Impressive – the climate propagandist’s dying art

JoNova quotes Rupert Wyndham’s excellent prose to Bishop Langrish on the 26 ethical flaws of propagandists:

The ethical considerations arise from the activities of propagandists when:

* they seek to howl down any form of questioning or dissent,

* they use threatening vilification as a propagandist tool,

* they damage the careers of those who have the temerity to question their dogma,

* they wilfully and knowingly misrepresent data,

* they wilfully and knowingly suppress contra-indicative data,

* they claim data to be authentic and rigorous when, in reality, it is cherry picked from partisan environmentalist propaganda material,

* they undermine scientific method by refusing to disclose and share data/methodology,

* they wilfully subvert and prostitute their calling for personal gain and self-aggrandisement,

* they subvert hitherto trusted forums of scientific discussion and dissemination,

* they subvert the independence of peer review as a legitimate check and balance,

* they abuse the young by indoctrinating deviant ‘science’,

* they lay waste to the environment with worthless and hideously expensive machines (wind/tidal turbines) as well as other devices such as photo-voltaic cells,

* they oppress the poor by diverting land usage from food crop cultivation to uneconomic and inefficient mono-crop cultivation of so-called biofuels,

* they wilfully associate their personal conceits and financial interests with massive environmental pollution in the developing world,

* they are complicit, for the same reasons, in rainforest and other forms of environmental destruction,

* they manipulate the fiscal arrangements of entire countries on the basis of demonstrable falsehood,

* they spread lies designed to intimidate poorly educated and/or gullible populations,

* they claim economic insights based upon false assumptions, corrupted data and outright lies,

* they sustain vast departments of state to promote falsehood and scaremongering,

* they subsidise supposed independent pressure groups for the purpose of surreptitiously encouraging partisan lobbying,

* they lend succour and support from the safety of privileged positions, inherited and otherwise, to villains and scientific charlatans,

* they seek to close off and monopolise what should be legitimate debate on a controversial matter of importance, again from behind barricades created by privilege,

* they ostentatiously ignore whatever is inconvenient to their tendentious paradigm, however distinguished and credible the sources may be,

* they whitewash arrant knavery,

* they distort, in furtherance of their mendacity, the normal accepted meaning of language,

* they subvert the hitherto trusted organs of mass communication.

Well, enough to be getting on with, I suggest. The questions are how to mitigate the damage/how to hold to account those responsible for it!

40 comments for “Impressive – the climate propagandist’s dying art

  1. Mark
    June 20, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Not restricted to climate propagandists, surely?

    Colours to the mast here: Climate change is real, and man-made. Thanks for listening.

    • DerekP
      June 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm

      So what was happening with the climate before man existed?

      • June 20, 2012 at 9:15 pm

        Those damned Apatosaurs and their 4x4s 😉

  2. Greg Tingey
    June 20, 2012 at 8:22 am

    ONE SLIGHT PROBLEM

    The climate IS changing – on average it IS getting warmer – which means more energy in “the system” (the whole planet) which means more, more frequent, and more violent extremes of climate and weather.

    Sorry, but given the choice of believeing The Royal Society, and all the quivalent institutions across the planet, or two oil companies + the Koch brothers, then I know whose presentation I’m going to believe.

    Also, if you do any amount of gardening, and have done for many years, you will have noticed the changes.
    Gradual, erratic, but there, jsut the same.

    Now grow up, unless, of course, you are going to start denying evolution?

    • SteveW
      June 20, 2012 at 11:00 am

      “The climate IS changing – on average it IS getting warmer – which means more energy in “the system” (the whole planet) which means more, more frequent, and more violent extremes of climate and weather.”

      I was under the impression that more warming was predicted the closer you get to the polar extremes (the lack of monitoring at these locations and the use of models to smear temperatures over 1200km distances notwithstanding).

      If you agree with that, would you be so kind as to explain how the reduction in temperature gradient from the tropics to the polar regions is supposed to lead to greater extremes, rather than a more subdued global climate system?

      Thanks.

    • June 20, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Tingey. We’re at the end of the climb up out from the last Ice Age. What would you expect to be happening at such a point in time? Colder? No change? Or warmer? What is happening is what should be happening. And if you think cold is better, then just check out the misery the LIA brought to Northern Europe. Oh, and by the way, it has been cooling since 1998 and it is going to get colder.

      Wrap up warm

  3. Mark
    June 20, 2012 at 8:46 am

    I garden, and have seen it.

    But I also remember when I started cycling to school, in Summer I always used to pack a raincoat, since you never knew if it was going to be raining by the evening. By the time I finished cycling to school, I never bothered.

    Not that these anecdotes prove anything, of course, but they do constitute evidence.

    • sovereigntea
      June 24, 2012 at 10:33 am

      Your “evidence” ignores this years wet weather ?

      If you travelled to school this year you would have required your raincoat.
      😮

      The weather continues to be changeable as it always has.

      Propagandised “climate change” is an incantation employed to beguile the gullible into accepting and enacting an irrational national socialist agenda of regulation, taxation, policy and control dictated by an unelected illegitimate cabal of financiers and their minions ie Global corporate governance. UN / CFR / Chatham Hse / Bilderberg / Committee of 300 etc etc

      In short a SCAM !

  4. Jim
    June 20, 2012 at 9:14 am

    @Greg Tingey: Yeah right. Thats a nice little sidestep you’ve essayed there. The earth is warming (questionable for the last 10-15 years, but I’ll give you its warmer now than it was 150 years ago), but you don’t mention why, and you jump nicely into ‘extreme climate events’ being the result. Were there more ‘extreme climate events’ in the Middle Ages when it was just as warm as now? And did the world come to an end? Or did it naturally cool down a bit (quite a bit actually) through the Little Ice Ages? All of which managed to happen without man’s assistance either way.

    Global Warming, which subtly morphed into Climate Change, and is now trying to be marketed as Extreme Climate Events, is nothing but a scam. Its way of trying to control people, to tax them, to tell them what they can & can’t do. It is a political movement. It has nothing to do with science.

    • Mark
      June 20, 2012 at 9:32 am

      We could argue this point for ever. Global warming “morphed” (“changed” would do) into climate change because in certain areas, local temperatures will drop. For example, as the Gulf Stream shuts down, Scotland will become substantially colder, even though the average temperature around the globe will have increased. Extreme climate events will be the result of global warming; they are essentially the same thing.

      The trouble is, that the scientific evidence that the world is warming has an impact on political decisions, and the subject therefore has become politicised. In most political debates, science, evidence and proof take back seats to dogma, manipulation, and debating skills.

      Governments exist to do what other, smaller, groups of people cannot do for themselves, e.g. national defense. Combating global warming will require concerted action by many governments, which will cost taxpayer money. This is all the evidence that many “Small Government” enthusiasts (of which I am one, incidentally) need, to denounce the whole thing as a leftist plot.

      • Jim
        June 20, 2012 at 11:49 am

        Um, so why were we told the South of England was going to become Mediterranean in climate then? All through the 90s and beyond thats the line we were fed. We were all going to die of heat exhaustion in summer, winters would never see snow and ice again (remember that little prediction?) and Yorkshire would be the new Tuscany.

        Was that all boll*cks then? Were the scientists completely wrong? Didn’t know what they were talking about? If the effect of ‘Global Warming’ is to make the UK very cold (and I accept if the Gulf Stream changed we would be) why was that not made clear from the start?

        Could it be because its a bit difficult to tell people they need to pay more for fuel, but BTW you’re going to need a shed load more of it cos its going to get a lot colder?

        Or could it be that the ‘scientists’ are making it up as they go along, to please their paymasters, the politicians and activists?

        • Mark
          June 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm

          Hi Jim,
          I don’t recall being told that the South of England was going to become Mediterranean in climate, but perhaps it will be, perhaps it won’t. This doesn’t impact my statement about Scotland, that is more impacted by the Gulf Stream than the South. I can tell you though, that when I was a kid, growing up in the South of England, you could reliably predict that every Winter there would be a few weeks with snow on the ground. Not any more.

          Why was there no statement at the start that Scotland would become colder? Because at the start, when global warming was starting to be measured, no-one knew that the Gulf Stream was also slowing as a result.

          Are scientists making it up as they go along? Absolutely. It’s the nature of scientific inquiry. As more information is gathered, predictions are refined, understanding grows, models are improved and results become more precise.

          In the same way that there is no scientific controversy about evolution, regardless of what the creationists might claim, so there is no scientific controversy about the fact that our planet is heating up. The precision is lacking in knowing just how fast the planet is warming, what the impact will be as it does, and whether it is in fact possible to halt it (and how this might be achieved).

          • SteveW
            June 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm

            ” I can tell you though, that when I was a kid, growing up in the South of England, you could reliably predict that every Winter there would be a few weeks with snow on the ground. Not any more.”

            Atlantic multidecadal oscillation maybe?

            • Mark
              June 20, 2012 at 6:09 pm

              Well, you could be right. One of the enormous challenges in climate modelling is the complexity of climate patterns. The Earth’s climate is always changing. There are ice ages, hot times, and everything in between, and the climate (and sea levels) will vary by (in human terms) extraordinary amounts on their own, without any help from humans.

              Do you have a relatively short-term explanation for the fact that the North polar ice cap is, in Summer, these days, a sea?

              • David A. Evans
                June 20, 2012 at 11:00 pm

                Do you have a relatively short-term explanation for the fact that the North polar ice cap is, in Summer, these days, a sea?

                as it was in the late ’30s?

                In 1938 on Dec 12th the Soviet icebreaker Syedoff was drifting in open water and wasn’t frozen in until Dec 18th. It was free again in February! (The 14th IIRC)

                EDIT: That was within 300Nm of the Pole!

                DaveE.

          • June 21, 2012 at 5:26 am

            I remember being told by leading gardening experts that we should all invest in Mediterranean plants, and drought resistant varieties of common English plants.

            Lest week, as I stated out of the window at the sheeting rain, I wondered what they were recommending now. Rice? Watercress?

            • June 21, 2012 at 10:05 am

              🙂

            • Mark
              June 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm

              Tomatoes, aubergines and red peppers could be a bad idea.

          • Jim
            June 21, 2012 at 7:37 pm

            Here’s a little example from 2002 courtesy of the internet’s long memory:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/uk_change.shtml

            A report detailing what the UK can look forward to – hotter (and dryer!!!) summers, the SE to get 4-5 degrees of extra heat, up to 90% less snow in winter, more rain outside summer.

            How did that little lot turn out ten years on? A couple of the coldest winters on record in the last 2-3 years, and some of the wettest (and certainly not hot) summers on record in the last 5 years.

            The scientific principle is very simple: you observe what is happening, you formulate a theory, you make predictions based on your observations and theory, and then you see how your predictions pan out. If they prove correct then maybe your theory is right, but more tests will be needed to corroborate it. If your predictions prove to be wrong your theory is incorrect and you have to start again.

            You are starting from the point ‘knowing’ that ‘Man is causing climate change’ and are therefore ignoring all the failed predictions as mere details. Whereas you should be questioning your basic premise – is it Man causing changes in the climate (which of course have always and will always occur), or is it some other combination of factors outside Man’s control?

            • Mark
              June 22, 2012 at 7:24 am

              Ten years on is not an appropriate timeframe. The last 5 degree rise in global temperatures took 20,000 years. If the next one takes 200 years it will be, relatively speaking, in the blink of an eye.

      • David A. Evans
        June 20, 2012 at 10:54 pm

        Temperature is a false metric.

        Let me go to extremes to demonstrate the point.
        Cool a litre of water by 1°C and warm a litre of air by 2°C, the average temperature has gone up but the energy has gone down by a significant margin.

        In the real World atmosphere, by ignoring enthalpy, we are making the same mistake.

        DaveE.

        • Mark
          June 21, 2012 at 6:05 pm

          Are the oceans not warming too? And becoming more acid, into the bargain….

          • David A. Evans
            June 21, 2012 at 11:24 pm

            More acidic? Are you joking?
            Daily variations are greater than the paltry amounts of CO2 we add.
            CO2 in oceans is roughly 50:1 ocean to atmosphere. We add about 3% of the natural cycling. This is trivial and inconsequential!
            The best they have managed is a modelled 0.1 decrease in Ph. Again, trivial even if true.
            Ocean energy content has also levelled, Arctic ice extent reducing may have something to do with this, allowing oceanic energy to radiate more freely to the atmosphere & thence to space.

            DaveE.

            • Mark
              June 22, 2012 at 7:16 am

              Actual measurements of ocean acidity indicate that they are becoming more acidic. This is thought to be due to increased absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

              Molluscs and other shelled sea creatures are observed as having measurably thinner shells than before.

              • David A. Evans
                June 22, 2012 at 8:18 am

                The longest studies of the California coast indicate trivial changes in long term ALKALINITY!

  5. June 20, 2012 at 10:15 am

    That’s a very pertinent list, but sadly the scam goes on.

  6. June 20, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Quite a blueprint though.

  7. June 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Climate changes. Always has and always will. As for it being man made, well, I wasn’t aware that we were responsible for the massive change that caused nearly 99% of life to becme extinct in the middle of the Permian period…

    Our activities may be exacerbating what is happening naturally, but that is far from proven and with the corruption of science going on, I am increasingly sceptical.

    And, frankly, a warmer planet is more conducive to life – so bring it on. 😈

    • Mark
      June 22, 2012 at 7:19 am

      Agree re the fact that climate changes all the time. And there is an extent to which the discussion of whether the current warming is due to mankind’s activity or not is irrelevant. The questions are what will the effect be, and if they are bad, can we mitigate them.

      Given that land is useful to land-dwellng animals and that sea levels will rise as antarctic ice melts into the sea, one could argue that warming is not more conducive to life, especially land-dwelling life. And the impact on crop levels might also be less than helpful.

  8. Greg Tingey
    June 20, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    Yes.
    The climate changes, and is changing, and will continue to do so.
    the problem is … is there any significant input from humanity’s activities?
    The answer seems to be, with a high probabilty – yes.
    Note – high probability.
    But we can’t afford NOT to take notice.

    Like the entirely separate issue of the “ozone Hole” which showed that humanity’s actions can have serious effects, if nothing else.

    • June 21, 2012 at 5:27 am

      We should certainly take notice, yes. But the idea that we should radically change our way of life in a futile attempt to survive the inevitable is a nonsense.

      We’ll adapt, that’s what we do.

    • SteveW
      June 21, 2012 at 9:52 am

      But we can’t afford NOT to take notice.

      Could you suggest a rational reason for spending billions of pounds on potentially worthless mitigation measures before we have any certainty over whether climate feedbacks are net positive or net negative and if you believe them to be net positive, perhaps explain why we’ve not already disappeared in some kind of runaway warming hellstorm?

      • Mark
        June 21, 2012 at 6:06 pm

        Yes. It’s like an insurance policy. You pay a small percentage of gross world product to reduce the chance of devastation.

        • nisakiman.
          June 21, 2012 at 8:59 pm

          Most insurance policies are weighted so much in favour of the insurer that they are a rip-off.

          • Mark
            June 22, 2012 at 7:20 am

            I hate insurance companies too, but we’re not talking about a conventional insurance policy here.

  9. Greg Tingey
    June 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Who said anything about changing our way of life?
    I didn’t.
    It is perfectly possible to get enough energy for our needs, without adopting a hair-shirt.
    In this respect, some of you seem to have bought the neo-Puritan message of the so-called “greens” – who are nothing of the sort, actually.
    The “short-term” necessary measure is nuclear power.
    The longer-term necessary measures involve spending on R&D for really efficient PV methods of power-generation, couipled with tidal, watermills and geothermal.
    Lots of little “power-stations” all connected to the grid, using modern, cheap mass-produced, solid-state controls for the interconnections.
    We ar being held back, of course by the present power companies, who see this as a threat to their guvmint-agreed profits.

  10. john in cheshire
    June 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Chuckles, good list. Of course, it records a good number of the characteristics of socialists/marxists/fascists and all other leftwing deviants.

    • Chuckles
      June 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Thanks John, Always good to see so many people interested in religion and ethics.

    • nisakiman.
      June 21, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      Yes, I was thinking it reflected the ethos of the Tobacco Control Industry to a Tee. And will soon become the guidelines for the Alcohol Control Industry.

      • David A. Evans
        June 21, 2012 at 11:32 pm

        Yes, I was thinking it reflected the ethos of the Tobacco Control Industry to a Tee. And will soon become the guidelines for the Alcohol Control Industry.

        Don’t start me on that as it’s already begun.

Comments are closed.