Turning Opinion into Science Fact

Opinion by Kip Hansen – 6 May 2021

The Climate Propaganda Cabal, which calls itself Covering Climate Now (CCNow), is a fantastically, frighteningly, effective organization that is flooding the print and online news media with a single message:  “The climate emergency is here.  To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires, and ice melt of 2020 routine and could ‘render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable’. “

Any moderately educated, well-read human being, and any human possessing even a modicum of common sense, knows that this message is inherently somehow false – but because of the constant barrage of messages repeating the meme endlessly, everywhere they look, many people have begun to think, despite their instincts and intellect, that it just might be true

That’s how propaganda is intended to work and work it does.  Richard Alan Nelson, in his book A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States,  provides a definition of the term: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.” 

This is the stated purpose of Covering Climate Now —  see my earlier essay The Climate Propaganda Cabal .

One of the techniques CCNow is using is the intentional blurring of the lines between Opinion and hard, factual Science News.  They do this through their story sharing efforts.

Today’s Example:

On 4 May 2021, Tallbloke’s Talkshop highlighted a story that appeared in PHYS.ORG.  Phys.org is a unit of Science X and touts itself as “Phys.org internet news portal provides the latest news on science”.   The story posted at Phys.org is “The 1.5-degree global warming limit is not impossible—but it soon will be”  by Bill Hare, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Joeri Rogelj and Piers Forster.   The bottom line assertion of the story is this:

“The Paris Agreement was adopted by 195 countries in 2015. The inclusion of the 1.5 degrees C warming limit came after a long push by vulnerable, small-island and least developed countries for whom reaching that goal is their best chance for survival. The were backed by other climate-vulnerable nations and a coalition of high-ambition countries.

The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2 degrees C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.“

While almost nothing in those two paragraphs is literally true, I have no objection to the authors stating it, since they were writing their Opinion,  originally published at The Conversation.

Here are the  connections:  Phys.org, a science news outlet, has a contributing partner, The Conversation, which is a basic “opinion page” outlet for academics, despite their pledge to “Inform public debate with knowledge-based journalism that is responsible, ethical and supported by evidence” the only qualifications “To be published by The Conversation you must be currently employed as a researcher or academic with a university or research institution.”  The Conversation, as an organization, is a partner of Covering Climate Now, the dedicated climate alarm propaganda organization.

Four authors, academics, write an Opinion piece at The Conversation.  At The Conversation their associations and conflicts of interest are clearly stated in the sidebar. [ I insert the disclosures below, readers in a hurry can skip the blockquote – kh ]

Disclosure statement

Bill Hare receives funding from the European Climate Foundation, Bloomberg philanthropy, Climate Works Foundation

Carl-Friedrich Schleussner receives funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LN1711A) and under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant no. 820829 (CONSTRAIN). He is affiliated with Humboldt University in Berlin and Climate Analytics.

Joeri Rogelj receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. He is affiliated with the Grantham Institute – Climate Change & Environment at Imperial College London, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. He is a Coordinating Lead Author on the IPCC 1.5°C Special Report and a Lead Author on the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

Piers Forster receives funding from UK funding council (UKRI) and the EU. He is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and Lead Author of IPCC reports.

With the disclosures, knowledgeable readers can easily ascertain the biases of the authors – they are all heavily invested in the IPCC and its 1.5ºC global temperature target and its mandated solution – the total elimination of the use of fossil fuels.

This opinion article gets immediately re-posted to Phys.org as a hard Science News story, but it is posted without the Disclosure Statement from The Conversation and not labelled Opinion — this shift from Opinion to Fact facilitated by the Covering Climate Now resources sharing scheme.

Science Opinion thus becomes magically transformed into Science Fact.  At least, as received and perceived by the general public. 

Propaganda in its most powerful form.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

This is not an isolated incident, as readers who follow science news already know. 

CCNow’s   Statement on the Climate Emergency uses this trick in the following:

”Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide …. could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable,” warned a recent Scientific American article.”

The linked SciAm “article” is an OpEd piece (repeating link above) not a report of a scientific findings, not research results and definitely not science fact, written by “William J. Ripple … lead author of the World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.”  Self-referential, circular opinion being re-presented as fact.

Lector cave – Reader Beware.

Many readers might just think that this CCNow thing is just “business as usual” for the media.  It is not.  It is a whole new level of the intentional corruption of journalism into propagandistic media activism that disregards truth, substituting opinion, bias, worldview and politics in its place – it is a by-any-means-necessary  media push to brainwash the population. 

I hope to expose this anti-journalism cabal for what it is and what it is doing over the next few weeks in a series of essays.

I will be more likely to see your comments if you address them to me, “Kip…”.

Thank for reading.

# # # # #

5 45 votes
Article Rating
221 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 5, 2021 6:06 am

More about the 1.5C since pre industrial

https://wp.me/pTN8Y-70L

Editor
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 5, 2021 7:38 am

Thanks Chaamjamal, good post!

Bsl
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 5, 2021 7:43 am

Thanks, a concise, insightful summary.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 5, 2021 10:41 am

Thanks Chaamjamal I especially liked the other links it has in it.

THE NULL HYPOTHESIS ISSUE | Thongchai Thailand

SUPERSTITION AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE | Thongchai Thailand

What Scientists Know for Sure | Thongchai Thailand

Especially these in the last link…

WHAT SCIENTISTS KNEW FOR SURE IN 2001

Fossil fuel emissions is causing atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up and that in turn is causing global mean temperature to go up. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 5C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible – meaning that it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action and that will make it impossible for us to save the planet.

WHAT SCIENTISTS KNEW FOR SURE IN 2007

Fossil fuel emissions is causing atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up and that in turn is causing global mean temperature to go up. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 4C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible – meaning that it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action and that will make it impossible for us to save the planet.

WHAT SCIENTISTS KNEW FOR SURE IN 2013

Fossil fuel emissions is causing atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up and that in turn is causing global mean temperature to go up. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 3C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible – meaning that it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action and that will make it impossible for us to save the planet.

WHAT SCIENTISTS KNEW FOR SURE IN 2015

Fossil fuel emissions is causing atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up and that in turn is causing global mean temperature to go up. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 2C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible – meaning that it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action and that will make it impossible for us to save the planet.

WHAT SCIENTISTS KNEW FOR SURE IN 2018

Fossil fuel emissions is causing atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up and that in turn is causing global mean temperature to go up. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 1.5C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible – meaning that it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action and that will make it impossible for us to save the planet.
WHAT SCIENTISTS KNOW FOR SURE IN 2020:Insights from Earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects, C. Deser, F. Lehner, K. B. Rodgers, T. Ault, T. L. Delworth, P. N. DiNezio, A. Fiore, C. Frankignoul, J. C. Fyfe, D. E. Horton, J. E. Kay, R. Knutti, N. S. Lovenduski, J. Marotzke, K. A. McKinnon, S. Minobe, J. Randerson, J. A. Screen, I. R. Simpson & M. Ting: Nature Climate Change (2020). Abstract: Internal variability in the climate system confounds assessment of human-induced climate change and imposes irreducible limits on the accuracy of climate change projections, especially at regional and decadal scales. A new collection of initial-condition large ensembles (LEs) generated with seven Earth system models under historical and future radiative forcing scenarios provides new insights into uncertainties due to internal variability versus model differences. These data enhance the assessment of climate change risks, including extreme events, and offer a powerful testbed for new methodologies aimed at separating forced signals from internal variability in the observational record. Opportunities and challenges confronting the design and dissemination of future LEs, including increased spatial resolution and model complexity alongside emerging Earth system applications, are discussed.”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
May 6, 2021 8:09 am

LMAO. So as they continually drop the “target” amount of warming beyond which the supposed “calamity” will unfold, because the temperature is NOT rising at the rate they “expected,” and their doom forecasts would otherwise look out of touch with REALITY, they continue to tell us “it’s worse than we thought.”

dk_
May 5, 2021 6:11 am

“At least, as received and perceived by the general public. ”
“It is a whole new level of the intentional corruption of journalism into propagandistic media activism that disregards truth, substituting opinion, bias, worldview and politics in its place – it is a by-any-means-necessary media push to brainwash the population. ”

I think that you will find that the basis for this is was laid down by Walter Lippmann of the NYT nearly a century ago. Per Lippman, there is no “intelligent public opinion,” and we do nearly everything public through “reasoning” — really emotional prejudice — via stereotype. In turn, this ties in nicely with radical political change activism and the current use of cancel culture and of identity politics as means of political change. Again by Lippmann, it was journalism’s duty to shape opinion to what journalists thought best.

The Soviet Union and the Fascists in Spain, Germany and Italy learned this pretty quickly.

I tend to want to agree with you on the higher principles of journalism, but I really think that there are overwhelmingly more examples of the current corruption, activism, and slanted editorialism in history for the last two centuries, than there are truly virtuous publishers and writers. The records of all electronic media don’t even place as high as the print media.

Last edited 5 months ago by dk_
MarkW
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 8:41 am

The mis-education isn’t limited to journalism schools these days.

dk_
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 9:12 am

True, but remember that a heck of a lot of the few journalists who have a diplomas, the sheepskin (er, biodegradable natural no harm to animals substitute) the degree reads as communications, not journalism. Also, (the three evil Walts) Lippmann is a patron saint, Durante still has a Pullitzer, and Winchell is held as an example to emulate. The two good Walts of media (Cronkite and Disney) have been hopelessly smeared.

