Further and better particulars have emerged about the green billionaire-funded course run by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN), which has to date attracted over 400 participants from around the world. It recently signed up Marco Silva, the climate ‘disinformation’ specialist employed by BBC Verify. To “hit closer to home”, course participants are told to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it wasn’t as tasty as the year before due to the impact of climate change. Noted climate hysteric Saffron O’Neill has been a past speaker and she is on record as speculating on the need for “fines and imprisonment” for expressing scepticism about “well supported” science. There is something very disturbing about a climate activist from a State-reliant broadcaster attending a course funded by narrative-driven billionaires with a speaker who has suggested that sceptical climate scientists and writers be locked up in prison.
As the Daily Sceptic disclosed, the OCJN six-month course is run by the Reuters Institute, which is funded by the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Direct funding for the course, which started last year, has been provided by the Laudes Foundation and the European Climate Fund, the latter heavily supported by Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn. Immersion in the correct political narrative surrounding climate collapse, the so-called ‘settled’ science, and the need for extreme Net Zero measures, whatever the cost, is the order of the day. It would appear that the aim of the OCJN is to insert constant fearmongering messages into media stories, as global elites press ahead with a collectivist Net Zero political agenda.
In a recently published essay, two OCJN organisers give chapter and verse as to how this is being directed on the course. It is designed to allow climate journalists to “move beyond their siloed past” into a strategic position within newsrooms “combining expertise with collaboration”. The “pick your mango” strategy is designed to make climate change “less abstract” and delegates are told to pick a “beloved fruit or activity that everyone in your country or region seems to care about, and seems to capture attention when impacted by climate change”.
“Less abstract” is one way of summing up this pseudoscientific hogwash. ‘Infantile’ might be better. None of it is based on a scintilla of scientific proof. Much the same can be said for a presentation by Dr. Friederike Otto who uses computer models to claim her green billionaire-funded World Weather Attribution (WWA) team can attribute individual bad weather events to human-caused climate change. Following Otto’s presentation, attendees are reported to have shown a “massive jump in self-confidence” when attributing individual weather to the long-term climate change.
The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jnr. is scathing about weather attribution calling it a new “cottage industry”, adding that the need to feed the climate beast leads to a knock-on effect of creating incentives for researchers to produce studies with links to climate – “no matter how tenuous or trivial”. At the BBC, weather attribution has always been very popular. Writing in a WWA guide for journalists, the former BBC Today editor Sarah Sands says attribution studies have given us “significant insight into the horseman of the climate apocalypse”. Former OCJN attendee, Ben Rich, the BBC’s lead weather presenter, has used the “science” of climate attribution “to help explain to audiences when and how scientists can link extreme weather to climate change”.
None of this ludicrous propaganda can be questioned since the science is deemed to be ‘settled’. Geography lecturer Dr. Saffron O’Neill has taken climate hysteria to a new level with a demand that journalists should not use photos of people enjoying themselves on beaches during summer heat waves. She recently told the Guardian that such images “can hold the same power” as photos of the tanks in Tiananmen Square and smoke billowing from the Twin Towers. After a session with O’Neill, audience members said that “news outlets and photo agencies can and should think ahead of time about how they photograph the risks of hot weather”. And of course if anyone disagrees with O’Neill and her version of the “well supported” science, it is time for fines and prison. The last suggestion was published in Carbon Brief, the activist blog financed by the European Climate Fund. As it happens, Carbon Brief is represented on the OCJN Advisory Board through its editor Leo Hickman.
The OCJN is far from the only billionaire foundation-funded operation trying to spread climate alarm and hysteria throughout the general population. Climate Central targets local media with ready-to-publish stories about significant landmarks disappearing beneath rising sea levels. It recently gulled the Mirror into running a notably silly story about much of London disappearing beneath the waves within 80 years. Covering Climate Now (CC Now) is an off-shoot of the Columbia Journalism Review and is backed by the Guardian. It claims to feed over 500 media operations with pre-written climate stories. Both these operations rely on heavy financial support from a small cluster of green billionaire funds.
The links between these operations spreads far and wide. One of the partners of CC Now is Reuters, the news agency connected to the OCJN through its Reuters Institute. Not everyone is happy with Reuters’ connections to operations such as CC Now that make no secret of a desire to promote a hard-line Net Zero narrative and suppress opposition to it. Neil Winton worked for 32 years at the agency covering science in his time. Politicians and lobbyists are in the process of dismantling our way of life, he notes. If we are going to give up our civilisation, at the very least we ought to have an open debate. “Journalists need to stand up and be counted. The trouble is this requires bravery and energy, and an urge to question conventional wisdom,” he said.
And, he might have added, avoiding the naughty step of Dr. Saffron O’Neill.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yet another socialist who wants to jail anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
Socialists ALWAYS have to jail anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
It is the only way Socialism “works”.
Otherwise, the peasants will chose something else to do with their lives, other than toil for their betters!
Not enough jail space …..
so obviously they plan on plan D …
We are the carbon the leftists want to eliminate.
FJB
But not just any generic socialist, but one all too familiar to the “greatest generation.”
Hence, this needed correction to the third sentence given in the above article’s second paragraph:
“Immersion in the correct political narrative surrounding climate collapse, the so-called ‘settled’ science, and the need for extreme
Net ZeroNazi measures, whatever the cost, is the order of the day.”Leftists are all alike. They envy Xi and Kim Jong Un and want to rule by fiat.
Turf them out Fiat first
Im sorry to observe that the growing idoit voter cohort in Australia are retirees “saving the grandchildren” by voting green or teal, so installing increasingly facist government.
They would be better served voting conservative to protect the grandchildren from themselves.
“idiot”
I thought you might be trying for a hybrid of idiot and goit (git) to describe them.
Greetings from Goebbels, founder of the Reich Press School
You need to give credit to Herr Goebbels mentor, George Creel who was Woodrow Wilson’s “minister of propaganda” and one of the inspirations for 1984. Goebbel’s “Big Lie” comment seems to be as much of an observation as an M.O.
My head hurts: If an attendee of this ‘thing’ (journalists learning how to convince people of stuff) can only suggest jailing folks who disagree with her, doesn’t that shout loud & clear that the ‘thing’ has been an abject failure?
i.e. Why bother going to it. If folks disagreed beforehand, why not just bang them up there and then?
somebody’s ‘missing something’ here methinks
My guess is the attendees are advocates hoping to improve their advocacy. Every industry has schools like this.
‘Advocacy’? Strange way to spell ‘inadequacy’.
Unfortunately some are quite good at advocating alarmism as a political doctrine. Perhaps the ones who go to these schools feel inadequate as advocates of alarmism.
I’m sure Al Gore doesn’t have alarmism envy- what with his “the oceans are boiling”.
When the music stops they all want a seat at the trough.
Or confirm their bias?
I agreed with you but regarding your second paragraph – it’s not yet against the law to speak truth to green power, so they have that propaganda school in order how to better lie to their readers – because they can’t just bang up 🤬 the discenters… yet.
I’m not up on British slang, does “bang up” mean “burn at the stake”?, which would be in accord with the whole theme. Hey, Giordano, what’s that I smell burning?
I think you’re confusing Bonfire Night (another quaint British custom) with locking people in cells, Ron.
If rich dad or gov debt buys my ticket, I’ll go. If lunch is provided I’ll sit quietly and happily.
If climate science were settled, then climate scientists should want to debate skeptics. They don’t—so it isn’t. Instead, they want to lock skeptics up to silence them.
Not a good look.
Don’t they realize that they will also be removing their OWN fossil fuels? I guess they fell they are above the law and do not need to comply, but how I do not know.
“They” are well paid for doing very little – hence they will still be able to afford reliable fuel and a battery backup system to deal with renewables.
Yes, scientists have more patience dealing with flat-earthers, 911 conspiracy and faked moon landing people than with knowledgeable people pointing out that the sky is not falling.
Those characters don’t threaten their funding the way climate skeptics do.
It’s the socialist way
Inside every “progressive” is a Totalitarian screaming to get out (and jail skeptics).
Story tip – America’s judiciary is quietly receiving ‘training’ from leftwing climate group – American Thinker
If my car is bust I want a competent mechanic, not a brilliant one
If my pipes freeze and burst I want a competent plumber.
If I am sick I want a competent doctor not a brilliant one
Why is it that it is only the law that calls for a brilliant counsel, or judge, to administer. Surely competence and honesty are high enough professional standards. In scientific matters the judiciary should educate themselves, but I suppose in whatever twaddle they teach at law school that is too much to ask. The mentally deranged idiots who pontificate in Law need brainwashing from the woke to get it right. That is about the measure of the level that our once great democracies have sunk. There will be a heavy price to pay on teh way to the dark ages
Law schools very likely do NOT teach: “YOu can never lie in thought, word, or deed to save a man from Justice”.
Observation of lawyers indicates ‘anything goes’.
All “progressives” are smarter than you. They also are more “moral” than you. Just ask them, and they will tell you that. Of course, If you ask them where their moral code came from, they have no clue. It didn’t come from God who doesn’t exist and it didn’t come from their parents who they hate for their polluting actions.
That leaves Walt Disney and Bambi as the source..
The dirty little secret is most of these people are not very smart. That includes the hypocrite billionaires that support this stuff. Many actually do fully believe it ( not all some just have a totalitarian dream because they think they are the smart ones and the rest of us cannot be trusted to make the “ right” decisions)
Rather, they’re not very wise.
There’s no correlation between intelligence and wisdom.
In this case, “wisdom” is the ability to use fact and reason to make socially (not economically) important decisions. Unwise people fixate in emotionally-driven thought. Always dangerous.
“There’s no correlation between intelligence and wisdom.”
I hope you understand that you’ve written an opinion.
Oh, they are very smart, that’s why they’re making billions from net zero
Oh my! I can only think that Goebbels will not so much be turning in his grave as dancing a jig in celebration of his legacy: he has his disciples and they have no shame – nor a sense of history. How much further do these people want to go? Some kind of badge that sceptics have to stitch to their clothes? Some kind of transport to take them to (cough) education camps?
This has to be stopped! History has a habit of repeating itself.
You cannot stop radicals from being radical. The goal is to keep them from doing truly dangerous stuff and we are doing pretty well at that.
For example: https://www.cfact.org/2023/12/14/cop-28-the-radicals-lose-again/
So the problem with climate hysteria is radicals and Marxists, correct? I haven’t looked at their tax returns but it seems that the most effective and vociferous billionaires behind climate hysteria are hardly Marxists, being amongst the elite in the capitalist menagerie. It actually appears that once a billionaire has acquired the real estate appropriate to his station in life and the yachts, cars and mistresses he needs, his next step is to involve himself in the finance of whatever major problem strikes his fancy. Garden variety radicals and Marxists generally don’t have the disposable funds to promote crazy ideas, unless university faculties are considered part of the program and their contribution is ideological rather than monetary. It’s time to face reality and recognize that bandit capitalist elites, products of a system where billionaires can become so jaded with their wealth that they will attempt to change the world, share space on the planet with others that have literally nothing and can’t change anything.
Radicals sure, but I don’t know about Marxists. As you point out there are a lot of capitalists promoting hysteria. But as with any big political movement there are lots of strange bedfellows. The movement is deliberately vague to attract what are in fact conflicting interests.
You would be surprised at how many billionaires also have a Marxist streak. Not sure how they reconcile the Marxism with making obscene amounts of money but they seem to be able to hold both those views without a problem. It was very fashionable at one time for ‘daddy’s little rebels’; the richkids away at college, to join the young communists as a protest against having money and a privileged lifestyle. Most left it behind when daddy bought them a posh car and gave them a job in his city firm but a few of them never grew up and it stayed with them.
Communism, marxism, and such nonsense has widely been endorsed by those who see that it always leads to great power for the few individuals at the top, giving hem license to loot, rape, and abuse at will.
History is a complicated subject, being composed of so much messy data, so I can only go moment by moment with the little I’ve read. From what I’ve read so far, the idea that “witches” were common and were responsible for much evil doing in the world, including just about everything that might be considered bad weather, was widely disregarded as nonsense — at first. However it eventually gained so much traction that questioning the idea became mortally dangerous. By public records, such as they were in those days, around 50,000 witches were put to death, after official trials, in the Germanic states. I haven’t see numbers for the rest of Europe but my impression is that it wasn’t a rare event during a significant period. The point of which is that any “winning” today isn’t necessarily a good prediction for social action tomorrow.
North Korea is the object example of their vision. Their future utopia is general want and subjugation, augmented by mood-controlling drugs.
They will tell themselves that their full access to energy provided the few remaining fossil-fueled power plants is justified by their ever-so-critical work to save the planet.
The far left German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, of which he was a prime player, were the forefathers of the Marxist riddled institutions we see today, including the UN
Omg energywise!
How dare you notice that “Nazi” is a shortened form of National-socialist German workers party (NAtional-soZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiterspartei).
Are you trying to taint today’s progressive socialists by association? Everyone nowadays knows that the Nazis were the exact opposite of socialists! It’s groups like Alternative für Deutschland that are opposite to socialists so therefore neo-Nazis.
And the Nazis were race-obsessed Jew-haters. You won’t see anything like that among today’s socialists. DEI from the River to the Sea…uh nevermind.
They were socialist, and race-obsessed. And they were obsessed from IndoGermanian people, so they liked people from India, they could study in Germany without problems.
And the Nazis were race-obsessed Jew-haters. You won’t see anything like that among today’s socialists.
Ask Greta about that….
The actual AfD really, at least in eastern part of Germany really are “only” far right.
Sorry Krishna, I assume that you understood that my comments were sarcasm. The National SOCIALISTS were, um, probably socialists. Like the Italian fascists who were founded by the socialist Mussolini.
In the US it’s been a thing with our socialists for generations to first of all deny that they are socialists at all (only changing recently), and secondly to never allow for Nazis to be understood as the socialists that they most certainly were, because that would make non-nazi socialists look bad by association. Every Republican presidential candidate is reflexively referred to as far right wing “like Hitler”.
No, far right wing should be regarded as the opposite of the Nazis and communists. The only real differences between Nazis and communists was in how the elite was organized and whether the masses were controlled by emphasis on the race or the class.
The NS regime retained the appearance of private enterprise so long as it was controlled by the state and cronies in the party. Communist cronies controlled industries in essentially the same way but under the guise of managing the state’s assets as members of the party.
The NS regime obsessed on ethnic purity and sacrifice for the fatherland. The communists controlled their slaves by glorifying the proletariat class.
Both had their enemy groups to vilify and distract the people from the shortcomings of the government. Both eliminated free speech. Both had secret police that terrorized the populace. Both had labor and death camps. Both restricted or in some cases totally banned certain religious views.
It is in this framework that I regard the Biden/Obama regimes as essentially fascist or national-socialist. How many of those aspects are already present? Vilified group? MAGA. Free speech restrictions? Social media manipulated by government agencies, cancel culture, forced vaccinations. Political prisoners? What do we call the Jan 6 protesters or Derek Chauvin? Political prosecutions of Trump? Religious restrictions? FBI surveillance of traditional latin mass Catholics, forcing bakers to celebrate homosexual ‘marriages’.
As far as we know, we don’t yet have labor and death camps.
No, didn’t realise sarcasm, sorry.
“As far as we know, we don’t yet have labor and death camps.”
There are satellite photos of Uighur/Falun Gong internment/labor camps. It has been reported that this is a source of organs for transplant.
This is the future that the “elites” have in store for us. We will own nothing, including our own bodies. They plan on keeping us happy with drugs and video games.
FJB
Getting back to that, Krishna, neither you nor Michel ever pointed out to me which parts of the AfD manifesto qualify it as ‘far right’ or what exactly does ‘far right’ mean to you in relation to Nazis.
https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Programm_AfD_Online_.pdf
I don’t recall every saying the AfD is ‘far right’ – its a term I avoid. But I do think there are reasons for being very wary of developments in German politics, personified by the AfD.
Its not a matter of publicly voiced policies. Germany’s political class has spent the last 70 years in a mixture of denial and squeaky clean good behavior. 30 years ago, if you had open conversations with business colleagues who you had got to know, they would admit that when they first travelled outside Germany they were surprised to find that other countries’ history did not stop in 1933. As theirs had. There was a postwar conspiracy of silence about the immediate past, and a tacit rule on what could be said in public in the present.
Against this background no political party is going to advocate the unacceptable. But the culture has not changed. Quite a lot of what the AfD says is in code.
The question is what they will do when and if they get power. Its not clear how likely this is, but if it happens it will be gradual. There has been progress recently in significant local government elections. They will increasingly become accepted as just another choice on the ballot. But when and if they get into power, they may tap in to the German historical tendency to mania, and the German historical tendency of the population to go along.
This is why to worry.
Thanks for the reply Michel, but you are implicitly saying that the AfD Programm is all unobjectionable but full of code words? Could you point out one example for me? Committed democrats actually means Sturmabteilung maybe?
I don’t know your experiences or situation. My own experience is as an exchange student in the late 1970s and subsequent visits with friends and family. I recall a very different story. Early in my time there I experienced a “Nie wieder Faschismus” (never again fascism) protest/rally at my school. The religion class rarely discussed religion but subjected us to a film about the Milgram experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
And I suspect that my German friends would be mortified to think that I dare to suggest that AfD should be acceptable. Precisely because everyone is afraid to be seen having a whiff of fascism about them, to the point of repudiating their right to live in a country that respects its own culture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/world/europe/afd-election-east-germany-hoecke.html
Krishna,
Won’t you express your own views?
That article is behind a paywall and I will never pay a cent to those communists at NYT. What I see of it is that the establishment considers AfD to be a threat. Well, there’s a shock. And every day we also see that Democracy will end unless we’re not allowed to vote for Trump. Because democracy is about only having one choice, right?
So, anyway, like Michel, apparently you don’t see anything objectionable in the entire AfD Programm or perhaps you’re afraid to click the link and get on a watch list for right wing terrorists?
I did download the link and read it. I didn’t say I found nothing objectionable in the entire program, but my unease is not to do with anything specific in any of the sub points.
I think with modern Germany you have to see it in perspective, and this means looking at the Programm in a context and taken as a whole. I think it is very carefully written to attract those with views significantly to the right of its literal meaning. Its both what is included and what is left out.
The question is what the party will conclude are appropriate policies to implement this program, when and if they get elected.
My sense is that we have been protected from Germany by the country’s economic success over the last two generations. But I am not at all sure if this protection evaporates because of economic failure (perhaps caused substantially by Net Zero energy policies) that we will still be safe.
Germany is, as the document says, a country of high European culture. Its also a country with a lot of very dark pasts. The historian Taylor said that he had seen two German wars in his lifetime, and was not confident of not seeing a third. In fact he did not. But his sentiment rings a bell. What the program document tells some of us is that it may not repeat, but its rhyming. This version is carefully user friendly in its broad brush proposals, while being as far to the right as it can without triggering explicitly alarming proposals.
But the question you have to ask is, how this is going to get interpreted into policies when and if they come to power. I am not at all confident that those who read it through now and say, well, its just mainstream conservatism, will be at all happy when they see the policies that it has been used to summarize.
Thank you for this thoughtful discussion. I will think about it further. The tragedy would be that if the only party calling for a U-turn on the Energiewende is too tainted to be acceptable.
Yes, agreed. There is a somewhat similar situation (though in a very different context) in the UK, where Reform is the only political party opposing Net Zero.
Its too small and marginal to hope for electoral power itself. So the result, in a first past the post electoral system, is that it will end up taking votes from the Conservative Party by splitting the conservative vote, and that will lead to a Labour government with a huge majority.
And they are even madder than the present government in their devotion to Net Zero.
Its a real problem in Europe: there is no effective way (except in Holland as we recently saw) to vote against the climate and energy foolishness that has become policy of all mainstream parties. Though cracks are starting to appear. On the Continent its much easier to start new parties, and that is happening.
You find the left continually arguing that democracy is failing to deliver adequately draconian emission reduction measures. The real failure is that its failing to provide voices in power for the indifference or hostility to those measures which most voters feel.
The pending UK election will be one to watch for this. Anything over 10% for Reform will be a wakeup call for the mainstream. It could happen. The result is more likely to be a Conservative wipeout, but there’s a tipping point in the UK system, and Reform has a chance, albeit a very slight one, of going over it.
I wonder, with my phone it wasn’t paywalled…
But the the article give a description of the guy from eastern Germany, Thuringia, he isn’t far away from his father in spirit.
The program is whitewashed.
https://berlinpolicyjournal.com/hocke-or-hitler/
I would like to read or listen to his words in full context as he spoke them rather than to accept the interpretation provided by a non-objective journalist and translated into English. But I will concede that if he spoke of a “thousand year Germany” that is a phrase that seems too close to “Tausendjähriges Reich” for my comfort. There wouldn’t seem to be any purpose to that rhetoric other than as an allusion to national socialist propaganda.
covid actions were a clear warning of how idiotic many are,
theyre pretty much the same fools in both camps
If the science is settled, then there is no longer a need to fund research in “Climate Science,” and that money should be rerouted into infrastructure improvements to adapt to the effects of the mild GlowBULL Warming we can expect over the next century or so….I could use some new patio furniture, especially one of those nifty tables with the big umbrella sticking out of the center…courtesy of the government of course.
Great point – it’s in the UNIPCCs interest to keep the AGW hoax going and going, even by inventing more & more stupid adverse effects
Exactly.
Just another attempt at a ministry of truth like the TNI Trusted News Initiative during the COVID debacle ( never let a good crisis go to waste)
Exactly, keeping the masses in fear, keeps them under control, until it doesn’t
These are miserable people looking for a way to transfer their unhappiness onto others as they are mentally ill.
They’re definitely on a spectrum
They certainly are well organized and funded. The Gore machine runs another big school, among others. Be fun to see a good list.
But the attendees are likely already hard core alarmists so there may be very little gain from these efforts. Who else would go through all this? My guess is they are well past diminishing returns.
The globalist elites funding this nonsense are benefitting more
How the hell can you spin out a climate disinformation course to 6 months. A normal person would be bored enough to extract their small intestine, wrap it three times round their neck and chew off the remainder after 6 hours. Course summary Hockey stick good, windmills good, data doubleplusungood independent thought tripleplusungood, Burn the deniers! Eat bugs. Floods fires famines and droughts on the up. Ice everywhere down, and polar bears, wombats and parakeets up shit creek without a paddle. That is my 3 second PhD in climate change curriculum . Come to my university and bring your whole family. All must have diplomas!
Sounds like a lot of guest lectures but I would like to see the course outline and some materials. But there is no lack of one hour topics as there are several hundred, many more if they go into the energy side. Look at all the WUWT posts and comments addressing different alarmist claims.
The debate is enormously complex in detail. The structure is treelike so the number of issues increases exponentially with level of detail. For example, attribution of extreme events is mentioned above. One could easily do a week on that alone, if you believe that stuff. Look at the many 1,000s of pages of IPCC reports alone.
Over the last few months I’ve developed a couple of bunions when I never had any before. This despite having humping heavy rucksacks for 100s of miles over sometimes rough terrain and running in Army boots when I was younger with no such problem. Must be due to climate change.
Either that, or Brexit, the two main agents of global doom!
You overlook the obvious cause; Trump did it! Virtually everything bad in the demented leftist’s universe is due to Orange Man Bad! He makes Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and even Genghis Khan look like pikers in comparison! Look at what they are willing to do to keep him from winning in 2024!
These people are insane and in their deluded world anything can be justified to save the world. They do not comprehend that they are the danger. If they attempt or succeed in jailing some skeptics it might blow the whole shit show up.
Fine but you be the one to get the names of the volunteers this time.
Well settled or well modeled?
Inquiring minds prefer the clarification.
Neither.
This is good news. Maybe it will wake our side up and help us understand that it is the common guy who needs to be educated so that he understands that he is being ordered to give up life as he knows it for no good reason.
The other side has organizations and individuals worth billions focusing on the common guy. They know how important he is. We have the science, the facts and the figures on our side. I am convinced that we can go head to head with any CAGW advocate or all of them and whip their ass. That would be a good thing but not the most important.
The vast majority of our effort needs to be spent reaching out to the common guy. He isn’t as educated as most of the people at WUWT, he doesn’t understand fancy language, he doesn’t understand higher math and he won’t understand complex systems without simple explanations but he is our best if not only hope of putting these CAGW clowns in their place.
We desperately need to shift course.
Lots of “we” and ‘us” written there. The assumptions are that there’s enough data to state something definitive, that there are two sides, that both theoretical sides would judge the same winner after hearing the same debate, that a debate could settle something once and for all, that the theoretical we are on the same course to be shifted, that there is such thing as a common guy…. it goes on.
No it is much simpler than that. The other side claims the science is settled without producing any proper science. They have anecdotal evidence and computer models. Let them bring their science and we will bring ours. It won’t even be a contest. Every time they have debated our side they have lost. Now they have quit showing up. That is precisely why they are educating journalists to indoctrinate the common guy.
The common guy is the fellow being lied to 24/7 by the mainstream media, he is the guy expected to pick up the tab for all the disastrous decisions his political leaders make, he is the guy who’s children are being indoctrinated in public schools, he is the guy made to pay for useless wind and solar projects, he is the guy who has to pay for fossil fuel plants to be on stand by to pick up the slack when wind and solar fall flat. You know the guy who is getting royally screwed for no good reason.
Before the Berlin Wall was destroyed, we would hear about the USSR’s news service, TASS, and how it was used to control the population through its propaganda. I was curious how this was possible; how the Soviet people could be lulled into the absurdity of taking TASS seriously.
The OCJN gives us insight into this process. This is exactly how the BBC is transforming itself into a tool that can be used by a communist leadership to control the people. Today, it’s fretting about mangoes. Tomorrow, it’s demanding the execution of anyone who dares criticize the state.
‘Tomorrow, it’s demanding the execution of anyone who dares criticize the state.’
As Putin, Xi, and other dictators do.
No they don’t and that’s the scary part. Anyone who is marked for such treatment is never openly decried, they just tend to disappear, or be arrested for reputation-destroying crimes, or be shot in the street with the perpetrator never caught. They never need to get involved – they have people to take care of the details, often lots of people.
What are the climatistas afraid of? They have the power. Afraid of words? Such cowards- along with being ignorant fools.
The best way to deal with these left wing types, is via facts, truth & ridicule – their brains cannot cope with educated, yet comical stimuli, they shut down and revert to their usual shouty, hysterical, over zealous ramblings (like global boiling)
I use this method of deflection and conquer all the time, it works, it always will because the lefties are a strictly unfunny, largely untalented bunch, who thrive in echo chambers, but not in reality
Most of my favorite standup commedians are left wing types whose brains cope very well with educated, yet comical stimuli, Exhibits include Chapelle, Degeneris and Minhaj. Political thinkers who advocate positions I support often embarrass me by defending numerous positios I think are just dumb.
If the world were much different, I’d expec to scroll through these comments and see 80 people wrot “yeah, me too!”
And then with roughly half the UK population in prison – the thinking half – the BBC will continue to argue that constant power failures etc. are due to dangerous climate change and not because all the expertise needed to run stuff is under lock and key … I suggest we just let these idiots hang themselves after all not too much more rope is needed for the job.
https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/
Lefties definitely cannot deal with the superior brains at Clintel
From a link:
“When I Covered Climate Change for Reuters I Thought CO2 Was Certainly to Blame for Rising Temperatures. I Was Wrong” (Neil Winton Daily Sceptic).
Definitely strategically counter productive to argue against the theoretical relationship between a greenhouse gas and its effect, no-on knows to what extent the post-1979 warming is due to the increasing CO2 concentration.
The issues are the cost-benefits of increasing CO2 and cost-benefits of moderate warming and the patently ruinous ‘solutions’ to a non-problem.
Leopards don’t change their spots
Well, Saffron is known to have a ‘bitter taste’…. what better name, O”Neill?
She is surely Agent Orange…