Opinion by Kip Hansen
“Verified is an initiative of the United Nations, to provide content that cuts through the noise to deliver life-saving information, fact-based advice and stories from the best of humanity. Led by the UN Department for Global Communications, the initiative invites the public to help counter the spread of false narratives across key global issues by sharing UN-verified, science-based content with their communities through articles, videos, and associated media. The initiative is a collaboration with Purpose, one of the world’s leading social impact organizations, and has been supported by a number of collaborators including Rockefeller Foundation, IKEA Foundation, Luminate, TikTok, and Fortescue.”
If the idea of having climate change facts and stories “verified” by TikTok absolutely terrifies you, then you are in your right mind. But it gets worse: TikTok is helped in this by 5 certified left-leaning well-funded advocacy organizations specifically dedicated to making fighting “climate change” a priority.
Here’s an example of the fine work they are collectively doing:
Please note that this page is aimed at kids….and kids are encouraged to share the quiz with their friends because “ Quizzes Are More Fun With Friends” .
Just to get you started, here’s a look at the first question:
with the correct answer which has been verified by the United Nations and TikTok to be correct.
For those of you who just want to do the quick pop quiz, here it is – with the ‘verified’ answers upside down at the bottom:
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
If I were speaking, I’d be speechless! Unabashed propaganda, aimed at your kids.
I’d love to see your comments on the questions and the provided answers.
By the way, if you actually take the quiz online, each answer screen has a little justification at the bottom. For question 1 it looks like this:
Wow! Is right….
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
US out of UN – soonest.
What’s not to like about it??
Putting a Climate Corrupt Communist nation in charge of what the UN determines to be “Verified” information on a Chinese Controlled Social Media toilet.
“TikTok is helped in this by 5 certified left-leaning well-funded advocacy organizations specifically dedicated to making fighting “climate change” a priority.”
Can these luminaries tell us what it will look like when we have defeated climate change?
The elites will be much richer and the proles will be much poorer
They didn’t say anything about “defeating” climate change, rather they are “fighting” climate change. There’s a big difference: Fighting climate change means spending lots of other people’s money on crony capitalism. Defeating climate change would make fighting climate change unnecessary, and who can make money from that?
Another way to know skeptics are winning. Warmunists stooping to ever more ridiculous counter efforts.
They’re getting desperate.
They are just spouting pure climate change propaganda. They don’t have any new evidence establishing CO2 is the Bad Guy, just like they haven’t had any evidence of this in the past, so all they are going to do is continue spouting the same old unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 being dangerous.
The difference this time is they are just expanding the scope and the funding of the climate change propaganda.
The only problem for them is they don’t have any evidence to back up their claims, and more and more people are coming to this realization and that’s why climate change is last on the list of priorities on the polling list.
The Climate Alarmists are fighting a losing battle and they don’t yet realize it.
When you don’t have evidence, you don’t have a case, even if you do own the Media.
When a skeptic asks a climate alarmist for evidence, and the climate alarmist runs for cover, the bystander has to think to themselves that maybe the climate alarmist does not have any evidence and that is why the climate alarmist ran away and didn’t answer the question.
I think there is a lot of that going on.
“By 2050, experts say we’ll be able to transition fully to renewable energy.”
It’s true that expert say that. It is not true that we will fully transition to renewable energy by then.
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until finally they know everything about nothing.
“Expert” comes from the Greek “X” for unknown, and
spurt” for a little drip under pressure.
Now we’re ALL Exspurts…if you really think about it
Rud, you described my degree in vacuum physics.
i tried that too but I screwed up and I the vacuum all leaked out
Wow, that sucks !!
It’s also true that they are experts, but not in what they say.
Actually, the only thing they seem to the “experts” in, is scientific misinformation.
They all have BS degrees in B.S.
Good one!
John ==> Weasely isn’t it? ….some ‘experts’ do say it even though it is absurd.
First, it depends on what yoiu mean by an “expert”.
Secondly, to the extent that it is true, it is only some “experts”. Plenty of other “experts” say otherwise. It’s like that “Scientists say”, “scientists have shown”.
Campsie ==> Quite right — non-propaganda journalists use something like “some experts say….” or “Will Happer, Princeton physicist, says …”
UN can not even stop Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Or any invasion, of any country, since its’ inception despite that being its’ mission.
They have FAILED COMPLETELY in their only actual purpose for existing.
Not quite true. It did stop the invasion of South Korea, due to the absence of the Soviet delegate when the vote was taken in the Security Council. There have been several examples of UN Peace-Keeping Forces. They might count. Or not.
So the problem at the UN was Russia. They took a vacation and the UN functioned the way it was supposed to, and they voted to defend South Korea from communist aggression.
And after the North Koreans were put on the run, the communist Chinese sent in hundreds of thousands of troops to try and help the North Koreans.
There was some very tough fighting during the time of the Korean War in the early 1950’s.
South Korea is still South Korea.
I bet the South Koreans are very happy about that.
The UN was one of the Franklin Roosevelt administration’s sillier ideas.
Tom ==> It is just structured in a way that makes it unworkable — and its success depends on the leaders of nations being beneficent, acting for the good of Mankind — which they don’t.
I agree more with Madison’s commentary in The Federalist Papers on the folly of assuming men are angels, or that a prospective government will be angels.
The UN is a second attempt at one world government. The first, League of Nations, was quickly squashed for being Communist infiltrated. They got smart and slowly, stealthily at first, built the UN with the same ideology. Today the UN stands as a Marxist quango with the prime mission of destroying Democracy and Capitalism.
Yes, and it’s weird that UN-ites regularly compare anyone or anything they don’t like with Hitler.
And yet, the UN-ites have adopted Adolf’s playbook in so many ways.
Kip’s post here is a prime example of the UN and its cabal emulating the Hitler Youth movement’s recruiting tactics – urging kids to share the climate propaganda with other kids.
I’m surprised that Herr Goebbels is not being awarded a President’s Medal by Joe for his contribution and leadership to “The Cause” (as M. Mann calls his climate caterwauling).
JD Vance tweeted that Biden give the same award to Pol Pot and Vlad Tepes, posthumously.
The new definition of Nazi seems to be: Anyone a socialist doesn’t like.
One commenter says the UN is a Marxist quango. Another likens it to the Hitler Youth. Well, I suppose all dictatorships behave in similar ways. But it can’t be both Marxist and Nazi.
It can, and is, a mixed of the two.
Sure it fits, Nazis are just confused marxists.
Think of it as a circle.. Nazi and Marxist are slightly on opposite sides of 180 degrees.
What does NAZI stand for again? Just enlighten me please. 😁
The Nazis were fascist, and fascism is a form of socialism.
In fact Mussolini, who formed the first fascist party, quit the socialists because they weren’t moving towards communism fast enough.
The demise of the League of Nations had nothing to do with Communism. The Soviet Union only became a member of the League of Nations in 1934, a year after Germany left, and was expelled from the League on 14 December 1939 for aggression against Finland. The demise of the League was due to its failure to deal with German, Italian and Japanese aggression. Claiming the the League was an attempt at world government is just ludicrous. Same with the claim that the UN is a Marxist quango (whatever that means).
Look up quango, the UN fits the explanation. Read Agenda21 and you’ll understand how it is Marxist ideology driven. UN apologists have to dig deep to come up with any good it has done to support its’ primary mission in the over half a century it has been operating and expanding into areas that are not within its’ purpose (IPCC?).
Do you believe that Russia had the only communists on the planet?
Why are we still funding this dreck?
It’s a rhetorical question, by the way.
Scarecrow ==> Some arms of the UN do good work on the ground. The actual programs of the WHO and its regional partners such as PAHO (with whom I have worked) provide important health services and save lives all over Latin America.
It is kind of like the Audubon Society — the national organization has been taken over by the far left and promotes all kinds of nonsense, some of it harmful, but the local organizations, who help buy, create and operate habitat sanctuaries and introduce kids to the value of birds are made up of good people doing good work.
Then the question becomes, over all does the entire organization do more harm than good.
If overall it’s good, the work to salvage the organization and excess the parts that are doing harm.
If overall it’s bad, then kill it and see if you can salvage those portions that are worth saving.
It’s a bit like UK membership of the EU. It wasn’t all bad, but the harm was far worse than the good. And then there’s the question of how far the UK could do the good bits for itself. For example, we had lots of projects which were EU-funded. But a large part of the EU’s money came from the UK and we were a net contributor. So we were quite capable of funding all these projects ourselves. So maybe the good bits of the UN could be done without the UN existing and with far less bureaucracy.
Mark W ==> Lots of judgements to be made — when I write about birds, I usually mention that I support local Audubon efforts, but deplore National Audubon.
The BBC has been doing the above for years.
Human activities are causing world temperatures to rise, posing serious threats to people and nature.
Things are likely to worsen in the coming decades, but scientists argue urgent action can still limit the worst effects of climate change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
BBC Verify gets it wrong led by a known liar, Marianna Spring…
https://order-order.com/2023/09/08/bbc-disinformation-correspondents-cv-fakery/
But it’s the schools, universities etc – where the children are.
See my post for more about this..
And Marianna Spring is the ultimate mainstream lying agent. This woman is beyond contempt, as is the program. It is straight up propaganda.
bally ==> “See my post…” see where?
Further down..>>
Question 2 asks if the earth was located anywhere else in the universe life as we know it would be safe. The justification is if the Earth was closer to Venus or closer to Mars then life would be impossible. Since when has Venus and Mars been the whole universe? Also, neither Venus or Mars are representative of Earth. Venus doesn’t have a natural satellite, rotates in a retrograde motion such that its orbital period is shorter than its rotational period. Mars is significantly smaller than Earth and has two tiny satellites, it doesn’t have a molten core, hence no magnetic field. The only commonality between earth and Mars is they both have a similar rotation period and inclination angle. Therefore, there’s no way of determining whether life could continue if the Earth was closer to Venus’s orbit or Mars’s orbit.
JohnC ==> Now that’s the kind of comment I was looking for….why their answer to the question is nonsense.
The answer promotes the idea that the Earth is exceptional — that it thus remain exactly as it was when the experts went ti high school — the only place in the Universe that could have brought forth Mankind and Intelligent Life. This is not a scientifically correct answer and is not a Climate question.
The question is worse than that. It specifies the Earth is not here but somewhere else. Then ask if life would be the same here. The explicit meaning of the last part asks if life here, without the earth, would still be the same.
They have the answer to Q6 as true, but their reasoning is entirely false. Clearly the climate ‘scientists’ who set this questionnaire have no idea why ice forms at the poles.
RHS ==> Well, the answer’s explanation is a little nutty:
“This is true! Ice caps are melting due to climate change, and it is a problem. Did you know that bright white ice caps reflect the sun’s energy back to space? So the more ice caps melt, the warmer our climate will be. Plus, melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rise too!”
The reflection part is sorta true — they do reflect light and heat but not that much. Melting the Arctic ice cap does nothing to increase sea level and the Antarctic Ice Cap is still a mystery, is it gaining or losing ice mass.
As you say, there’s not a lot of light at the poles, so there isn’t much light to reflect.
Beyond that water is very reflective when light is coming in at those low, polar angles.
As a result, it is difficult to say whether ice or water is more reflective. Is the sea calm, or are their waves? Is the ice clean, or is it covered by dust and ash?
Next, ice is an insulator, when it melts, more heat is able to escape from the ocean’s surface, and given how dry arctic air is, that heat quickly escapes to space.
Then there are clouds, does the absence of ice promote or suppress the formation of clouds?
Finally, if the absence of ice promotes evaporation, then will the more humid air promote increased snowfall on the lands surrounding the arctic?
Like most aspects of climate, this is a very complex subject, it can’t be captured by simplistic scenarios that the climate cabal likes to use.
MarkW ==> ” simplistic scenarios ” –these are simple “talking points” not facts — because they are reasonable in a general way, people accept them as if they were true or as if they were geophysical properties that cannot be denied.
For nearly all the last 10,000 years there has been far less Arctic sea ice than now.
Yet the world is still here !!
Only the LIA and the period around 1979 had more sea ice.
The current levels would be in the top 5-10% of the Holocene.
I notice there are a lot of the climate lobby’s claims stated as if they were facts.
For example how can question 4 be false.
Because if there has been no major changes in the local weather patterning, then how can the local climate had any significant change take place weather it be for good or bad.
Question 5
CO2 is making the Earth too hot.
Sorry but where is the evidence that the Earth is currently too hot.
With question 6 talking as if the melting of the ice caps was a certainty.
Question 9
There claim that climate change is making draughts worse.
Really!! so where is there any evidence to back up that claim.
taxed ==> Yes, you are right — and many of the answers are only true or false based in opinions of some climate scientists in some climate groups.
should the adjective scientist really be applied to very many of these alarmists?
And some of them are both true and false depending upon which part of the information provided you are responding to.
The BBC was first out of the block some years ago. They actually called the program ‘verify’. I thought it was funny that a journalistic program used that name as if not ALL sources need to be verified by any current affairs program/ article. It is of course the primary journalistic directive. To me it meant two things: 1: that the program ‘verified’ was skewed by using ‘trusted sources’ from a small pool of options who of course never lie or misconstrue ie do not need to be actually checked or investigate counter factuals, and 2: that the BBC by default did not properly investigate matters outside the ‘verify’ program, otherwise: why the **** would you call your program ‘verify’?
‘Ministry of Truth’ etc.
bally ==> Ministry of Truth indeed.
> As temperatures increase, ice caps are melting in the Northern Hemisphere. That’s a big problem—because ice caps reflect the sun’s rays and help keep the planet cool.
So by extension all those dark black solar panels are bad for heating and by inhibiting plant growth and by re-radiating heat at night.
Questions that are themselves based on misinformation and make incorrect claims.
What a load of garbage. !
8. Coral reefs are made up of beautiful colors, and they’re important to 25% of all fish
species (even though they take up just 1% of the ocean!). But coral reefs have a hard
time surviving in warmer water temperatures created by climate change. Answer True
______________________________________________________________________________
Below is a map of the world’s coral reefs. It sure looks like corals survive mostly in the
tropics where the water is warm.
If you ask the nearest first grader, “Is it warm or cold in the tropics?” They are most
likely to say “Warm”
If you Google “Climate Change Coral Reef Facts” This comes up:
“Climate change leads to: A warming ocean:
causes thermal stress that contributes
to coral bleaching and infectious disease.”
Maybe there should be one more question:
11. Two plus two equals 5
A. True
B. False
[Correct answer True]
Coral reefs are sinks for CO2.
Without CO2 there is no coral. That is where it gets the carbon atom to help make the material for its shell
Nothing new here except the source. You can get the same misinformation on dozens of “educational” websites many of which are either federal or federally funded. Fortunately I think the channel is saturated so this new source will make little difference.
Here is my (partial) list of 33 “alarmism for kids” websites from 2017:
http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/05/33-alarmist-climate-change-teaching.html
We need to send the kids to: http://www.John-Daly.com. There they can learn from the temperature charts from the many of weather stations that there is no global warming up to ca. 2002.
Check out temperature chart for the weather station at Furnace Creek. This chart falsifies the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes warming of air
I read your essay at JD website. Did your personally know John Daly?
I would really to get update for the Death Valley, but I don’t know how to get temperature data from the GISS database.
Have you read the several recent post by Roy Spencer on the topic?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/
Yes, read all of them. Have you checked out JD site?
This is what I’m talking about, the other side does not fret about showing scientifically that CAGW is real and we must act now. They can just lie and scare the crap out of kids, that is so much easier. Our side needs to get going reassuring not only kids but the general population that we are not in danger, that we have all been lied to. This has to be repeated over and over in the simplest and shortest messages we can come up with. The other side is despicable we need to let everyone know it and dare them to challenge us. We are not little kids and we don’t scare easily.
I agree Bob. The question in my mind is why the other side would want to challenge us when they can simply ignore us and continue their quest for money and power.
We are not easily ignored. Their quest is faltering.
Two good points.
The temperature in Fargo, ND is -17 deg. C. CAGW is nonsense because the vast majority of the humans live in poverty.
Keep the counterpoints handy and simple, but not necessarily about climate:
So, why would one slavishly believe that there is an existential climate crisis, no matter how clever-sounding the narrative? They lie. For a variety of motivations, proponents of the official climate narrative have an agenda, and it has little or nothing to do with truth, safety, stable society or protecting our way of life. It is a death cult.
Teach kids to steer clear of “climate” quizzes, surveys, questionnaires, polls, and internet “influencers.”
You do know that a large number of people will believe all those points?
Hope you are not one of them ! 😉
Sponsored by IKEA and TikTok + 2 far-left woke organisations, and a virtue-seeking woke mining magnate.
What could possible go right !!
ps.. I have written to Fortescue to say that I do not appreciate my shareholdings being used this way.
by sharing un-verified, nonscience-based content…
Fixed !
😉
You call that a wow? THIS is a wow!
How climate change and hot temperatures result in crime boom of 72,000 additional crimes each year in Australia | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
Exxon made me dunnit yeronner!
Rubbish, In really hot weather anyone sensible stays inside or down the beach.
Only thing increasing temperatures is urban densification and expansion.
And all this alarmism is built a future prophecies from unvalidated models.. ie GARBAGE.
I’ll have you know those people go to university and they have letters after their names and they have all the answers-
Experts warn of dire skills shortage threatening air conditioning and refrigeration industry this summer
In the small town I live in , I know of at least 3 air-conditioner installers..
One of them does “big stuff” with all the complexity involved, others are more domestic and small commercial oriented.
But then, most working age people around here tend to do something productive. 🙂
Trade vehicles everywhere, as you would expect in the mid Hunter.
PS: You don’t suppose Iowa Uni has a different explanation for the crime rate do you?
University of Iowa announces plans to close Gender, Women’s, and Sexuality Studies department
They got a bigger compooter takes more variables and connects the dots with AI
And of course, January being school and uni holidays, there are a lot more people about, travelling and doing “not much”…. so any comparison is pointless
Narrative control, get them young as all ideological orgs have always known
The questions are absurd, there is no way to answer them correctly.
Noted that not one of the AGW-cult trolls has come to denounce this stupidity. !
If I were speaking, I’d be speechless! Unabashed propaganda, aimed at your kids.
They wouldn’t do that would they?
Anger over Labour’s shameless bid to ‘rig’ election by easing ID law
I am still waiting for the UN to admit to the many untruths they told in the past including stuff about the recent ‘pandemic’. Politicians and the truth only collide by accident.. .