The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

George Orwell was a deeply insightful man, and he sensed the dangers ahead for our society. Here we see the United States House of Representatives moving to assemble the building blocks of our very own Ministry of Climate Truth. Somewhere, George Orwell is nodding and puffing his pipe.


Democrat Congressional Committee Demands Google Bury “Climate Misinformation”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has demanded Google demonetize climate skeptics, and provide education to millions of people who have been exposed to “dangerous misinformation”. Letter from Congress If the letter is not readable on your device, the original link is available here. The…
Continue reading →

The key actions demanded:

• Stop promoting climate denial and climate disinformation videos by removing them immediately from the platform’s recommendation algorithm.
• Add ‘climate misinformation’ to the platform’s list of borderline content
• Stop monetising videos that promote harmful misinformation and falsehoods about the causes and effects of the climate crisis.
• Take steps to correct the record for millions of users who have been exposed to the climate misinformation on YouTube.

 

Appalling and horrifying. But the creationists already established the precedents for political suppression of scientific knowledge. Now we're just getting it from the know-nothing left as well as the know-nothing right...

 

I now call the MSM the Ministry of Societal Manipulation.

 

1. In my opinion, climate change is best described as
a. an emergency
b. a crisis
c. a disaster
d. a catastrophe
e. an apocalypse

2. I think the total number of people who will die because of climate change in this century is closest to
a. 5 billion
b. 6 billion
c. 7 billion
d. 8 billion
e. more than 8 billion

3. I would describe my feelings about climate change as
a. concerned
b. anxious
c. worried
d. panicking
e. hopeless

4. In my opinion, the companies that produce fossil fuels
a. care more about profits than the future
b. don't want our children to have a good life
c. should be put out of business
d. are poisoning the planet
e. have made a pact with Satan

5. I think the best way to deal with scientists whose research disputes the consensus on climate change is
a. heavy fines
b. dismissal from their jobs
c. a permanent ban on working in climatology
d. five years in prison
e. capital punishment

6. Etc.

 

I enjoy the irony of the master propaganda spinner here projecting his own tactics on to the honest people.

 

Have you tried taking your opinion about climate to a forum for scientists? What did they say?

 

Bankrupting opponents with legal costs to defend against meretricious and uniformly unsuccessful lawsuits paid for by wealthy, anonymous donors can be called many things, but "honest" is not one of them.

 

Have you tried taking your opinion about climate to a forum for scientists? What did they say?

 

But truth's hard to bury.

WELL, THAT HARSHES THE “CLIMATE CHANGE” NARRATIVE: Climate change: global warming may have started before industrial revolution, Chinese study says.

 

GREEN NUDE EEL SNEAK PREVIEW: Frozen wind turbines hamper Texas power output, state’s electric grid operator says.

Frozen Turbines don't turn.
Wind Turbines that don't turn, don't generate electricity.
Which reduces to:
Frozen Turbines don't generate electricity.

 

And of course, Climate Feedback does not permit anyone to correct the false claims on their website. Only their hand-picked "qualified" climate scientists have the opportunity to express their views or state relevant facts.

 

Attenborough twisted the truth about dying walrus: why believe him on climate change?
Posted on February 23, 2021 | Comments Offon Attenborough twisted the truth about dying walrus: why believe him on climate change?
Sir David Attenborough hid the truth about hundreds of walrus falling off Siberian cliffs to their deaths a few years ago – he insisted this was due to climate change, but we now know he was well aware the tusked beasts fell because they were being stalked by predatory polar bears. Since he was willing to tell outright falsehoods about dying walrus to powerful elites at the 2019 World Economic Forum, I expect he’d say anything to advance his agenda with members of the UN Security Council.


Headline quotes from Attenborough’s address to the UN Security Council today:

“Climate change a threat to global security”

Climate change could, within a lifetime, destroy “entire cities and societies“

“Climate change is biggest threat modern humans have ever faced”

In other words, lots of emotional hyperbole from a showman who wants to leave a legacy. This is not the dispassionate science we require to make sensible decisions about the future. Attenborough spouted contrived nonsense about walrus and now spouts contrived nonsense about climate change. . . .

 

Climate Propaganda burns out: neither hope nor doom works on audiences anymore
Hard to find some good news out there today. But here’s a bit:

People are immune to climate hopey gloom
Researchers tried to figure out whether to make their climate propaganda more scary or more uplifting but found instead that they might as well show 500 people “the history of smartphones”. (That was the control video). Nothing works anymore.

It was a complete wash. No new activists were made.

However, despite these emotional responses, neither [doom nor hope] video was associated with significant differences in climate change risk perceptions, likelihood of behavior change, or likelihood of climate activism. These null results suggest that the impacts of a single hope or fear appeal can be overstated…

After watching the online movies, nobody thought climate change was scarier, nobody want to change anything they did, and no one wanted to be climate activist either, unless they were already one to start with. After 30 years of propaganda, people have heard it all. Pounding them them with more isn’t going to work.

It didn’t matter which movie they saw.


Neither doom, hope nor placebo did a thing.

The multi-billion dollar industry of climate propaganda was hoping to tweak their advertising and find the right point on the Dial of Fear. Instead they showed it’s all a waste of money. Just like research like this.

If they had shown something new, like, say, a skeptical video that the audience had never seen, that would have shifted perceptions, risks, and activism. (Remember when a one hour debate with Christopher Monckton shifted fully 9% of the audience?)

There’s a lot of upside there to Red-Pill people with a story that many haven’t heard. Which is exactly why climate believers have to turn up the censorship screws. So get out there, share the message.

This paper was submitted last April, but not accepted for eight months. It must have been hard to figure out how to spin those dismal results:

Keep reading →

 

He owns half of the worlds data now... Does it matter that he isn't elected by the people who gave it to him?

 

So.... you are OK with misinformation?

 

I am OK with free speech. I am not OK with anyone claiming the right to decide what is and is not "misinformation."

 

That is not what I asked

and “free speech” does not extend to shouting fire in a theatre neither does it extend to lies about a serious issue

as for deciding what is and is not misinformation - you do that everyday when you decline to look at scientific evidence.

there is a misinformation pandemic that is harming many and somehow that must be tackled. Ideally we would teach every human the skills of critical analysis of information and how to avoid confirmation bias but the truth is that only a handful out of hundreds can truly manage that

 

Free speech certainly extends to claims about a serious issue that some opponents may call lies. Inaccurate speech remains protected. It does not matter in the slightest what level of critical analysis skill people may or may not have.
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” --Justice Louis Brandeis

 

By private citizens, of course. We have to tolerate religion, after all. Misinformation by governments -- such as anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering contrary to established empirical science -- is a different matter.

 

Our Constitution does not actually protect government speech.

 

Because you are trying to evade.

Because false invocation of an emergency or crisis can create panic and get innocent people killed. You need to think long and hard about just who is effectively shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater in the case of climate studies.

Then everyone who presumes to dispute with me here on PoFo should be banned? Religion should be banned?

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" Science absolutely depends on people's liberty to judge all the evidence for themselves.

Agreed. And it is being conducted by disingenuous anti-CO2 -- even anti-industry -- scaremongers.

The irony...

And you would not be one of them.

 

Every dystopia is created by people who believe they are acting for the betterment of mankind. More colloquially: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

Happy Anniversary, Most Cynical EPA Memo Ever
Charles Rotter
What this memo shows is EPA’s recognizing it had to move its global warming campaign away from the failed model of discredited Big Green pressure groups and their “mascots” the…

 

Step Away From That Semicolon — Now!
Posted on 02 Apr 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 9 Comments


There is something about professional physicists that society finds very difficult. You may recall, for example, the hot water that whelmed Professor Alessandro Strumia when he took on the Athena Swan coterie at CERN, daring to suggest that male dominance within the field had more to do with personal choice and gender attributes than it … Continue reading →

 

Too funny.