Last edited 5 months ago by dk_
rwisrael
Reply to  dk_
May 5, 2021 10:55 am

I beg to differ. Uncle Walter Cronkite misled the, American public about the nature and the results of the famous Tet Offensive as an American defeat , when it was a NVA disaster . Cronkite turned it into a political loss and reportedly demoralized LBJ into giving up. ” If we’ve lost Cronkite..”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rwisrael
May 5, 2021 11:19 am

“Uncle Walter Cronkite misled the, American public about the nature and the results of the famous Tet Offensive as an American defeat , when it was a NVA disaster .”

Yes, he did. I don’t know that it was deliberate lying on his part or not, but he did misrepesent the event.

This wasn’t the cause of the U.S. losing the Vietnam war. The fact is the U.S. went on from the Tet Offensive and continued defeating the North Vietnamese and the terrorist Viet Cong to the point that they signed a peace treaty to end the war about four years later. LBJ and Walter Cronkite were afterthoughts by then.

Yes, the U.S. military got the situation in South Vietnam under control and then the Democrats gained power in the early 1970’s, and they ended up throwing South Vietnam to the wolves by refusing to support them after North Vietnam violated the Paris Peace Agreement and again invaded South Vietnam.

The United States was morally and legally obliged to come to South Vietnam’s aid, but the cowardly Democrats ran away and left the South Vietnamese in the lurch. As a result millions of innocent South Vietnamese were k!lled/displaced.

The cowardly Democrats have done the same thing in Iraq and are now getting ready to throw everything gained in Afghanistan away.

Democrats are fools. They are not fit to defend the United States because they won’t do it.

Don Jindra
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 5, 2021 11:55 am

I voted for Nixon. But I have to be honest about history. There was no good reason to go into Vietnam. And no good reason to stay. It was a huge mistake. Going into Iraq was a huge mistake. Staying in Afghanistan this long was a huge mistake. (Once we got Bin Laden, we should have headed home. That was the only good reason to be there.)

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Don Jindra
May 5, 2021 10:58 pm

Taking out a brutal dictator in Iraq was not a mistake, the mistake was the Brits & American forces being told NOT to pursue the Iraq forces across the border at the end of the first Gulf War! I & a work colleague on hearing that news looked up from our desks toward each other, both with rye smiles on our faces, Graham said to me,” You know what don’t you?”, I replied “Yep, if we don’t carry on down that highway straight in to downtown Bagdad & take Hussain out, we’ll be back here in 10 years having to do it all over again!”. I think history has proven the pair of us right, along with the resulting additional loss of life & brutal injuries all round!!! As to Afghanistan, any people who want to exterminate another people based on religion because they don’t like the other people, was not wrong. If you don’t stop a bully in his tracks to start with, you just build up trouble in the long run!!!! Islam seeks a global caliphate, just as Socialism seeks a global world run by Socialism!!!! They make great bedfellows i.m.h.o! Moderator feel free to edit!

peter jones
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 6, 2021 11:12 am

Let me remind you of a few things.
The U.S encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait, via its ambassador who told Saddam in diplomatic speak the U.S did NOT CARE if Iraq invaded Kuwait.
We know this because the diplomatic cables were released by Wikileaks years later.
Kuwait is actually a part of Iraq that was carved off by the British and French post WW1 in the Sykes Picot agreement.
After the Iran Iraq war Kuwait, which had supported Iraq against their enemy Iran, suddenly started to attack Iraq economically, when Iraq was attempting to restore its economy after the financially exhausting war.
Now WHY would a wealthy but tiny state attack a neighbor who had a legitimate claim for the re absorption of that state into its territory
and against whom they had no defense ?
Why deliberately poke the bear when you can only lose
Why deliberately poke the bear when your existence depends on maintaining a cooperative relationship with the bear ?
Why did the U.S want to create the war and use that as an excuse to remove Saddam Hussein ?
It couldn’t be because he was a brutal dictator, the U.S track record is clear, it has removed many popular democratically elected governments and replaced them murderous and brutal dictators, so that U.S multinational companies could exploit those countries economically.
Add to that that Saddam Hussein was a U.S ally in the war against Islamic terrorism (Iraq was a secular state) the exception was against Israel, but Israel is NOT the U.S (Israel started life as a Zionist terrorist state and to some degree still is, and is having to live with the reality that what you do to others others will do to you).
I suspect that it was because he was a SELF MADE DICTATOR ,
that the U.S did NOT put into power and whom they would not easily exploit economically, or control directly.
Thats not to say i approved of Saddam , i did not.
But when the U.S talks of freedom and democracy and saving a nation by overthrowing its government for moral reasons, its just propaganda for the consumption of the U.S people and its soldiers, who would NEVER support such ventures if they understood the real agenda and who the REAL beneficiaries were.
I refer you to Congressional Medal of Honor winner Major General Smedley Butler, and his pamphlet War is a Racket, nothing has changed.
Thousands of brave and patriotic American service personnel died in Iraq and the aftermath and it was ALL completely unnecessary.
I offer you a quote from a CIA officer who said “Attacking Iraq for 9/11 was like attacking Mexico for 9/11.
All so U.S oil companies could take control of the Iraq oil fields and replace the Iraqi government which distributed much of the profits to the Iraqi people, which does NOT happen now.
I am as anti socialist as you are, BUT, an honest man seeks the truth not the comfort of unswerving support for politicians and their actions so they dont have to acknowledge the reality of whom they serve.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 7, 2021 4:00 am

“Taking out a brutal dictator in Iraq was not a mistake, the mistake was the Brits & American forces being told NOT to pursue the Iraq forces across the border at the end of the first Gulf War!”

I agree with that, too! Bush 41 should have taken Saddam out at that time. So we had to go in and do it all over again.

I thought Bush 43 should have used the second attack on Saddam to also oust the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Bush had hundreds of thousands of American troops surrounding Iran in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush could have used this to put pressure on the Mad Mullahs, who were not nearly as entrenched then, as they are now.

Imo, there was a very good chance for Bush to spark a revolution in Iran at that time without even invading. Just the theat of an American invasion, along with public support for the Iranian oppostion from Bush could have sparked an uprising. It was worth a try, but Bush passed. So now we have a potentially nuclear-armed Mad Mullahs to deal with. Passing on corralling dictators is not a good idea. Dictators don’t improve with time.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Don Jindra
May 6, 2021 4:56 am

I know VietNamese who are so thankful to be living in the USA and who ardently wish that we had stopped the North Vietnamese communist aggression. On Jan 6 in Wash DC one could see large groups of Vietnamese supporting America First.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
May 7, 2021 4:12 am

The Vietnamese people are good people and they love Americans and America.

Even the North Vietnamese show respect to American tourists who visit them, especially if they learn you are a veteran of the Vietnam war. They treat you like kings in the South, and they treat you decently in the North.

The Vietnamese know the Americans were there to help them and were not there to own them or conquer them. Even the North Vietnamese know this. A lot of America’s sons and daughters d!ed trying to keep them free.

Happily, the North Vietnamese communists were not as bloodthirsty after the war as was feared, although they did make millions suffer, but things seem to have settled down and Vietnam seems to be doing pretty good, although they are not free like we are in the United States. I guess living under authoritarian rule is better than under a bloodthirsy dictatorship.

If the U.S. had left troops in South Vietnam, then it would still be South Vietnam. But the Democrats made us cut and run.

A lot of mayhem caused by stupidity and cowardice.

peter jones
Reply to  Don Jindra
May 6, 2021 10:38 am

Well i think you call the Afghanistan issue too late in history, it was the U.S as a matter of policy which, via Saudi Arabia started to destabilize Afghanistan in order to encourage a Soviet invasion to stabilize the country, and suck it into a long war.
The Soviet Vietnam.
Once they had succeeded, the Carter administration was then able to openly supply money weapons equipment and training to the anti Soviet forces and claim the Soviet invasion as unacceptable.
As much as i dislike socialist regimes Afghanistan was FAR better off before the U.S decided to select their country as a battleground.
Dont take my word for it Zebignew Brzezinski confirmed this years later in an interview.
The U.S has TOTAL responsibility for everything that has happened there since, if it had NOT interfered then Afghanistan would not likely be the hotbed of Islamist backwardness that it now is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Don Jindra
May 7, 2021 3:42 am

I don’t agree. Five U.S. presidents thought it was important to save South Vietnam from a communist takeover.

The thing about allowing dictators to run wild is if you do that, then where are they going to stop? The communists, not just the North Vietnamese had their eyes on overrunning all of Southest Asia, not just South Vietam, up to and including overthrowing India.

You want the West to sit back and watch all that happen? How would that benefit the West?

Saddam Insane needed to be deposed. Saddam himself was putting out disinformation claiming he had WMD. Even most of Saddam’s generals believed Saddam had WMD. So why wouldn’t the U.S. believe it? Every intelligence agency on Earth agreed that Saddam had WMD.

The actual war in Iraq went very well, and Iraq was finally in good shape at the end of Bush’s term. Then Obama-Biden came into power and took Iran’s side in everything including allowing them to undermine the Iraqi government. And then Obama-Biden decided to pull out American troops prematurely, which led to the rise of the Islamic Terror Army who proceeded to displace and k!ll millions of innocent people during their rampage across the Middle East.

Trump had to come in and focus on the problem and eliminate it, using the same U.S. military that Obama-Biden refused to use. Obama-Biden sat idle while millions of people suffered. It didn’t have to happen.

Staying in Afghanistan is what the U.S. should be doing. The U.S. is still in Germany, and in Japan and in South Korea and in a lot of other nations, and they are there for the most part for very good reasons.

Pulling out of Afghanistan now will only benefit the enemies of the United States. The Afghans are the ones doing the fighting. The U.S. hasn’t lost a troop in over a year. The U.S. has a nice big airbase in Afghanistan from which bad guys in the area can be targetted. It’s not a good idea to give this up.

When the U.S. moves out, the Chicoms and Russians will be moving in.

Some people, including most Democrats can’t see the Big Picture.

Dictators see the Big Picture.

peter jones
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2021 10:27 am

You are quite correct about South Vietnam, not only did the Democrats prevent the U.S honoring its treaty obligations, they BANNED the supply of all weapons, ammunition, and spare parts to South Vietnam to make it impossible to beat off the Northern attack.
This appears to be in line with Henry Kissingers commitments to China.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  peter jones
May 7, 2021 4:17 am

Yes, the Democrats crippled the South Vietnamese by cutting the money they needed to defend themselves.

I remember one story where the South Vietnamese were so short of fuel that they would fill one ambulance up with gasoline and then chain one or two other ambulances behind the first, that were out of gas, and drag them to the battlefield to pick up casualties.

That’s the kind of support you get from cowardly Democrats.

dk_
Reply to  rwisrael
May 5, 2021 1:35 pm

Over his lifetime, Walter Cronkite tried to exemplify the ideals of print, radio, and television journalism, and for the most part, did so with grace and good nature. If all you’ve got is the Tet Offensive, frankly no one really knew what was going on. Everyone had decided by that point that the U.S. government was incapable of telling the truth, and took the Vietnamese propaganda at its word. Certainly Cronkite had been lied to more than once. To blame Cronkite for LBJ’s failure to prosecute his political distraction war from his bathtub is just part of the continuing smear. If you tot up Cronkite’s error, against the long list of LBJ’s, I know where I’m going to put my money.

peter jones
Reply to  dk_
May 6, 2021 11:30 am

I dont think i would describe it as LBJ’s political distraction war, LBJ did NOT start it , his administration mishandled it by micro managing and limiting its scope, played right into the hands of the North Vietnamese, the only people who could stop the war were the North Vietnamese LBJ gave them NO reason to want to do so.
LBJ’s failure was NOT to act decisively at home to stop socialist propaganda efforts against the war, and to NOT allow his generals full scope to employ both tactics and strategy against the prime enemy the NVA, (which heavily outnumbered the south, indeed in terms of infantry the U.S troops provided PARITY roughly with NVA battalions and VC battalions.
Australians did much better in their efforts to control Phuoc Thuy province because they had an effective and cohesive long term strategy, the U.S (because of the limitations imposed on the U.S command) focused on attrition, a strategy that favored their enemy and disadvantaged them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  peter jones
May 7, 2021 4:37 am

I agree with everything you said there.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  dk_
May 7, 2021 4:34 am

LBJ didn’t want to be fighting the Vietnam war anyway. Cronkite was just the last straw for him.

Although, Cronkite’s opinion did not change the course of the war. It just gave the anti-war Left more ammunition to use. If Cronkite comes out against the war, then everyone should be against it, they would say.

Too much has been made of Cronkite’s opinion of the Vietnam war.

Meanwhile, Dan Rather, CBS correspondent, is over in Vietnam telling lie after lie about the war. Along with a cadre of other anti-war, leftwing reporters. It’s no wonder Cronkite was discouraged after listening to these liars.

The lying leftwing News Media is the reason I went to South Vietnam.

I was in the Army and after basic and advanced training, I was assigned to Germany, which surprised me since I figured I was headed directly to Vietnam. About 75 percent of the class went there right out of boot camp. I would have eventually been reassigned to Vietnam anyway.

So I sat there in Germany and read the newspapers. And just about every story had the theme that the North Vietnamese were the “toughest soldiers in the world” and that they were kicking the hell out of U.S. troops and the U.S. was just barely hanging on by a fingernail in South Vietnam.

Well, this didn’t fit in with my worldview. I could not imagine that the U.S. was being defeated on the battlefield in South Vietnam. If this were true, then it meant that my whole worldview was wrong, and I had to know one way or another, so I went down and volunteered to go to Vietnam so I could see for myself.

And of course, when I got there it was nothing like it was described by the leftwing reporters. The North Vietnamese were on the run, and the terrorist Viet Cong had been wiped out right before I got there during the Tet Offensive of 1968.

Anyway, I found out my worldview was right on the money. 🙂

Walter Cronkite should have probably taken that trip with me. He might have looked at things a little differently then.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 7, 2021 4:47 am

My experience with leftwing reporters and Vietnam was the first time I realized we had a biased News Media. Before that, I thought the reporting was always the truth, but I found out differently.

So If I’m hyper-critical of the Leftwing Media that is why, and it’s justified because they haven’t stopped lying for political purposes since that time. They are still doing it.

I used to hate it when the Leftwing Media had a monopoly on the public square. None of their lies were challenged in public. I ground my teeth together plenty of times listening to ABC, CBS or NBC.

It’s all different now. Now, all their lies are challeged in numerous formats. I love it!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 10:34 pm

I despaired several years ago when acting judge with two other professionals, on a local university’s engineering students competition. The candidates had to make a presentation of design projects they had worked on, hypothetical ones at that but with practical design solutions nonetheless!!! Every one of the three candidates all were compelled to mention how much reduced “carbon” their solutions would achieve! Economics, safe & practical design, cost estimates, etc, were either secondary or non-existent!!!! I cynically thought to myself, oh no a building collapse had occurred & many people were killed & injured, but hey, the carbon footprint was ever so low!!!! Problem solved! 😉

peter jones
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 6, 2021 11:18 am

Of course the irony is they are so ignorant they dont even know that they are not actually talking about Carbon at all, but about a compound called carbon dioxide.

peter jones
Reply to  dk_
May 6, 2021 11:44 am

You are factually incorrect Germany was never Fascist , that was Italy under Mussolini, in Germany they had the National Socialist German Workers Party under Hitler, whilst a national socialist far left party like Italy , their philosophy and policy’s were VERY different.
People these days generally lack understanding about the differences between the three far left socialist dictatorships in Europe (Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany , and Fascists’ Italy).

AleaJactaEst
May 5, 2021 6:14 am

Just sent this to the moron that is my Conservative MSP candidate…..

Asked him to square the circle that is the current Conservative manifesto that has been completely greenwashed without a peep of scientific questioning (e.g. the “Energy Transition TM”)

All they’re interested in is blocking the SNP. No reflection on the fact that all their own manifesto points are basically the same as the rest of the Uniparties except for Scotland Independence.

Muppets.

Steve Case
May 5, 2021 6:22 am

The “Fake News” Wheel of MSM Bullshit

1-CNN makes something up and cites and un-named source

2-NBC calls CNN for a quote and CNN becomes the un-named source 

3-ABC reports on NBC’s source

4-CBS reports on ABC’s story and the un-named source is no longer mentioned

5-CNN airs panel discussing the story as “Fact” citing the coverage by other “major news networks”

6-NBC starts getting sound bites from Democrats reaction to CNN’s Story

7-ABC reports on Democrats reaction from NBC’s interview

8-CBS calls for comment from administration officials and says they are down playing the controversy

Last edited 5 months ago by Steve Case
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2021 6:29 am

“The enemy of the people” — Donald Trump

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2021 7:18 am

CNN’s Trapper stated the other day that he will no longer permit Republicans to appear on his show.

sailor76
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 7:46 am

CNN is a pure propaganda channel, not unlike Pravda during the Soviet Union time. Why do republicans even willingly appear on CNN? They are often misquoted, or out of context and/or ridiculed mercilessly, it would be better to just skip that network altogether. Turn cancel culture upside down, I say.

MarkW
Reply to  sailor76
May 5, 2021 10:09 am

I agree with you. What struck me was the brazenness with which Tapper is declaring that he is no longer interested in presenting both sides of a story, but will from now on present only the side that he agrees with.

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 2:19 pm

The same with the more venerable Lester Holt. I suppose they both think they’re smart enough to distinguish their rectal orifice from a fissure in the earth. I would disagree.

DonM
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 8:35 am

… add in FBI & other intel agencies.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  DonM
May 5, 2021 9:11 am

Right, we saw that in action used against Donald Trump. The FBI came into possession of information they were unable to verify, so an agent leaked that info to a friendly reporter, who wrote an article about it. The FBI then went before a judge asking for a warrant, based on the information from the story!

MarkW
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
May 5, 2021 10:11 am

From a recent story, it appears that the FBI has no interest in cleaning up it’s act. An internal audit found that agents were still abusing FISA to get unsupported warrants.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 11:24 am

Yes, the Deep State is alive and well and is continuing to attack conservatives.

When Republicans take over in 2023, I predict a large number of investigations will be started into the Executive Branch and its abuses of power.

Steve Case
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 10:40 am

That was not an original with me, I failed to give credit, it was a cartoon I saw and I copied out and edited some of the text.

William Astley
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2021 8:46 am

You missed the ‘foreign’ fake news channels. The BBC echos/repeats the CNN/New York Times/ and so on, Fake new stories of the day, week, month, and year.

The objective is never to solve/understand problems/to help citizens.

The objective is to divide every country, with day after day of angry rhetoric, so we do not solve problems and move on.

Compare the US to China. China does not tear itself apart. Our governments are made up of stupid elite Zombies. Who just like the game/being on stage.

Made up ‘facts’. Spending money which we do not have on the green scams which will not work even if there was a climate emergency which there is not.

The US/UK/Canada/ and so on are now spending themselves to death… And that is the Chinese plan. We spend ourselves to death killing our economies.

Patrick healy
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 11:29 am

For our overseas contributes, “our biased BBC” even uses Huffington as a source – I know hard to believe but if you think CNN is bent you should try our debased media.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  William Astley
May 5, 2021 11:25 am

I hear China is running into some debt problems now.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 5, 2021 4:38 pm

I hear China is running into some debt problems now.

Apparently every country is in debt. Who do they owe this money to? Somebody is lending a lot of money…

… or I just don’t understand national economics.

MarkW
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 5, 2021 5:57 pm

The money is borrowed from individual investors and from banks.
When it comes to reserve requirements, banks are allowed to treat Treasuries the same as cash.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2021 9:09 am

The order of these alphabets may vary slightly, but the basic plot is still the same.

EOM
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2021 5:20 pm

You care to also include the enthusiastic NYT and WAPO participation in this often repeated routine?

Peter W
May 5, 2021 6:23 am

I wonder what their response would be to a 1.5 degree cooling.

Jan de Jong
Reply to  Peter W
May 5, 2021 6:32 am

Will not be allowed.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Peter W
May 5, 2021 6:34 am

“See? This is climate change, we need to act NOW!”

dk_
Reply to  Peter W
May 5, 2021 6:50 am

Like the obnoxious Uncle in the Graduate, they will go (are already going) to the existential hazard posed by plastics. Facts don’t matter, they are already preparing the next position.

Last edited 5 months ago by dk_
Richard M
Reply to  dk_
May 5, 2021 7:29 am

What is kind of humorous is that plastic pollution of the oceans may very well be responsible for some part of the ocean warming (and hence atmospheric warming) we have seen in the last 50 years.

Any substance that remains in the mixed layer (top 50-100 meters) of the oceans will reduce evaporation. That will raise the temperature since evaporation is a cooling effect. Most micro-plastic pollution floats.

In addition, since plastics are a solid, this will lead to more solar energy being absorbed in the mixed layer.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard M
May 5, 2021 7:52 am

The first irony is that “plastic pollution of the oceans” is caused by disposing of trash (aka littering) in watersheds or direct ocean dumping. The second irony is that these practices seem to be much more prevalent among the more politically favored, i.e., economically undeveloped, nations of the world.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 5, 2021 8:11 am

Yes, but we economically developed countries are the ones shipping our recycling to the undeveloped nations for processing, which we pay for. Then they dump it in the ocean. A perfect solution.

dk_
Reply to  Timo, not that one
May 5, 2021 9:47 am

This is false. Western Europe, US, Canada, ship little plastic waste to third world countries. This is mostly still done in Asia, and most of the exporters are only partly industrialized, third world countries themselves. But you will hear this lie spread a lot in the next wave of propaganda.

Patrick healy
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 5, 2021 11:36 am

I read somewhere that offshore the Soviet repepublc of California there is an island of floating disgarded dog muzzles (Wuhan flu masks) the size of Rhode island.
That should heat things up.😆

dk_
Reply to  Richard M
May 5, 2021 9:44 am

I think it is easy to agree with the idea of reducing pollution, plastics along with any other sort. But arguing about the scientific merits of the alarmist propaganda on the subject is a waste of effort. The best answer is that they are lying:
1) claims do not discern between man-made plastics and those that are naturally occurring or come from plant and animal material.
2) claims on quantities and effects are unverified, poorly documented and scientifically useless.
3) materials that persist, with no deletirious effects, are by definition inert
4) all major waste sources that can be identified are third-world countries without any sanitary infrastructure
5) all sources are reputed without evidence to be US and Western European evil, greedy, capitalist, and/or exploitive, when in fact much comes from donated third world food, water, medical, and sanitation material packaging and expended “disposables.”

dk_
Reply to  Richard M
May 5, 2021 12:40 pm

Richard M
BTW — my overly enthusiastic previous response missed the bestest, firstest one:

  • What Warming of the ocean? It has not been demonstrated reliably, but even if some amount is stipulated for the purposes of argument it would hardly be enough to have been partly caused by an increase in CO2 in the air AND by plastic pollution.
  • If you claim that “Any substance that remains in the mixed layer (top 50-100 meters) of the oceans will reduce evaporation. That will raise the temperature” you’d better be prepared to prove it. Common experience and observation (once called sense) and thousands of years of salt and mineral extraction show that SHALLOW surface coverage broken up by solid objects increases evaporation.
  • “Most micro-plastic pollution floats.” Prove it. Some of the more recent ridiculous and unverified claims are for discovery of microplastics found at the bottom of the ocean and in mud cores. There’s no way of telling what “most” is when “any” isn’t documented, and the substance are so vaguely described. Most plastics mimic the natural chemical compounds quite closely (hence organic chemistry) and can only be told apart by very meticulous lab analysis. The smaller the sample, the harder and more expensive it is. Many are more dense than water.

This is all part of the incremental game of repeating a factual-sounding, unverifiable phrase or concept until people regard it as truth. Then adding more of the same until we achieve an “inconvenient truth” that has no bearing on the real world. You will continue to hear these things stated, but argument against them with facts won’t be heard or believed.
An inert substance is inert. No danger to anyone. Most plastics contain carbon compounds. Inert carbon compounds are carbon capture. Celebrate now.

Last edited 5 months ago by dk_
B Clarke
Reply to  dk_
May 5, 2021 1:22 pm

Well said dk.

RickWill
Reply to  Peter W
May 5, 2021 7:00 am

People will be freezing to to death and the propaganda will tell them the planet is going to fiery hell.

The temperature homogenisers will continue fiddling the past to maintain their warming trend in support of the propaganda.

Reply to  RickWill
May 5, 2021 7:25 am

@RickWill: the alarmist will tell us, “we predicted this climate change”.

John Pickens
Reply to  RickWill
May 5, 2021 8:35 am

We have always been at war with East Asia.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  John Pickens
May 5, 2021 9:19 am

This [world] is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions… Old Testament,… real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes… The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – MASS HYSTERIA! (yes I stole it, can anyone identify the source?)

MarkW
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
May 5, 2021 10:13 am

Who ya gonna call?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
May 6, 2021 8:35 am

Ghostbusters!

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 9:20 am

Repeated (cuz it seems to fit better here): This [world] is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions… Old Testament,… real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes… The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – MASS HYSTERIA! (yes I stole it, can anyone identify the source?)

DaveS
Reply to  Peter W
May 6, 2021 12:45 am

Along the lines of Kip’s reply: they’ll say it is entirely compatible with the climate disruption caused by global warming. And that they have the (suitably re-tuned) models to prove it.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Peter W
May 6, 2021 8:31 am

They’ll come up with some pseudo-scientific argument about how THAT too is caused by human “fossil fuel” use. I’ve said that many times.

They already did the about-face once, from the “We’re headed for a new Ice Age and it’s all our fault” story (70s) to the “We’re headed for a runaway global warming and it’s all our fault” story (88-date), and some of the SAME scientists were on BOTH bandwagons. The only difference was that the “cooling” bandwagon started too close to the reversal of the temperature “trend.” This time they cranked it up early enough to get big money and political interests behind it, which is why it persists even with NO empirical evidence in support of it.

Do you honestly think they will even display any redness of face when they do the about-face again?!

Tom in Toronto
May 5, 2021 6:30 am

“extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires, and ice melt”

Demonstrably no, no, no, and no.
Any other effects of ‘climate change’ to worry about?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
May 5, 2021 9:21 am

And again here: This [world] is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions… Old Testament,… real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes… The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – MASS HYSTERIA! (yes I stole it, can anyone identify the source?)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
May 5, 2021 11:32 am

“Demonstrably no, no, no, and no.”

Absolutely right! There is no unprecedented weather caused by CO2. All the evidence says just exactly the opposite.

There is no increased heat, increased storms, increased wildfires or increased ice melt. None of these claims are true, and as Tom says, “demonstrably” so.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2021 8:40 am

And as Dr. Richard Lindzen so neatly summarized it …

comment image

n.n
May 5, 2021 6:33 am

Speaking truth to facts in a secular seance, empathetic appeal, coerced consensus, a wicked solution.

starzmom
May 5, 2021 6:39 am

Thank you Kip for exposing this.

I think it is wider and deeper and has been going on a long time. Ten years ago when I was in law school (as an older student) I found numerous references in environmental law text books that were literally fake–the footnotes did not link to the article stated, but to something entirely different–but it sounded good. The highly positioned law professors who authored the book never retracted the references or the statements. These statements would be repeated in classes, in law review articles, and other journals with no further investigation.

As a member of the law journal staff, I learned that my only role in reviewing an article was to check the reference. If it said what the author said it said, usually word for word, that was enough. Thus one prominent law school professor was able to state 5 times in a single article that snow pack in the Pacific Northwest was declining, because he found 5 different articles that all referred to the same original research paper. At no point did he note that all 5 references were traced back to the same source. Maybe he didn’t even know himself.

Needless to say this has colored my opinion of academic research and writing and peer review of such articles.

Thomas
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 10:19 am

Kip, the same happens with speculation is converted to prediction. A scientific paper speculates that something might occur, and the media report it as a prediction. There is far too much speculation in climate papers, maybe because activist authors know it will be picked up by the activist media.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  starzmom
May 5, 2021 9:52 am

I’m sure most everyone here has heard the meme: Puget Sound killer whales are so contaminated with PCBs that if a dead one washes up on shore, it must be handled as hazardous waste! Except, that ain’t necessarily so. I started asking for the source when someone would say that to me (including a guide on board a whale-watching boat in Puget Sound), and most just gave me blank looks. Finally, in about 2015, I managed, through entirely my own efforts, to run down a document that “vetted” many of these bogus claims. The closest they can come to an attribution is an instance from around 1992 where the authorities that had to deal with it considered disposing of a stranded killer whale carcass as hazardous waste, but in the end chose another means. Yet this is one of those memes that is so “well-known” that I often see it printed with no attribution whatsoever.

Just now, I tried to give a good reference for my claim, but when Duck-Duck-Go showed a heading for a *.pdf that might be the document, the link returned 404 – Not found. I’m sure Google would not have even listed the heading. At least not in the first 100 pages of results.

ScienceABC123
May 5, 2021 6:40 am

I’m sorry to say that this isn’t a new tactic.

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” – Joseph Goebbels

dk_
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 5, 2021 6:55 am

In which Goebbels was really paraphrasing Hearst, Pullitzer and Greely, and following Lenin’s example, among many, many others.

Tarrasik
Reply to  dk_
May 5, 2021 1:15 pm

Goebbels hated Stalin and the Bolsheviks.

dk_
Reply to  Tarrasik
May 5, 2021 1:44 pm

True. Pullitzer was a European Jew. Lippmann was also, but was arguing in the 20s for improving the position of a ruling class — and had had a great deal of influence on the treaty of Versailles and how Europe was politically divided after the war through Wilson. Hate didn’t stop Goebbels from learning their tactics and improving on them. Also didn’t stop him from stealing their words, if it fit what he wanted to do.

MarkW
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 5, 2021 7:23 am

I’m watching a series on Discovery+ about new discoveries in planetary science.
Twice now they have stated without equivocation, that the Earth will soon be uninhabitable because of climate change.

dk_
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 7:40 am

Discovery has been doing this kind of thing for at least 15 years. There was a network shakeup at about that time, in which they discarded their popular science principles for political propaganda. See also History channel, OWN, IBM and the Weather Company, and PBS who all dropped their pretense for even-handed coverage, at roughly the same time.
I lost all credibility for Michio Kaku and Niel De Grasse Tyson at about the same time, when they started inserting a lot of this type of side remark into almost all their public narrations and speeches.

MarkW
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 10:16 am

Most of it has been pretty good, I learned about a new theory about how the Earth’s moon was formed and another about why the crust of the moon’s far side is so different from the crust of the near side.

TonyG
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 11:38 am

Kip – that’s rather sad because Discovery is just about the best stuff available on television anymore.

As you say, they still produce good material. Just sorry to hear they’re jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 9:54 am

Did you mean “scope”? Or did you really mean “scoop”?

Tarrasik
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 5, 2021 1:14 pm

If you actually read what Goebbels said, it’s obvious that he detested the Big Lie. He was calling out the Communists and Social Democrats of his day.

Nazi propaganda was, for the most part, far more truthful than US, British, French, or especially Soviet propaganda.

MarkW
Reply to  Tarrasik
May 5, 2021 6:07 pm

Do you have any evidence to support this propaganda of yours?

ResourceGuy
May 5, 2021 6:42 am

Thanks Kip!!

They are permanently on my radar screen and others I talk to. Now follow the money trails.

M Courtney
May 5, 2021 6:55 am

The part of the debate they are hiding is the policy, not the science.

The science is woolly and imprecise. It is not clear what the weather will do in a warming world or how much warming an be expected for any level of emissions. So anything goes on the science. Unless they deliberately deceiving by using RCP8.5 where the economics are already disproven… they are just spinning their view. Not actually lying.

But the question of what to do about it is lied about. A lie by omission.

Should we lockdown like it’s 2020 again? No. That had no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels so had no effect on AGW.
So should we lockdown harder than 2020 for the foreseeable future? That debate is not had.

How can we persuade China and India to join us in the lockdown? That debate is not had.

How much will the lockdown cost compared to the unfettered impact of AGW without a lockdown? That debate is not had.

How much will the lockdown cost compared to adapting to AGW without a lockdown? That debate is not had.

The costs of AGW, adaptation or lockdowns are going to be met unevenly so who should pay more; past-emitters, future larger emitters, those who can afford it or those who have least influence? That debate is not had.

What penalties are we willing to impose on defaulters on the agreed global strategy? That debate is not had.

When does creating a global strategy become politically unviable? That debate is not had.

When they say “The time to act is now” the questions should be “What action, how will it work, how will it be enforced, how much will it cost and who will pay?
But that debate is not had.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  M Courtney
May 5, 2021 9:58 am

All very good questions, Mr. Courtney. And yes, all should be debated, except for one thing… well, let me sum it ups with this correction:

The costs of AGW, adaptation or lockdowns [if any are actually found] are going to be met unevenly so who should pay more; past-emitters, future larger emitters, those who can afford it or those who have least influence? That debate is not had.”

There, FIFY

H. D. Hoese
May 5, 2021 6:55 am

University of Texas where Austin defunded the police with one of the best collections in the world has gone crazy. Interim president, I think from Harvard, not that it should matter. WSJ had a Sunday article on the 1957 epidemic, unlike this one really threatened student/faculty age groups. At this rate may take legal action, as athletics is open. Public paying a lot of the bills.

https://www.lib.utexas.edu/about/news/coronavirus-updates
“Hours for building access, research help and borrowing & library account help. Only PCL and the Life Science Library are open at this time. All other Libraries’ locations, including the Foundry, are closed…..Students, faculty and staff can request a scan of book chapters or articles. We are unable to make scans for unafilliated researchers or other libraries……..”

Library seems too busy doing important things, from library committee on Social Justice/Asian-Americans. I thought that they felt discriminated against because of other “racial justice” actions. Check out the links from the National Education Association. Careful what you read!
https://sites.utexas.edu/utldiversityactioncommittee/statements-on-racial-justice/dac-statement-on-anti-asian-violence-3-5-2021/

n.n
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
May 5, 2021 8:30 am

Diversity (i.e. color judgment), inequity, and exclusion. One step forward, two steps backward.

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2021 6:56 am

John Stossel asks: “Why won’t the other side debate?” https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/videos/844893982901945/

The answer is, why on earth would they? They have an efficient lie-generating propaganda machine in place. Debating would just undermine that.

John Garrett
May 5, 2021 7:12 am

This “Covering Climate Now” crap is, of course, a violation of every tenet of journalistic ethics.

Obviously, they don’t give a damn.

So much for print and broadcast media’s high-minded, sanctimonious claims about being unbiased, non-partisan, disseminators of reliable information. The HYPOCRISY is beyond belief.

This UNDISCLOSED, intentional, conscious effort to spread propaganda squarely and truly makes them “enemies of the people.”

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  John Garrett
May 5, 2021 7:42 am

“So much for print and broadcast media’s high-minded, sanctimonious claims about being unbiased, non-partisan, disseminators of reliable information. ”

Oh, for the good old days, when journalists made a pretense of being unbiased! For the last five years or more, they’ve abandoned any effort to pretend they’re nonpartisan. They are now full-on propagandists and proud to show their colors. They are fan dancers who’ve dropped their fans and stand naked before us. Our only hope is they’re bleeding money so fast that they’ll financially collapse before all our freedoms are gone.

n.n
Reply to  John Garrett
May 5, 2021 8:37 am

Ethics is an ostensibly “secular” religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) in a relativistic frame of reference (e.g. politically congruent, professional conduct). Journalism, or rather JournoLism, is a secular seance with “benefits”.

n.n
Reply to  John Garrett
May 5, 2021 8:39 am

Bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy) is reconciled through avoidance (e.g. Pro-Choice religion).

Randy Stubbings
May 5, 2021 7:13 am

From this website…

Joseph Goebbels On the “Big Lie” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

This is an excellent definition of the “Big lie,” however, there seems to be no evidence that it was used by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, though it is often attributed to him.
The original description of the big lie appeared in Mein KampfAdolf Hitler applied it to the behavior of Jews rather than as a tactic he advocated. Specifically, he accused Viennese Jews of trying to discredit the Germans’ activities during World War I. Hitler wrote of the Jews’ “unqualified capacity for falsehood” and “that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation…. From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.”

The OSS psychological profile of Hitler described his use of the big lie:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
Goebbels did describe the big lie in different language in an article he wrote in 1941, “Churchill’s Lie Factory,” but he was accusing the British of the ploy:

The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
Randall Bytwerk argues that neither Hitler nor Goebbels would admit to lying. Goebbels, “always maintained that propaganda had to be truthful. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lie, but it would be a pretty poor propagandist who publicly proclaimed that he was going to lie.”

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 5, 2021 8:23 am

Thank you Randy. That is the best, most concise, and thorough explanation of propaganda I have ever read.
I suppose the bright side is that “pres1dent” Bite-me has a habit of admitting the lies. Maybe that will help to convince more people to swallow the red pill.

Last edited 5 months ago by Timo, not that one
Tarrasik
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 5, 2021 1:23 pm

And you accept the OSS as a paragon of truth? They were a premiere propaganda organization from the beginning.

The only Western nation that dared expose the monumental death machine called Bolshevik Russia was Nazi Germany. The entire Western Media worked overtime to hide the deaths. Just like they hide the truth about many things: Climate, 911, inner city violence. The list goes on and on.

That’s why Nazi Germany was taken down. Their Germanic respect for truth could not be allowed to exist.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  Tarrasik
May 5, 2021 2:18 pm

Tarrasik, a few points. First, none of the words were mine; they were all taken from the website. (Thanks for the kudos, Timo, but I can’t take the credit for writing them.) Second, I agree with you that the media hides many things, the one of relevance here being the fact that there is no climate crisis. Third, what the OSS got right or wrong about Bolshevik Russia is of no relevance to what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf; nor is it determinative of whether the statement of Hitler’s primary rules was correct. If you take issue with a message, say what’s wrong with the message, not what’s wrong with the messenger.

With reference to the bolded text: CCNow never allows the public to cool off because it runs scary climate stories with oppressive regularity; CCNow never admits a fault or wrong, such as that climate models don’t work; CCNow never concedes that there may be good in their enemies who, by virtue of disagreeing with climate catastrophism, must surely be white male anti-science members of at least one evil group; and CCNow concentrates on CO2 as the sole enemy and blames it for everything that goes wrong (bad weather, gender inequality, racism, police brutality, etc. etc.) CCNow is clearly on board with the telling the big lie over and over again till people believe it. This is all entirely consistent with Kip’s opinion.

MarkW
Reply to  Tarrasik
May 5, 2021 6:09 pm

Wow, so much paranoia, so little actual data.

Juan Slayton
May 5, 2021 7:13 am

Kip,
In your earlier commentary, you refer to “CCNow’s 460-plus partners.” I’m curious about whether my local paper is on this list. Is the complete list published anywhere at a specific site?

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 8:54 pm

Thanks for the link. On the surface it’s not as bad as I feared. The local papers are not officially on the list, although they seem to be picking up propaganda from the wire services. Our area is dominated by the LA Times and the Southern California Newsgroup, which owns papers like the Pasadena Star News, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and the Orange County Register (combined readership, 3.8 million). The SC Newsgroup is itself owned by MNG enterprises, owned by Alden Global Capital. MNG advertises “Trusted brands coast-to-coast.”

Beneath the surface, the climate-scare group-think seems to control. Personally I should like to see the SEC apply the anti-trust laws to break up these media monopolies. It’s hard to see a free press when just 2 mega-corporations hold a readership of over 5 million in the Los Angeles area. Over time, group think filters down from the top and local independence becomes a pious fiction, IMHO.

Rud, I’d be interested in your opinion…

MarkW
May 5, 2021 7:16 am

You can combine this with the insatiable desire of the liberals in big media to censor anything they disagree with.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/facebook-orwellian-censorship-campaign-big-tech-jonathan-turley

It’s getting worse

n.n
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 8:44 am

Liberal ideology, liberal license, divergence with a perception of tolerance. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness (e.g. privacy), a handmade… crafted tale.

Pat from Kerbob
May 5, 2021 7:17 am

I think Willis point is right. The scientologists claim we have to keep the temp to 1.5-2C rise since pre-industrial times.
According to Scientologist adjusted temps we are already there and no emergency.

I see above a somewhat new statement, changing it to “since the beginning of the 20th century”.

Is this a story shift to accommodate this inconvenient factoid?

n.n
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
May 5, 2021 8:49 am

Been there, done that, nothing novel in disparate temperatures over one climate unit (i.e. 30-year period), a geological trimester. The assertion is that anthropogenic influence is novel and, if allowed to progress, will force a cascade failure.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  n.n
May 6, 2021 9:00 am

More like a geologic eyeblink…

Richard M
May 5, 2021 7:18 am

You will never get real science from Clientology.

One paper clearly shows that there is no such thing as climate science. Published a decade ago, Gero/Turner 2011 publishes the results of a 14 year observation of the claimed cause of AGW. The results showed no, I repeat no, increase in downwelling IR over the entire period despite continuing increases in CO2 concentration.

The real problem was the reaction to the paper. It was dismissed and the results never considered in any climate policies. I never seen an update to this data. What would real science have done?

If there was a belief that our very existence is threatened don’t you think a follow up project where dozens if not hundreds of these measurement devices would have been installed all over the world? The very fact this was not done demonstrates clearly that no one in field of climate wants to know the answer. That alone dismisses all alarmist climate scientists as nothing but frauds.

Walter Sobchak
May 5, 2021 7:22 am

“disregards truth, substituting opinion, bias, worldview and politics in its place – it is a by-any-means-necessary media push to brainwash the population. ”

Sorry. This is not new. The media have done that during my entire life since I learned how to read during the Eisenhower administration.

bonbon
May 5, 2021 7:30 am

Here is a good overview of propaganda – we are dealing with agitprop .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
Still, one must ask by whom, and why now so agitated?

Some may not be willing to face the problem that ¨whom¨ has – the utter and irredeemable bankruptcy of the entire transatlantic. See Archegos as the harbinger of something far worse than the 2008 crash. The desperation of this ¨whom¨ shows when they gave Prince Charles the keynote at the Davos Great Reset theater, now. Russia and China are not about to rescue this bankruptcy.

Such desperation is extremely dangerous, with open threats of the possibility of nuclear war. Even Henry Kissinger has come out and warned about this!

It shows phys.org, usually a baby talk cradle, takes the money – there is no limit to the tsunami of liquidity. And after all, a full wallet does get along by going along.

Robert A. Taylor
Reply to  bonbon
May 5, 2021 4:48 pm

Interesting. At Britannica on the right the box says “Get our climate action bonus”

May 5, 2021 7:33 am

”Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide …. could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable,” warned a recent Scientific American article.”

Addressing a fake climate catastrophe by making energy prohibitively expensive will make significant portions of the Earth uninhabitable.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 5, 2021 8:28 am

So what you are saying is that SA told the truth, in a backwards sort of way.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 7:29 am

Kip,

Isn’t this the case for all climate change propaganda? Confusing people into thinking it’s factual is the problem.

In fact, the entire body of IPCC reports are nothing but editorial diatribes targeting inconvenient facts that undermine their position by casting their dubious desires in sciency sounding language that’s sure to incite confusion.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 9, 2021 9:01 am

Kip,

Yes, there’s plenty of data indicating that the climate changes, but what’s glaringly missing is indisputable science that can connect CO2 concentrations to whatever changes we are seeing in the data, whether or not those changes are accurate. Coincidence is not evidence.

The null hypothesis is that the climate changes naturally and supporting this is that there’s absolutely nothing unusual about the size of the trend in the short term averages that the alarmists seem so concerned about, even when compared to the changes in the much longer period averages seen in the ice core data.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 6, 2021 9:07 am

The correct version should read –

”Slashing the amount of carbon dioxide “emissions” WILL render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable.”

It’s called “freezing to death and starving to death in the dark.” See Texas in February 2020 for a small and wildly understated “sneak preview.”

Editor
May 5, 2021 7:34 am

Thanks Kip, good info, very useful

James Walter
May 5, 2021 7:35 am

Neither “real science” nor “facts” mean a thing. It is how you (or your subject matter) look! Is she/he convincing, which amusing or endearing, but “enlightening” anecdote, i.e., the best propaganda that works. Give up on enlightening and changing their minds with logic. The other side knows this and doesn’t even bother to cover it up. They just use with the sheeple what has worked before, gravely voice, likeable talking heads, great graphics, constant, day after day bombardment of the message which we have not nearly enough money to duplicate

LdB
Reply to  James Walter
May 5, 2021 7:52 am

Or you get someone with a disability to front the message so if you attack the message you are attacking a disabled person. For double effect you take a kid … like say Greta.

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2021 7:40 am

Is CCNow short for Ca-CaNow?
Just wondering.

May 5, 2021 7:44 am

You call this “science”? I trust science, I don’t trust you. Pox on you.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 5, 2021 7:52 am

The above article references this quote made by Hare, et.al., in their Phys.org story:
“The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2 degrees C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.“

Well, what WAS plucked from thin air are both of these two memes, which are foundational to AGW/CAGW alarmists claims:
1) that global warming since about 1900 AD is predominately caused by mankind’s release of CO2 emissions, and
2) that it will be dangerous/catastrophic if global lower atmospheric temperatures warm by more than 2 degrees C during the 21st century.

Claim #1 above has been falsified by the two distinct “pauses” in global warming that have occurred from 1940-1975 and from about 1997 to present (refs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-by-two-months-to-6-years/ ) despite the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements showing a smooth, continuous exponential increase in total atmospheric CO2 concentration since their precision measurements began in March 1958.

Claim #2 above is a prediction, and thus cannot be established to be either true or false.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 5, 2021 12:02 pm

The first guess/claim about how much warmth CO2 would add to the atmosphere per doubling was 3.0C, plus or minus 1.5C. So the range was from 1.5C to 4.5C on the high end. That’s where the 1.5C number comes from.

The Earth supposedly hit the highmark of 1.02C above the average for the period from 1850 to the present in 2016, and temperatues have since cooled off 0.7C, so the Earth currently sits at about 0.3C above the average. We are not close to hitting the 1.5C or 2.0C limit set for us by the alarmists. And temperatues appear to be cooling, not warming. The CO2 “danger” is getting farther away from us, not nearer.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 5, 2021 6:16 pm

The mythical 1.5C limit has been exceeded at least 4 times in the last 5000 years. During those periods, nothing bad happened. For most of the last 10000 years temperatures have been way over the 1.5c limit, as much as 3.5C over that limit. Life on earth not only did not perish during these periods, it thrived. These periods are called optimums for that reason.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2021 10:42 am

Yet, there are many who believe that the WORST weather will be caused by the OPTIMUM climate. I call these people “suckers.”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 6, 2021 10:40 am

I think you mean a linear increase in atmospheric concentration, which requires an exponential rate of addition of CO2.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 6, 2021 12:48 pm

No . . . what you posted is specifically NOT what I stated nor what I meant. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (e.g., change in ppm per decade) is on an exponentially increasing trend based on Mauna Loa observations.

Likewise, man’s use of (a) fossil fuels, (b) land use for cropland, grazing land and buildup of urban areas, and (c) cement have all been on exponentially increasing trends over the last 150 years, although not as consistently smooth as the CO2 concentration trend line.

fossil fuel use trend: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels

land use trend: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

cement use trend: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/195/2018/essd-10-195-2018.pdf

I await your mathematical proof that a linear increase of any component of a sum (expressed as parts per million) requires an exponential rate of addition of that component.

Petit_Barde
May 5, 2021 7:52 am

The questions are :

Who pays those crooks to spout out climate pseudo-scientific nonsense since decades ?
Who promotes this propaganda in almost all the MSM ?

What are the constituents of the criminal organization(s) behind this scheme ?

griff
Reply to  Petit_Barde
May 5, 2021 8:59 am

Nobody.

To many people the science is obvious.

For the MSM, it is just factual reporting.

Editor
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 9:50 am

No, it is obvious PROPAGANDA!

It is sad you are being fooled so easily, it is what happens to people who are not Freethinking individuals, the amazing lack of critical thinking that goes on.

I am IMMUNE to propaganda because I question EVERYTHING and doing so as a Freethinker, I belong to NO club, organization and free pf political parties. I think as a free human being, who checks everything thus never mislead at all.

That is why I can see the obvious lies and bullshit the gets spewed out every day. easily since they have a common marker in them to make clear it is propaganda.

MSM are the biggest abuser and relentlessly promote a barrage of misleading information that are chronically bent to fit the, we are in danger paradigm.

That is why your posts are commonly idiotic and free of rational dialogue, you parrot what you read and told with out realizing it, you have been programmed very well.

Last edited 5 months ago by Sunsettommy
David Kamakaris
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 5, 2021 10:42 am

Griff personifies a quote from Mark Twain: “It’s much easier to fool a person than it is to convince him he’s been fooled.”

MarkW
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 10:21 am

What science?
Are you talking about the climate models that have yet to make an accurate “forecast”?

Are you talking about climate events that are nothing out of the normal, but are portrayed as if they were?

Lrp
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 9:29 pm

Griff = settled science

B Clarke
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 1:42 pm

To many people the science is obvious ” yes when propaganda is dressed up as science.

For the MSM, it is just factual reporting.” Haven’t you read kips article, do you really think msm tell the truth not just on climate. I think you do, I really do feel sorry for you

You are a victim of brainwashing

Lrp
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 9:30 pm

Are you still too hot there in central England?

Petit_Barde
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 9:13 am

That would be true (and tricky) investigative journalism !

Tarrasik
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 1:30 pm

What you’ll find is that rich individuals quietly contribute giant amounts of money at key points. For example, Zuckerberg and his wife gave $412,000,000 to influence the 2020 presidential election in the 5 key swing states. That’s half a billion dollars…

MarkW
Reply to  Tarrasik
May 5, 2021 6:18 pm

Source please. You are claiming that Zuckerberg gave away more money than most sources have him owning.

Tarrasik
Reply to  Petit_Barde
May 5, 2021 1:28 pm

True. There are two fundamental questions:

1) WHO is behind all of this.
2) HOW they exert such overwhelming and long term power. What are the psychological, social, and organizational characteristics of their power.

That’s where people need to focus their attention.

James Walter
May 5, 2021 7:59 am

We need a pyramid marketing structure: You convince 10 people you know personally. Each of those is supposed to contact 10 they know personally. You call the 10 you know to see if they have followed up and contacted some people – never putting down, only praising what they have done. Some sort of badges for people who have reached the next level, etc. Maybe a medal

philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 8:24 am

I’ll start off and finish with my bottom-line question for people who know more than I do about the automobile manufacturing industry. Are they in on this scam or just faking being in on this scam until it goes away?

As we, people who utilize their brain functions, all know, calculator dodging goes all the way to the top, and I use the word “top” in it’s loosest sense, as “top” in this case is several levels below moronicity, or the fake-moronicity of the consultants they hire.

First, the Paris 1.5 degrees is farcical on its face, because no one knows climate sensitivity, but that’s fine if you’re a calculator dodger. So the useless idiots are going to control “climate”, not by getting any CO2 out of the atmosphere, but by telling everybody that they’re going to have to switch to electric vehicles by 2030 or whenever. Obviously, electricity is clean. It just comes out of the wall, right f-wits?

But why are the automobile manufacturers going along with this f-wittery? Are they just pandering to the nitwits or can they see more profits from pandering to the nitwits?

griff
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 8:58 am

The entire EU, UK and Chinese car making industries are switching to EVs, quickly, immediately, permanently.

Editor
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 9:27 am

Ha ha, you are making that up, you keep ignoring coming power shortfall because of the irrational thinking of climate doomsters opposition to 24/7 base generating capacity.

B Clarke
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 5, 2021 1:56 pm

Uk burning coal again tonight, as Scotland and Northern England experiencing minus temps and snow.

Griff is brainwashed disciple of the green church and all its tentacles, however unless he’s completely dead from the kneck up he must of read kips article’s one can only hope some sinks in ,and at a latter date a event ,triggers his memory, hes not nasty and aggressive like some trolls on here, I genuinely feel sorry for him.

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 9:31 am

Yes griff, thank you. We already know your reading comprehension difficulties.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 10:23 am

Griff actually thinks a press release is evidence that it has already happened.

Petit_Barde
Reply to  griff
May 5, 2021 12:49 pm

The entire EU, UK and Chinese car making industries are switching to EVs, quickly, immediately, permanently.”

And my name is Napoléon Bonaparte.

Ted
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 9:20 am

Profits from pandering is one reason. The other is the absolute corruption of the Democrat party in the U.S. They’ve proven they are willing to punish any organization that does not go along with them. Combine the two and you see a rush of free advertising for liberal policies. Whether it’s climate, COVID, or BLM, you see dozens of companies that never got political making statements on issues that have nothing to do with their business.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Ted
May 5, 2021 9:39 am

Yep, but they are actually, with they being automobile manufacturers, doing it. Silly griff thinks that this has something to do with carbon dioxide, but I’m actually trying to figure out what’s really going on. Not that I really give much of a shit personally.

Last edited 5 months ago by philincalifornia
B Clarke
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 2:14 pm

I think in 10 years time ( in the uk) only second hand diesel and petrol cars will be available. The pumps for diesel will become few and far between , petrol will be around because of hybrids but again eventually faded out . We will be left with electric cars ,mainly for the rich, public transport is being pushed now in the hope it 5akes up the slack, in essence less travel less convenient travel ,this fits with the green agenda , there will be concessions eg farmers, the trial run was in lockdown were shops forcefully closed , so the slack was taken up by on line sales,deliveries by courier, essential stores open for food because logistics of delivering food to every one in the UK was not doable. This is were the green agenda wants us to be.

MarkW
Reply to  Ted
May 5, 2021 10:24 am

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-private-school-andrew-gutmann-brearley-blm

Students and parents are pressured to become BLM activists, or be labeled as racist.

gringojay
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2021 12:01 pm

Finally a comfort companion doubling as an action figure for many contemporary students.

A17DDBE9-CC08-4B22-975F-FC45D75C8C4B.jpeg
Last edited 5 months ago by gringojay
Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 10:16 am

The automobile industry, as with most industry around the world, is responding to Regulation or even Threats of Regulation. And they continued while Trump was in office because a) the regulators were still the same people that regulated them during the 0bummer maladministration, so they anticipated unchanged regulation and b) the assurances of all the establishment of the Uni-Party that Trump was only temporary anyway.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 1:13 pm

“But why are the automobile manufacturers going along with this f-wittery?”

Can you imagine how they would be treated if they didn’t go along?

Human-caused Climate Change shows we have a lot to learn about human psychology and why humans do what they do.

What motivates these people? No doubt, there are many motivations, none of which are based on science because the science does not support their alarmist position.

I think trying to force electric cars on people is going to end badly for some companies and some countries.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2021 12:43 pm

“I think trying to force electric cars on people is going to end badly for all companies and all countries.”

Fixed it for ya. 😀

Steve Z
May 5, 2021 8:46 am

Out in the real world, people see snowstorms in south Texas in February, and in April in Europe, and would probably welcome any warming (by 1.5 C or whatever) so they could turn off their furnaces for the summer and stop emitting CO2, and maybe plant some crops.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Steve Z
May 5, 2021 10:24 am

Cabeza de Vaca’s(? or maybe it was some other explorer, it will become clear who I mean in just a moment) journal records that his first view of Galveston Bay saw it completely covered by a layer of ice 2-3 inches thick. Seeing ice on Galveston Bay again could mean only a very powerful cold front, or it could mean something else entirely. I vote, let’s wait and see. Likewise if we actually reach that 2.0°C temperature rise (since it’s also plucked from someplace the sun don’t shine, it means just as much as the 1.5°C temperature rise, thus I use them interchangeably) I vote we wait and see what it actually means to our everyday life before I go and spend one penny on adaptation, and I am therefore even less likely to spend any money on mitigation. How do you mitigate a disaster that is so ill-defined no-one knows when or if it even is happening, or maybe has actually already happened (computer models don’t count), and no-one can tell you the cause (computer models don’t count) even if it is happening, and therefore how could we do anything about it when we don’t know what to do, we have no data (computer models don’t count) to support ANY response.

Last edited 5 months ago by Red94ViperRT10
Kenneth Burnley
May 5, 2021 8:48 am

“. . . limiting warming to 2 degs C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.”

I wouldn’t trust any organisation that cannot even use correct grammar – it should read “prevent dangerous climate change.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kenneth Burnley
May 5, 2021 1:19 pm

The globe is currently 1.3C cooler than that 2C figure the alarmists say we need to stay under.

We have a long way to go before we start worrying about a 2.0C higher temperature or even a 1.5C higher temperature.

We are in good shape! 🙂

Athelstan
May 5, 2021 8:50 am

Ask a global warmunista, ‘what is the optimal mean world temperature’?

They can’t answer it, ever.

1.5ºC what and based on what (see above) is becoming somewhat of a totem, a talisman, in chimeric stretch of the imagination. 1.5 is a figure merely plucked out of the air – if you’ll excuse the pun, there is no scientific basis whatsoever for it.
All of them, these so called brilliant professors, exspurts and pscientists pretending to be world stage strutters and all are hollow noise and out of 13th grade minds. The very idea is preposterous nonsense, to think we can ever have the necessary influence (acumen?) arrogance, to be able to turn up and down the earths’ temperature just like the thermostat on your wall at home – boondoggling mindbogglin’ brain rot.

It might have been said (sarc), that, this is about money and control over the west, ‘the great green scam’ this was never about climate or the absurd idea of saving the poley bears, bollocks. Natural, man made CO2, love it because without it, we’re all just waiting for the reaper.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Athelstan
May 5, 2021 5:06 pm

And they always avoid this one like plague: “What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere?”

Kevin kilty
May 5, 2021 9:07 am

Mark Twain, a hundred and fifty years said that if you don’t read the media you are uniformed.If you do read the media you are misinformed.

This is an old problem that keeps resurfacing. All the so-called critical thinking taught in K-16 (and beyond) just makes the problem worse.

Tarrasik
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 1:41 pm

You’re falling for the mainstream media line. They love to destroy Western statues and heroes. Twain is just another target for their ire.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 5, 2021 8:23 pm

Well, thanks for pointing out the mystery here. I find troublesome things like this interesting, but I see that no one can identify the actual source. I noted among lists of Twain quotes some attributed to others as well. I may look carefully at innocents abroad, though.

By the way, how do you know almost nothing attributed to Twain was actually said by him?

Last edited 5 months ago by Kevin kilty
TonyG
Reply to  Kevin kilty
May 6, 2021 6:22 am

Kevin – Almost everything attributed to Twain was actually said by some guy named Clemens…

Rud Istvan
May 5, 2021 9:14 am

Great article, Kip.
A side note coming from my mostly 2012-2014 research for the second and third ebooks. The original ‘goal’ was 2C, which Schellnhuber of PIK admitted on record he had pulled out of thin air. But it sufficed for urgent action because CMIP3 and then CMIP5 were producing ECS~3, and 2<3. The energy budget stuff started getting an ECS around 1.7 (IIRC the first paper was 2013, there were several in 2014, with the best Lewis and Curry 2016.) This was sufficiently important that AR5 officially refused to give a central ECS estimate because of the model/observation discrepancy.

The climate cabal then realized the world might never reach 2C so they cut it back to the 1.5C that CCnow propagandizes now.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 5, 2021 9:42 am

Schellnhuber of PIK admitted on record he had pulled out of thin air.”

You learn something every day. I thought he pulled it out of his arse. 

Thomas
May 5, 2021 10:05 am

Kip, Excellent articles. You should send them to the Wall Street Journal.

JCM
May 5, 2021 11:14 am

so far today the climate emergency has resulted in grey skies, seasonable temperatures, and green grass outside. Meanwhile millions are suffering from preventable diseases, malnutrition, contaminated water, extreme poverty and unthinkable human rights abuses that has very little to do with the weather. Not a peep in the press. On the environment front the chemical agriculture industry is alive and well, several dozen zoning orders have been handed down to pave significant wetlands in Ontario against the will of local citizens, several thousand acres of habitat will be bulldozed today, millions of acres of seabed will be trawled, the mining industry will exploit more land and workers all over the world getting our EV batteries and solar panels ready, vast landscapes will be converted to palm oil and “carbon-neutral” biofuel monoculture plantations. Nothing to report. Today thousands of refugees will die in transit and nobody will report on the reasons they are fleeing. In science today several peer reviewed journal articles will published about new climate findings and research which might be opposed to the consensus stance. Nothing to see – they must be wrong. Those who point this out will be shamed, judged, and called a despicable person – then their posts will be deleted by the wise ones. We should consider ourselves among the privileged top 10% of humanity if we consider climate consensus to be “the defining issue of our time”. Wealth and power imbalance is back on the rise after an all time low 20-40 years ago, this is obvious looking at surveys of the other 90%. With this comes a total loss of perspective for those at the top.

Michael
May 5, 2021 11:18 am

Kip…

Thank you for continuing to expose CCNow. You keep writing them, I will keep sharing them with everyone I can! This is a corruption that has seemingly seeped into many systems, including education, politics, science and journalism. Truly horrifying.

Nicholas McGinley
May 5, 2021 11:59 am

I for one take some consolation in the knowledge that everything published on the internet will always remain.
And so all of this preposterous and obviously nonsensical hogwash, will be here forever after for people to pore over, and the people propounding, promoting, and propagating it, will wear it for all of time.
And the more harm that comes of it, the more the things said and the people who said them will be studied and identified.
I am fairly certain we have already reached a point that the worst of the offenders will have their very names become synonymous with scientific malfeasance, corruption, catastrophism, and deliberate profligacy.
Perhaps they will escape the everlasting infamy of Judas, but in some cases, it may be close.

Last edited 5 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Doonman
May 5, 2021 12:02 pm

So what else is new? Whenever funding requires an opinion, the opinions are always biased to favor the funders beliefs.

The question not answered is who is doing the funding. Somebody is, it doesn’t happen by accident.

My Father was a newspaper reporter. Reporters desperately want to get their by-lines published as their careers depend on it. All reporters have editors, who decide exactly what gets published as news. My father used to say that all reporters learned to write their stories based on the personal preferences of their editors. If an editor liked sailing, nautical terms were used in the reports. If the editor liked to golf, golfing terms were used in the reports, and so on and so forth.

Objective reporting? No, but when you are feeding your family and paying a mortgage, it doesn’t seem so vile an idea.

old construction worker
May 5, 2021 12:37 pm

Alpine barracks of the White War warriors emerges through melting ice: Clothes, postcards and canned food of WWI troops are seen for first time in more than 100 years after lost mountain camp thaws out (headline from another source)So we are as warm as we were 100yrs ago

Paul Johnson
May 5, 2021 3:00 pm

Reading the definition of propaganda, it seems that terrorism has the same objective, just different means. We could think of terrorism as “kinetic propaganda” and propaganda as “non-kinetic” terrorism.

John Robertson
May 5, 2021 4:02 pm

I think,ever since the CRU emails were published,most observers have been fully aware that Climatology of the Catastrophic Kind,is pure propaganda.
Policy Based Evidence manufacturing.
Pure deceit by our bureaucrats.

For even when Team IPCC (TM) is shown to be lying and doing so deliberately “For the cause”,no responsible adults at any level of our governments gave a toss..That take away being they know they are lying..

Evidence and the usage of the scientific method are most unwelcome in this policy..Opinion is all they have and all they ever had..
Hence the blatant lie of the IPCC 2500 expert scientists..What was the final total?
Something close to 0052?
Duh .
These numbers good enough for government.

Jackie Pratt
May 5, 2021 8:08 pm

I try time and again to read ‘science news’ on sites such as phys.org. Time and again i leave the site so angry, frustrated and disappointed because the site is littered with AGW drivel. Plus it is becoming infected with gender idiocy.
What can we (plain ol John doe readers such as myself) do to help you expose this fraud?

Robber
May 5, 2021 8:48 pm

Why the continued reference to temperatures in pre-industrial times? Is it implied that Global Utopia existed then? Or is it too embarrassing to suggest that a further rise of just 0.5C will be catastrophic?

To bed B
May 5, 2021 8:52 pm

From Wikipedia (where there are references)

“The Eemian climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene.[8][9] Changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere. During summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 °C higher than today.[10] The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.

At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[11] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: currently, the northern limit is further south at Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec. Coastal Alaska was warm enough during the summer due to reduced sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to allow Saint Lawrence Island (now tundra) to have boreal forest, although inadequate precipitation caused a reduction in the forest cover in interior Alaska and Yukon Territory despite warmer conditions.[12”

The thing that bugs me is that it was both due natural causes so no runaway GHE, but higher CO2 caused previous warming as well!

1-2°C degrees warmer (with hippos in the Rhine?) but no positive feed back because it was natural?

griff
Reply to  To bed B
May 6, 2021 12:55 am

And when we have Arctic regions warming now, with absolutely no Milankovitch based influence, perhaps we need to look for a new climate driver in the region – like human caused climate change

Alan the Brit
May 5, 2021 10:25 pm

Piers Forster receives funding from UK funding council (UKRI) and the EU. He is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and Lead Author of IPCC reports.

Says everything in a nutshell!!!!!

Giordano Milton
May 6, 2021 4:22 am

Opinion science is everywhere today. We’ve forgotten that science is data based, and that opinion is really nothing more than a hypothesis. The problem is that we’ve stopped trying to question the hypotheses and simply accept the opinion of so-called “experts”, as though they are the shamans of the past. We seem to have undergone a de-evolution in thinking.

%d bloggers like this: