NOAA Goes Full Orwell with Climate Propaganda Seminar

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a prestigious reputation in weather and climate science. Its mandate is to inform the public and policy-makers about environmental issues. Recently, however, this body seems to be delving into strange territories. In a peculiar turn of events, NOAA’s recent organization wide seminar on combating disinformation cited ‘Skeptical Science’s’ creepy John Cook, If this is the level of expertise we’re resorting to, then it’s time to delve deeper into the complexities of NOAA’s tactics.

Yes, the climate has always been changing, it’s part of Earth’s nature. The question isn’t about its existence; it’s about the magnitude of human influence and the catastrophic narratives that often seem more rooted in hysteria than science. This was notably seen in Margaret Orr’s recent presentation, ‘Wildfire Lies: A Crash Course in Climate Change Misinformation,‘ where she prescribed a singular perspective on climate change, with little room for debate or dissent.

Part 1 – Wildfire Lies: A Crash Course in Climate Misinformation
NOAA Central Library

During the seminar, Orr summarily dismissed anyone who doesn’t adhere to the catastrophic climate change narrative as ‘misinformed’. The binary logic she employed creates a false narrative: you either believe climate change is primarily human-caused and catastrophic, or you are an ill-informed individual spreading ‘fake news’. This simplification blatantly overlooks the nuanced and ongoing debates within the scientific community about climate sensitivity, feedbacks, and our capacity to adapt.

One aspect of Orr’s seminar, which demands scrutiny, is the argument about ‘slow thinking’. The idea suggests that individuals who don’t subscribe to the catastrophic narrative aren’t applying enough cognitive effort to understand the issue.

Read the PDF here

This argument is a subtle way to undermine the intelligence and reasoning capability of those who don’t align with their views. It’s a derogatory tactic that ignores the fact that many dissenting voices are often well-versed in the science and simply interpret the data differently or place it within a broader historical context.

Moreover, the seminar placed considerable emphasis on ‘confirmation bias’, suggesting that people tend to believe information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs. While this is undoubtedly true, it applies to all of us, including those propagating the catastrophic climate change narrative. To suggest that this is a problem only on one side of the debate is disingenuous at best and manipulative at worst.

The most disconcerting element of the seminar was its proposition to ‘combat misinformation’ by essentially telling people what to think. The ‘truth sandwich’ concept Orr presented is a classic technique used in propaganda motivated journalism: tell them the ‘truth’, insert the ‘lie’, then repeat the ‘truth’. It was invented by George Lakoff as a means of combatting “misinformation”.

But who determines the truth in a field that is still very much under scientific investigation?

Read the PDF here

Furthermore, it seems that the argument is no longer about understanding the complexities of the Earth’s climate system, but about ‘breaking and fixing audience mental models.’ This condescending approach undermines the intellectual autonomy of individuals and implies that they should simply adhere to what they’re told.

Read the PDF here

It is abhorrent, but not shocking these days, that the Federal government is actively financing campaigns to indoctrinate, manipulate, and control its own citizenry.  Other examples of these horrifying government funded initiatives to control what the people think and believe include but are not limited to:

NewsGuard

NewsGuard is a Pentagon funded member of the US Government’s Censorship Industrial Complex.

Embedded in the post was a picture of a nearly $750,000 award from the Department of Defense to NewsGuard, an organization the independent journalists characterized as a “government-funded” entity implicated in the Censorship Complex.https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/newsguard-claims-not-to-be-government-funded-but-a-750k-grant-suggests-otherwise/

They work to strengthen and enhance government approved narratives and work to suppress, starve, and deplatform independent thinkers and publishers.

In response to Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz’s question — “Who is NewsGuard?” — Shellenberger explained: “Both the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard are U.S. government-funded entities who are working to drive advertisers’ revenue away from disfavored publications and towards the ones they favor.”https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/newsguard-claims-not-to-be-government-funded-but-a-750k-grant-suggests-otherwise/

In addition to attacking revenue and deplatforming, NewsGuard works with the ideologically captured teachers’ unions and school system to block, discredit, and censor wrongthink and thoughtcrime.

CISA

DHS Expands Its Censorship Powers

Demands from the government that social media companies censor content have increased under President Joe Biden. In January 2021, the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created in 2018 to respond to election disinformation, broadened its scope “to promote more flexibility to focus on general” misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. Where misinformation can be unintentional, disinformation is defined as deliberate, while malinformation can include accurate information that is “misleading.”

In January 2021, CISA replaced the “Countering Foreign Influence Task Force” with a “Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation” team “to promote more flexibility to focus on general MDM.”

The move included a further turn inward to focus on domestic sources of MDM. The MDM team, according to one CISA official quoted in the IG report, “counters all types of disinformation, to be responsive to current events.” Geoff Hale, the director of the Election Security Initiative at CISA, recommended the use of contractor nonprofits as a “clearing house for information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/shellenberger-testimony.pdf

This out-of-control, top-down, shut up! We know what’s best for you mindset, is the province of despots, not democracies.

In conclusion, NOAA’s association with John Cook and his old weird, creepy, SKS team, adds an odd flavor to the entire discourse. While it is important to educate, it is far more important to ensure the tactics used are not rooted in propaganda, and the expertise referenced does not court such bizarre controversies. A balanced and respectful discourse needs to be one where all voices are heard, and science is not twisted to suit a particular narrative. After all, science is about inquiry, debate, and a relentless pursuit of truth, not about ‘fixing’ those who don’t agree with us.

References:

Wildfire Misinformation Presentation

Wildfire Misinformation Presentation Question Followup

The second video of the “education” seminar which we may discuss at a later date.

How does Climate.gov talk climate and deal with misinformation
NOAA Central Library

2.45K subscribers

Some old information on John Cook

Follow me, Charles Rotter, on Twitter @crotter8

4.9 18 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

199 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
June 28, 2023 1:48 pm

Are there any sanctuary cities to escape agency overreach and official misinformation pogroms?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 28, 2023 4:09 pm

Yeah, but they all tend to have ‘unofficial’ misinformation programs.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 29, 2023 8:28 am

How about towing an old oil rig into international waters and declaring it an independent state?

June 28, 2023 1:54 pm

Ms Orr is claimed to be a “climate scientist,” but is she? First, she is merely a 23 year old graduate student, not a seasoned professional.

While she does have a BS in meteorology (2020) and MS in geography (2022), a good start, her career path apparently took a turn somewhere along the way to focus on psychology and communication. So yes, she should be capable technically to comprehend the pure science, but she has been derailed by her passion for Psy Ops.

It is apparent that she is not a rigorous scientist and has not the experience or maturity to have independently questioned or analyzed the basis for the “climate change emergency” narrative. Yet here she is giving lectures to NASA.

Reply to  pflashgordon
June 28, 2023 4:07 pm

So she was born ~2000, got her BS in 2020 and MS in 2022 and has had time enough since for her career path to “turn”.

That’s quite impressive

June 28, 2023 3:53 pm

By teaming with the likes of Cook and Orr, who are pure activist…

NOAA has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they are only interested in propaganda and mal-information.

This is essentially their “Bud Light” moment !

Bruce Cobb
June 28, 2023 4:00 pm

You never want to go full Orwell.

June 28, 2023 4:19 pm

A post attacking NOAA from a site prominently featuring an NOAA data set on its front page.

Whatever next?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 28, 2023 7:14 pm

Comprehension a problem for you? Or do you just have nothing to say?

Reply to  Mike
June 28, 2023 7:45 pm

Both !

sherro01
June 28, 2023 5:12 pm

If you search Climate Audit blog for “Shukla’s gold” you will find a number of serious allegations of irregular financial manipulations in the George Mason University climate cell.
Does anyone know what the present status is? Geoff S.

John Oliver
June 28, 2023 7:14 pm

I’m very skeptical of the quality of any of the degrees handed out over the last decade. A lot of the rigor is gone even in STEM

Reply to  John Oliver
June 29, 2023 6:56 am

AOC has a degree in economics.
She could be the posterchild for your comment.

Bob
June 28, 2023 8:49 pm

Dismantle NOAA and start over, at this point they are not worth saving.

June 28, 2023 10:07 pm

where she prescribed a singular perspective on climate change, with little room for debate or dissent.

oh there is plenty of room for Debate, but no room for Denial or Misinformation.



Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 29, 2023 4:06 am

Yet that is all your climate-kook comrades have…

Denial of natural climate variability,.. Denial of solar activity… Denial of ocean effects

Denial of REALITY

and heaps and heaps of mal-information. !

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 29, 2023 7:03 am

oh there is plenty of room for Debate, but no room for Denial or Misinformation.”

In other words, “The Science is Settled”?
“The Debate is Over” if you don’t agree with “The Science is Settled”?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 29, 2023 10:28 am

‘… and “misinformation” is defined as that specific information which lends credence to my opponents’ Debate stance.’

You and all the rest ….

https://youtu.be/I6mpHW3SMcc?t=53

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 28, 2023 11:30 pm

A blocked hurricane west of Central America will cause a strong drop in surface temperatures in the area, and a tropical storm is making its way over land.
comment image

MargW
June 29, 2023 12:14 am

Alas Monash University (Melbourne, Australia, ranked 44 in Times Higher Education) is now to be the beneficiary of John Cook’s expertise with it’s soon to be released “Climate Genie Project” Climate Genie Project – Climate Change Communication Research Hub due to launch mid 2023. (? story tip)
From the Climate Genie site “Imagine a world void of climate change misinformation. Where media outlets report on climate change diligently, accurately and without bias. Where the general public is accurately informed, and through which, can contribute to democratic decision-making.” 
Apparently this will be a web extension that provides an automated fact-check of online climate change misinformation “highlighting potential misinformation and providing a pop-up message with details regarding the ‘types’of myths and ‘techniques’ being used to mislead.

Meanwhile the Australian Government is drafting a “Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill” to tackle the threat of misinformation and disinformation “to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society, and economy.” New ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (Submissions close August 6, 2023)

Looks like I need to reread Orwell’s 1984 to find out what’s likely to happen next. It all feels rather surreal.

June 29, 2023 12:56 am
June 29, 2023 4:31 am

Story Tip: The Entire East Coast is shrouded in a haze of Canadian Smoke. Millions of acres are burnings. Each tree burned represents thousands of pounds of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere at an extremely rapid pace, What will be the impact on atmospheric CO2? Absolutely nothing. WUWT should create a page to highlight how even such extreme natural events as massive forest fires and volcanoes will have no impact on the trend in atmospheric CO2. They should also highlight how the economic collapses of 2008 and 2020 did absolutely nothing to alter the trend in CO2 either. Point being, if massive forest fires can’t alter the atmospheric CO2, what makes people think EVs and cutting down coal burning coal plants can?

Reply to  CO2isLife
June 29, 2023 4:38 am

Canada Sees Record CO2 Emissions From Fires So Far This Year
Wildfires in Canada have generated record CO2 emissions
Hundreds of forest fires since early May have generated nearly 600 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to 88 percent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions from all sources in 2021, the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) reported.

Canada Fire.jpg
Elliot W
Reply to  CO2isLife
June 29, 2023 10:46 am

The point is, the forest fires could be 100%+ of Cdn CO2 emissions and it STILL wouldn’t alter the atmosphere’s CO2 level. (Nor planetary temperatures.)
But dumb headlines do scare the non-logical reader.

June 29, 2023 7:11 am

Slide 18 of the Powerpoint presentation is titled “How Do We Combat Misinformation?”, and the first bullet-point is :
• Check the sources of information

This weekend my semi-random sampling of the Internet included visiting the (bookmarked) Zero Hedge “aggregator” website.

While principally used as a “I need to have something to laugh at every day, otherwise I’ll go (completely) mad …” input, my reactions to individual ZH articles typically include :
1) Bwahahahahahah !
2) That counts as ‘interesting’ … CUB (*) obviously, but ‘interesting’ nevertheless …
3) That one’s actually mostly correct … isn’t it ???

(*) CUB = Complete and Utter B*ll*cks.

Reaction 3 will (usually, if I’m not feeling too lazy that day …) lead me to check elsewhere with multiple “reliable” sources that the article isn’t being exaggerated too much by the journalists / editors (cf the Graun).

The ZH website, along with others in the same vein, are a constant reminder to me that “the source” doesn’t matter.

What does matter is the answer to the question :”Is it true (or not) ?

– – – – –

This weekend ZH linked had a copy of an article by Jeffrey Tucker at “The Epoch Times” website —- full title “The Great Debate That Will Not Happen” —- about the reactions to a challenge by Joe Rogan to host a “civil debate” between Peter Hotez and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. about the (theorised) dangers of vaccination in general, and the “cost-benefit” analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations to young people in particular.

That article included the following musings of Jeffrey Tucker around the subject :

I’ve become suspicious of people who believe that their best strategy for winning an argument is to interrupt, shout, spit, fling clever rhetoric at ever higher decimal levels, and hurl insults. These people are also good at yelling out technical details in great rapidity so that they cannot be checked in real time. These habits don’t prove that the person is a fraud but they certainly raise suspicions.

A person with a real command of facts, theories, and real experience can patiently listen to contrary views and answer them with calm reason. There is no grounds to interrupt. On the contrary, all such a person needs is a bit of quiet and some willingness to listen. That person will win the debate against the most belligerent opponent.

There’s something else fascinating about the Hotez refusal. It suggests that he doesn’t really trust the intelligence of the listeners. He figures that people are too stupid to figure out fact from fiction and so therefore the only correct path is to endlessly repeat his exhortations to comply with his latest declarations.

In this way, fake experts are often condescending, arrogant, pushy, and hortatory. Maybe you have had a boss or a friend like this. You have probably learned to stay away from such people. Indeed, with power, they can become dangerous.

In contrast, watch any interview or speech of RFK Jr. He is reasoned, fact-filled, curious, a natural educator, calm, and unfailingly kind to his critics.

Hotez is hardly alone in this. He is an archetype of an entire army of the credentialled who cheered as masses of people were robbed of their rights and liberties over these three years. Now they are on the hot seat. They cannot stand it. They don’t believe that anyone has the right to judge them. But he cannot stop the trajectory of public opinion, which is turning ferociously against them. They are losing. And they cannot stand it.

Notes

1) I like to think of myself as both “reasoned” and (above all) “curious”, and usually include links to sources (~= “fact-filled”), but I am most definitely not “calm and unfailingly kind to my critics”.

2) In the climate change “debate” the “belligerent opponents” have been “winning” against people with “a real command of facts, theories, and real experience” for at least 25 years now (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg, Roy Spencer and John Christie, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, …).

3) On the subject of “climate change / science” my opinion is that believing that “the trajectory of public opinion is turning ferociously against” the media talking heads is just wishful thinking on “our” part.

June 29, 2023 8:46 am

Great article Charles! There is truly a battle for how the public engages with climate science. For many many years people like John Cook eagerly defile good scientific critical thinking, instead pushing group think to promote their agendas. Countering dishonest propaganda is why WUWT is so very very valuable.

altipueri
June 29, 2023 10:33 am

This link is to the NOAA page on sea level rise:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

On future sea level rise it says:

“As global temperatures continue to warm, additional sea level rise is inevitable. How much and by when depends mostly on the future rate of greenhouse gas emissions.” 


How come that if greenhouse gas emissions have risen continually there can be any period in which sea level has dropped? Or is sea level rise and fall not driven by greenhouse gas emissions?

I can see that the rate of rise might vary but for an actual drop to occur does that not mean something other than greenhouse gas emissions is a greater force.

A graph comparing carbon dioxide ppm over the sea level might be useful if some of you clever chaps can do it.