather is also a good way to not touch on the buzzwords for potentially skeptical audiences.

Another approach is to weave in climate change if you’re already talking about another issue, like extreme weather or natural disasters. There’s a way to ease into it by saying something like, “Did you know that a warming climate will make hurricanes worse?”

The article conceals the fact that these weather and hurricane claims are unsupported by the UN IPCC as presented in the WUWT article shown below and by Dr. Judith Curry’s conclusion also shown below regarding the lack of scientific evidence for supporting alarmist claims of increased hurricane activity.



The L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda campaign pushing its anti-science alarmism is largely based upon a litany of concealed flaws in its contrived alarmism positions with just a few examples of these flawed positions noted in the items below.

The Times conceals the fact that actual NOAA measured coastal sea level rise data shows no sea level rise acceleration occurring. More than 30 years ago climate alarmists falsely claimed that accelerating rates of sea level rise would occur at media hyped politically contrived alarmism Congressional hearings in 1988.


The Times conceals the fact that the U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions since its peak levels in 2007 and leads the world’s nations in that achievement.


The Times conceals the fact that the world’s developing nations totally dominate both present global CO2 emissions as well as the future increases in these emissions.


The Times conceals the fact that both present and future U.S. CO2 emissions are irrelevant to present global emission levels as well as to future global CO2 emission increases.


The Times conceals the fact that global temperatures through 2019 have not increased since the El Niño driven high in 1998 more than 20 years ago with the El Niño driven 2016 high temperature statistically consistent with the 1998 high temperature.


The Times conceals the fact that the Paris Climate Agreement is a politically contrived scheme which has no impact whatsoever on the world’s developing nations that dominate and control global emissions.


The Times conceals the fact that the emission reduction commitments contained in the Paris Agreement have an insignificant impact on global temperatures even using highly exaggerated global temperature climate models to evaluate these outcomes.


The Times conceals the fact that climate models are grossly flawed, incapable of representing global climate outcomes, completely inadequate for purposes of establishing global climate policy and inaccurately characterized by alarmist politicians and media as being “proven climate science”.


The Times conceals the fact that increased use of fossil fuels by the world’s developing nations is on going, inevitable and that these nations are committed to the future use of fossil fuels for achieving both their energy and economic growth.


The Times conceals the fact that renewable energy is costly, unreliable, grossly distorts energy market prices, requires significant fossil fuel power backup and despite trillions of dollars in subsidies worldwide provides only a few percent of total global energy consumption.


The Times conceals the fact that California’s government is solely responsible for the state’s wildfire debacle because of its decades long failure to implement forest management policies and actions that maintained healthy forest conditions.


The Times conceals the fact that California government attempted to falsely blame nebulous “climate change” as being responsible for creating the state’s wildfire debacle in a politically driven scheme to hide its gross mismanagement of the state’s forest lands.


The Times conceals the fact that EU nations are backing away from making any commitments to zero emissions program nonsense and that many other climate alarmist political schemes are collapsing worldwide.


The Times conceals the fact that its idiotic claims of “fighting climate change” when pushing politically motivated, costly and globally irrelevant programs like 100% renewable energy are globally meaningless in the real world and pursued solely for purposes of achieving increased governmental political power.


The anti-science climate alarmist propaganda campaign being conducted by the Democrats and the L. A. Times will no doubt continue with even more intensity as the coming political season marches forward. The existence of the internet becomes even more important than ever as this vehicle of open expression and discussion of viewpoints cannot be controlled by either the incredibly biased politically driven main stream media or the massive climate alarmist political propaganda machine behind the Democratic Party.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 14, 2019 2:27 pm

The LA Times embraces; Global Warming, Homeless “rights”, Illegal Immigrant “rights”, government dominance, and the seizing of liberty & freedom for whatever cause is deemed “moral” and “existential”

Nicholas McGinley
July 14, 2019 3:00 pm

How can we be sure that the effect of them bringing it up more often will not simply be them getting ignored, contradicted, or told to shut up more often?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 14, 2019 6:57 pm

I am picturing young Climate Change democrats around the country coming to family gatherings aroudn the country, saying “Have You Been Saved? Here I have some Great Literature For You!!!” with a gleam in their eye.

James Bull
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2019 7:05 am

I don’t know about the US but here in the UK when I come back with facts and figures found both here and on other honest sites they don’t bother bringing up the subject again unless they’re gluttons for punishment wishing to get their fingers burnt again. It’s quite fun seeing their faces with this look of how does he know this stuff he’s just a middle aged middle class white guy?

James Bull

July 14, 2019 3:11 pm

Hamlin ==> The LA Times has obviously joined the cabal organized by the Columbia Journalism Review and the Guardian (leaders among many). also see here..

This is a pernicious evil.

July 14, 2019 3:18 pm

Would a judicial review, similar to what is being proposed for the BBC be possible for institutions like Yale?


Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sommer
July 14, 2019 5:30 pm

No. It’s a private university. And even if it were a public university, academic and freedom of speech allows for people to be stupid and spew ideological ignorance.

The market place should dictate. Many universities are seeing declining applications, declining freshman enrollments (Evergreen College as an example) because there degrees offer no value to graduates, and only huge tuition bills for it.

R Shearer
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 14, 2019 6:45 pm

You are right and the Evergreen college example is a “good” one. Ideology can get colleges and universities in trouble in some other circumstances. The defamation case against Oberlin College is an example in which action can be taken against libelous/damaging behavior.


John Bell
July 14, 2019 3:19 pm

I hate to refer to Democrats as Democratic, they really hate democracy.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  John Bell
July 14, 2019 4:45 pm

The political Party that slave owning, hard core racist Andrew Jackson founded. The party of slavery, Dixiecrats, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, segregation, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
The Democrats ideological fissures are now becoming too great to pave-over by their leadership. When they lose again to Trump next year, expect, that fissure to become a full blown breakup into separate parties.

Big T
Reply to  John Bell
July 15, 2019 6:55 am

Demoicrats sounds better
and in a lot of cases. fits better.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Big T
July 15, 2019 9:09 am

I recall a Dane (for whom English was definitely a second language) always spelled democracy as ‘democrazy’. So call ’em Democrazies. 😉

Reply to  John Bell
July 15, 2019 9:51 am

War is Peace, Love is Hate, Knowledge is Ignorance, Diversity is Conformity, etc, etc.

ht/G Orwell

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John Bell
July 15, 2019 6:10 pm

It is not as bad as the “Anti Fascists”.

July 14, 2019 3:23 pm

The only guy who ever listens to my perspective on climate change is a 100%, card carrying, former Union shop steward, dyed in the wool, climate alarmist, and committed socialist.

He also voted for the UK to remain within the European Union in the contentious 2016 Brexit referendum but is now a committed Brexiteer because our government has failed to implement a clear Democratic mandate from the the voting public.

All is not lost folks.

Rud Istvan
July 14, 2019 3:41 pm

Same old, same old. Our complaining here at WUWT will not change the climate ‘religion’ PR dynamic. Am now of the opinion that only defunding will.

I fully defunded my 3x alma mater Harvard over climate and Oreskes (done explicitly to their alumni major contribution seekers) but have no Yale leverage. Only Yalie skeptics do.
We can vote to then have Congress defund renewable subsidies. We can vote to then have Congress defund bogus ‘climate science studies’ via indirect control of NSF and EPA. More Cruz, less Grivalja.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 14, 2019 4:22 pm

Cruz was the only 2016 GOP candidate to be honest about the need to reduce, then eliminate corn EtOH subsidies. Hurt him in Iowa. Unfortunately Trump is playing to that ethanol tune to get re-elected. Maybe in 2021 President Trump can do what Barry did and show some real ideological leanings… and become a conservative Reagan-like President. Hoping.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 14, 2019 6:55 pm

I’m disappointed in Trump on that issue; on the other hand, we’re all to blame for letting our system develop to a point where the farm states can so blatantly extort money from the rest of us. As long as the nation is politically balanced on a 50/50 knifes edge, powerful interests are going to be able to extort the system like this.

As much as I hate the ethanol lobby, I’d rather pay them their ransom than accept a socialist as the next President.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 14, 2019 4:35 pm

I suspect WUWT is more widely read by a factor of 10 or more, than the # comments suggest.
While the general complaining and name calling here at WUWT will not have an impact, the occasional well constructed arguments, observations, and pointing out subtle hidden inconsistencies in the alarmists narratives do make their way through congressional staffers to their bosses.

I mean if I were an advisor to a congressperson, or some other Big Wig I’d peruse the articles and the comments, here at WUWT and at Judith blog, and even Tony Heller’s, noting valid points and arguments… without commenting of course (that would just be asking for trouble).
And carefully vetting claims and arguments in point papers to the boss. Just as I already skim Science and Nature articles and news reporting on a regular basis.

R Shearer
July 14, 2019 3:55 pm

It’s over in 11 years and, heck, if we don’t do something within 18 months then it’s too late anyway. Seems like we should talk about in 2020 at least.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  R Shearer
July 14, 2019 4:37 pm

We all died 20 years ago R.
This is just our denier ghosts commenting here until Hell freezes over.

July 14, 2019 3:56 pm

Why didn’t the LA Times mention that illegal immigrants are contributing to climate change? Based on the Guardian (reference below) people in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and other Central American countries have a CO2 emission rate of <1 million metric tonnes of CO2 per person/annum. When these people come to the US for a "better life", they'll surely increase their emissions to something closer to ours, 20 million metric tonnes CO2 per person/annum. How can the good environmentally conscious people in California allow this 20 fold increase to happen? My proposal is to send one liberal to Central America for every illegal immigrant that comes in. This will balance out emissions and allow liberals to greatly reduce their CO2 footprint. Everyone wins!


Reply to  JWGuida
July 14, 2019 8:53 pm

Not to mention lowering US methane emissions.

Ben Gunn
July 14, 2019 4:03 pm

Well I bring up the topic in my family a lot. Now there ware no more warmists in the family at all.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Ben Gunn
July 15, 2019 9:14 am

Or maybe they know not to bring up the subject when “Crazy Uncle Ben” is around. 😉

Joel O’Bryan
July 14, 2019 4:17 pm

”…about a third of Americans broach the climate change subject in discussions.

Which aligns with about 1/3 of Americans are registered Democrats in their state. Climate change alarmism… A religion aligned along ideological boundaries.

July 14, 2019 4:39 pm

…and don’t forget to get your body snatcher pod out of the trunk.

July 14, 2019 4:44 pm

“The big lie told often enough is the truth” is a bedrock principle of all propagandists. The fact they continue this counter-factual campaign indicates they are attempting the big lie for all they are worth.

July 14, 2019 4:46 pm

They don’t want me talking about climate change to my family – it would be counter to their intention.

All models are false, but some are useful is one of my main arguments with the added caveat that the climate models aren’t useful for anything but a propaganda campaign, to which purpose they are put incessantly.

Dave Fair
Reply to  OweninGA
July 14, 2019 9:33 pm

I wonder if the UN IPCC CMIP6 models will be critically reviewed before AR6? CMIP5 models’ temperatures had to be arbitrarily reduced in the mid-term. They left the longer-term modeled “hot projections” in there, though. Nobody in CliSci had a problem with that.

Sweet Old Bob
July 14, 2019 4:57 pm

The LA LA Times seems to exist in their own bubble ….but they don’t seem to realize that it has a lot of self produced methane in it …

July 14, 2019 5:02 pm

“The unmitigated growth of carbon emissions”….

I hate those graphs…and they are a fraud

They set the US up in the middle…..the countries graphed below the US curve up…which makes the bottom of the US part curve up…which makes it look like the US has lower it’s emissions less

put the US on the bottom with a flat base…..and see how much the US has really lowed it’s emissions

Linda Goodman
July 14, 2019 5:14 pm

I’m no bible thumper, but the REAL science that’s alarming is carbon’s structure: 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons – 666; the human body is mostly carbon and cash will be replaced with a carbon chip – presumably in the hand – if ‘elites’ and their Useful Idiots have their way. Prophecy is staring us in the face as Science and only ‘the truth shall make us free’, yet almost nobody is addressing it: ‘climate change’ is code for an eco-fascist, totalitarian world government run by psychopaths for psychopaths, so why the hell are we pussyfooting around?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Linda Goodman
July 14, 2019 8:18 pm

The weak nuclear force determines how many neutrons can stably stay in a nucleus when it is getting bombarded by neutrinos (which is pretty much always-everywhere).

A nucleus with 6 protons is just as happy with 7 neutrons(13C) as 6 neutrons (12C). But 8 neutrons is a crowd (14C : halflife – 5,730 years).

Not demons. Just physics.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Linda Goodman
July 14, 2019 8:49 pm

maybe the saved are those composed exclusively of Carbon 13 rather than the clearly satanic C12…

July 14, 2019 6:19 pm

Mr. Watts (or Mr. Hamlin),

It would be a good idea, I think, to provide links to the original articles versus links to other WUWT articles. The WUWT articles are valuable and generally provide links to the source material however, providing links to your own blog risks the creation of a echo chamber… something to be avoided, IMO.

Kind Regards

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  SMC
July 15, 2019 6:43 pm

All links provide the base reference and the context for its use. Try actually going to the linked articles.

Wiliam Haas
July 14, 2019 6:32 pm

There is no scientific consensus regarding climate change. Such is schere speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But if they had such would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science is not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process.

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models. one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

But even is we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. We need to enjoy the warmth of the current modern warm period because the next ice age may be only a few thousand years away.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
July 14, 2019 8:32 pm

“Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process.”

Oh but… we are in New Age Science, and consensus is all that matters. Even if it is a fake consensus built on lies and distortions of the survey.

Get a load of this consensus rubbish in PNAS just published:
Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment

(Of course some familiar Pottsdam Institute suspects were intimately involved in this junk science: Stefan Rahmstorf and Hans J. Schellnhuber)

“Where other methods are intractable for scientific or practical reasons, structured expert judgement (SEJ), using calibrated expert responses, provides a formal approach for estimating uncertain quantities according to current scientific understanding. “

It apparently doesn’t matter whose “expert” opinion was closest to observation, but rather , “Were they part of the consensus?”

Opinion masquerading as science. Turtles all the way down.

Steve O
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
July 16, 2019 6:34 am

“But if they had such would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. ”

— I appreciate everything you said, but it’s worthwhile to clarify one point. Science is not a democracy, but knowing if there is a consensus view among experts can be a useful shortcut. Not everyone can be an expert on everything, especially those who are managing public policy. So if there is a general consensus view among experts, then that can help guide decisions.

But on this issue, there is no scientific consensus. Perhaps there may be a majority, but the positions and arguments of the minority are quite strong.

I wish someone would update the study that claimed a 97% consensus. If an updated proportion were 85/15, that would represent a HUGE movement of scientific opinion. And it would force alarmists themselves to debunk their original 97% number.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
July 16, 2019 9:02 am

warmth of the current modern warm period because the next ice age may be only a few thousand years away. –> warmth of the current modern warm period because the next fast fall back into the contemporary ice age may be only a few thousand years away.

July 14, 2019 6:53 pm

The LAT is in California’s biggest city. FANGA and the rest of Big Tech are in or proximate to California’s second biggest city. California, once the beacon of freedom in the West is now the enemy of those very freedoms. This 2020 cycle will see tech censor, its media propagandize and its residents do everything in its power to prevent a second Trump term. I mourn for my state.

Reply to  Wharfplank
July 14, 2019 8:38 pm


External Press Release / 05 JUN, 2018

Includes California information.


Reply to  Wharfplank
July 15, 2019 10:33 am


External Press Release / 27 FEB, 2018

“100 + Cities Produce More than 70% of Electricity from Renewables-CDP”

News article on Renewable Energy.

July 14, 2019 7:30 pm

UN Environment

31 OCT 2018 | Story | Climate Change

“Wind of change sweeps over renewable energy sector”

U.S. military bases Georgia and Texas and their wind and solar installations to supply electricity for base needs is included in this article.


Patrick MJD
July 14, 2019 11:56 pm

Many examples of civilisations going extinct over a fake problem. This seems to be an attempt to end modern civilisation on a global scale all at once.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 15, 2019 12:47 pm

Only the Western democracies are participating in this CAGW self-destruction.

July 15, 2019 12:38 am

The 97% concensus was ridiculed some time ago being based on a very small number of scientists who bothered to respond to a survey. Some of them were then diccxounted for some reason until the figure reached the claimed 97%

July 15, 2019 4:44 am

97% is the number favoured by Dictators for their election results… strange it never changes…

BBC tells us so… every day for decades the science is settled… so why do you need to keep telling me… Religion

July 15, 2019 5:57 am

CBC goes for Artificial Intelligence…

All signs point toward a future affected by climate change. [LOL beyond stupid comment]

From higher temperatures to droughts and more extreme weather, experts are searching for ways to sustain our growing population, as well as our planet.

Some analysts say machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising strategies to respond to the effects of climate change.

AI can work faster than a human being, can forecast further into the future, has a low error rate and has 24/7 availability. [July 15, 2134 forcast: no risk of rain, 110% sure, take an umbrella just in case… LOL ]

This allows it to better predict extreme weather, flooding, natural disasters and other destruction linked to climate change.

And that’s why, in late June, University of Waterloo partnered with Microsoft AI for Earth.

More model fake news in the horizon…

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  TomRude
July 15, 2019 10:35 am

Well, if AI’s could really replicate the best aspects of whatever it is that goes on in our brains when we think, then,
— well, hey, maybe they’ll be super psychic too, and just predict all sorts of things from patterns in the clouds, or from the way tea leaves fall, or whatever.

You just never know.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
July 16, 2019 8:50 am

AI has no conscience and no own will other to do the job..

It’s controlled by us, the users, and again we’re “on top of the foodchain”.

Gunga Din
Reply to  TomRude
July 15, 2019 7:49 pm

“Artificial Intelligence”
If it’s artificial it is certainly not “natural” or “organic”.
Why would the Greens swallow it?

July 15, 2019 7:38 am

The primary result of talking non stop about clim,ate change to your relatives is that your relatives find you annoying.
Most people now in the Western World recycle, use more efficient energy sources, and what not – if for no other reason because these things save money, or because they are government mandated.
If climate change is a real fact, making people “believe” it exists will change nothing. One of the early stages of my questioning was wondering why it was so important, for example, to convince one’s aging aunt Bertha that climate change is REAL in order to “save the world”. Surely if change is to be made and have any significant effect, the little people (most of us, honestly) are not going to be able to do much about it? What we think or do not think will not affect the atmosphere in any case. So why the rage when someone thinks differently than they do?

Once you unpack that, the entire house of cards comes falling down rather quickly.

Martin Hovland
July 15, 2019 12:19 pm

The Guaradian is home of the famous group of extremists: Extinction Rebellion, and is now the nuber one propaganda outlet for the falsified Climate Alaram.

July 15, 2019 5:22 pm

This weakens your argument:

“…the fact that global temperatures through 2019 have not increased since the El Niño driven high in 1998 more than 20 years ago with the El Niño driven 2016 high temperature statistically consistent with the 1998 high temperature.”

Since a 3 or 4 month anomaly in 1998, even though the plot shows higher anomaly around 2016, global temperatures have not increased. When the plot shows that averaging things out, they have risen.


Since 1998, the global temperature has risen only about 0.2 C.

When we move the middle, we gain. Identify your target.

Steve O
July 16, 2019 6:16 am

For the moment, let’s accept the basic premise of the alarmist views.

The fact that much of the developing world has not yet built out its energy infrastructure should make it obvious that emissions are going to increase, no matter what actions are taken by developed nations. That’s not a “forecast” or a “projection” — it’s a guarantee.

This makes an “emissions reduction strategy” for dealing with climate change irrational, and an “adaptation strategy” necessary.

That’s not a 12-level decision tree with inherent uncertainties and a complex branch layout. It’s as simple as it can be. If alarmists can’t figure this out, I see no reason to trust them with spending more than $100 of public funds.

Not a name
July 16, 2019 6:56 am

Amongst all if your lies it is reassuring, at least, you are starting to admit to some truths such as steady sea level rising “coastal sea level rise data shows no sea level rise acceleration occurring”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights