{"id":103071,"date":"2014-01-02T17:53:49","date_gmt":"2014-01-02T17:53:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/memoryholeblog.com\/2014\/01\/02\/the-magnificent-achievements-of-eco-propaganda\/"},"modified":"2014-01-02T17:53:49","modified_gmt":"2014-01-02T17:53:49","slug":"the-magnificent-achievements-of-eco-propaganda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/the-magnificent-achievements-of-eco-propaganda\/","title":{"rendered":"The Magnificent Achievements of Eco-Propaganda"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"By James F. Tracy<\/p>\n

Today a good deal of what qualifies as propaganda is much more subtle than overt. When an entire civilization or way of life is to be significantly altered the tried-and-true method of \u201crepeating a lie until it becomes truth\u201d needs to be done over a period of many years and in a multitude of varying ways to take hold and change the very assumptions and beliefs of a people.<\/p>\n

This process is especially vital for reaching a given society\u2019s more elite demographic\u2013the opinion leaders who perceive themselves as \u201csmarter than the average bear\u201d and thus impervious to simple appeals and indoctrination.<\/p>\n

A case in point is the agenda backed by powerful global elites and recognizable under names such as \u201cclimate change\u201d and \u201csustainability.\u201d The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\u2019s Fifth Assessment Report, released on September 27, 2013, came replete with an assemblage of legitimizing features along these lines (\u201cscientific,\u201d \u201cscholarly,\u201d \u201cauthoritative,\u201d \u201cpeer reviewed,\u201d). Also termed the \u201cClimate Bible,\u201d journalists and policymakers alike regard it as \u201cauthoritative\u201d and \u201cthe gold standard\u201d of climate science. The public is told that the official body\u2019s findings are now clearer than ever: \u201chuman influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.\u201d[1]<\/p>\n

Among the most vociferous agitators for the IPCC\u2019s climate change orthodoxy are the foundation-funded, tax-exempt, progressive-left media that sit alongside the bevy of similarly tax-exempt, foundation-funded environmental organizations that together uphold and publicize the theory of CO2-based anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC).[2] Self-professed as \u201cindependent,\u201d \u201cinvestigative,\u201d even \u201ceducational,\u201d the so-called \u201calternative media\u201d turn a blind eye to seriously scrutinizing the highly questionable IPCC\u2019s \u201cscientific\u201d review of the climatological literature and its implications for the array of ambitious programs and policies stealthily introduced throughout the industrialized world, many of which are seldom subject to popular plebiscite. Think \u201csmart grid\u201d and \u201csmart growth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Logical questions from such apparently independent organs might include, \u201cHow does the IPCC produce its findings?\u201d and \u201cWho benefits?\u201d Instead, there is an almost knee-jerk response on behalf of progressive-left editors and readerships to trust and support the UN group\u2019s purportedly objective and meticulous review of the peer-reviewed climatological literature.<\/p>\n

\"\"Between August and December 2013 such progressive outlets published dozens of articles and commentaries whole-heartedly touting the IPCC report. For example, Truthout.org posted 25 articles, Alternet.org ran 40, MotherJones.com circulated 38, and DemocracyNow.org featured 11.<\/p>\n

These were often presented with bleak headlines accenting the urgent appeals found in the IPCC publicity. For example, \u201cInternational Scientists Warn Climate Deniers Are Enabling Earth\u2019s Suicide<\/a>\u201d (Truthout, 9\/13\/13), \u201c6 Scary Conclusions in the UN\u2019s New Climate Report\u201d<\/a> (Mother Jones, 9\/27\/13), \u201cGreenhouse Gas in Atmosphere Hits New Record: UN<\/a>,\u201d (Alternet, 11\/1\/13), and \u201c\u2019Africa is Being Pushed Closer to the Fire\u2019: Africans Say Continent Can\u2019t Wait for Climate Action<\/a>\u201d (Democracy Now! 11\/22\/13).<\/p>\n

Uncritical advocacy of the IPCC\u2019s anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming extended beyond headlines to media criticism. In December, for example, the progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) observed that corporate controlled network newscasts routinely failed to link \u201cextreme weather\u201d to \u201cglobal warming.\u201d \u201cIn the first nine months of 2013,\u201d FAIR observes,<\/p>\n

\n

there were 450 segments of 200 words or more that covered extreme weather: flooding, forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes and heat waves. But of that total, just a tiny fraction\u201416 segments, or 4 percent of the total\u2014so much as mentioned the words \u201cclimate change,\u201d \u201cglobal warming\u201d or \u201cgreenhouse gases.[3]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What is left unmentioned is that fact that all of these \u201cextreme weather\u201d incidents have one common denominator that FAIR and corporate and progressive media alike consistently overlook: the sun. As University of Winnipeg climatologist Dr. Tim Ball explains (here<\/a> at 35:00), the IPCC\u2019s \u201cterms of reference\u201d through which the body proceeds to generate its findings exclude the sun and its many demonstrable atmospheric effects as factors in the warming and cooling of the earth\u2019s climate.[4] It is thus no wonder that at best fringe or nonexistent causes of \u201cclimate change\u201d\u2014such as minuscule alterations in atmospheric gases\u2014are pointed to with great alarm by the IPCC and its proponents.<\/p>\n

Despite far more unambiguous and compelling scientific explanations the notion that \u201ccarbon emissions\u201d are the foremost cause of natural climactic events has become something of a religion, and this is especially the case on the progressive-left, where adherents mechanically accept the curious agenda and its ostensibly \u201cscientific\u201d basis while vehemently condemning non-believers as \u201cclimate deniers.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has documented in her important 2011 expos\u00c3\u00a9<\/a>, the IPCC\u2019s scholarly personnel is in fact heavily weighted toward what are often third-or-fourth-rate scientific talent whose eco-political stances are strictly in accord with the IPCC\u2019s \u201cresearch\u201d agenda pushing anthropogenic climate change. IPCC authors often include climatology graduate students and even environmental activists from organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund\u2013indeed, figures with little-if-any scientific training but with clear agendas to promote.<\/p>\n

LaFramboise further found that one third of the literature reviewed and cited by the IPCC in its 2007 report was\u2014contrary to IPCC chief publicist Ragendra Pachauri\u2019s pronouncements\u2014not even peer-reviewed, and in many cases included citations of promotional literature devised and distributed by environmental activist organizations.<\/p>\n

These unethical and compromising relationships are not difficult to explain if one is to recognize the IPCC for what it in fact is\u2013a powerful political organization with the overarching objective of manufacturing consent and achieving transnational policy harmonization around the largely discursive construct of anthropogenic carbon-centric climate change.<\/p>\n

The fact that the IPCC is capable of forthrightly carrying out one of the greatest scientific frauds in human history, setting long range governmental policies while enlisting allegedly intellectual sophisticates and \u201cprogressive\u201d news media as its most devoted foot soldiers, is no small-scale feat. It is, rather, an immense achievement in modern propaganda and thought control that only hints at the powerful forces behind a much more far-reaching agenda.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, \u201cHuman Influence on Climate Clear: IPCC Says<\/a>,\u201d Geneva Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. The notion of \u201ca 97% consensus\u201d has itself become a common mantra for climate change fear mongering and grounds for labeling someone a \u201cclimate denier.\u201d Yet there is limited evidence of any such consensus concerning ACC among climatologists. The oft-cited 2009 American Geophysical Union survey alleging a 98% consensus among scientists on ACC cannot sustain even modest scrutiny. See Larry Bell, \u201cThat Scientific Global Warming Consensus \u2026 Not!<\/a>\u201d Forbes.com<\/em>, July 7, 2012, and \u201cGlobal Warming Consensus Looking More Like a Myth<\/a>,\u201d Investors Business Daily<\/em>, February 15, 2013. Another study held up as \u201cproof\u201d of scientific consensus, \u201cExpert Credibility in Climate Change,\u201d asserts only carefully qualified claims along these lines. \u201cA broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself,\u201d the authors point out, \u201cthe distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.\u201d The brief paper assesses \u201can extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers\u201d to conclude that the scientific expertise and prominence of those who accept the IPCC\u2019s ACC tenets surpass those who remain \u201cunconvinced.\u201d This begs the question, To what degree are the requisites of foundation funding related to espousing IPCC\/ACC opinion? William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, \u201cExpert Credibility in Climate Change<\/a>,\u201d Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.<\/p>\n

[2] James F. Tracy, \u201cThe Forces Behind Carbon-Centric Environmentalism<\/a>,\u201d Global Research<\/em>, November 12, 2013.<\/p>\n

[3] \u201cTV News and Extreme Weather: Don\u2019t Mention Climate Change<\/a>,\u201d Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, December 18, 2013. It might be added that corporate media and progressive-left counterparts uniformly fail to consider other possible causes of such unusual weather events, such as geoengineering and similar \u201cenvironmental modification techniques\u201d acknowledged by the US military and undertaken in many industrialized countries. See, for example, Michel Chossudovsky, \u201cClimate Change, Geoengineering, and Environmental Modification Techniques<\/a>,\u201d Global Research<\/em>, November 24, 2013.<\/p>\n

[4] Independent journalist James Corbett has published several insightful interviews with Tim Ball, available for download here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Like this:<\/h3>\n

Like<\/span> Loading…<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\n

\"\"By James F. Tracy<\/p>\n

Today a good deal of what qualifies as propaganda is much more subtle than overt. When an entire civilization or way of life is to be significantly altered the tried-and-true method of “repeating a lie until it becomes truth” needs to be done over a period of many years and in a multitude of varying ways to take hold and change the very assumptions and beliefs of a people.<\/p>\n

This process is especially vital for reaching a given society’s more elite demographic—the opinion leaders who perceive themselves as “smarter than the average bear” and thus impervious to simple appeals and indoctrination.<\/p>\n

<\/span>A case in point is the agenda backed by powerful global elites and recognizable under names such as “climate change” and “sustainability.” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, released on September 27, 2013, came replete with an assemblage of legitimizing features along these lines (“scientific,” “scholarly,” “authoritative,” “peer reviewed,”). Also termed the “Climate Bible,” journalists and policymakers alike regard it as “authoritative” and “the gold standard” of climate science. The public is told that the official body’s findings are now clearer than ever: “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”[1]<\/p>\n

Among the most vociferous agitators for the IPCC’s climate change orthodoxy are the foundation-funded, tax-exempt, progressive-left media that sit alongside the bevy of similarly tax-exempt, foundation-funded environmental organizations that together uphold and publicize the theory of CO2-based anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC).[2] Self-professed as “independent,” “investigative,” even “educational,” the so-called “alternative media” turn a blind eye to seriously scrutinizing the highly questionable IPCC’s “scientific” review of the climatological literature and its implications for the array of ambitious programs and policies stealthily introduced throughout the industrialized world, many of which are seldom subject to popular plebiscite. Think “smart grid” and “smart growth.”<\/p>\n

Logical questions from such apparently independent organs might include, “How does the IPCC produce its findings?” and “Who benefits?” Instead, there is an almost knee-jerk response on behalf of progressive-left editors and readerships to trust and support the UN group’s purportedly objective and meticulous review of the peer-reviewed climatological literature.<\/p>\n

\"\"Between August and December 2013 such progressive outlets published dozens of articles and commentaries whole-heartedly touting the IPCC report. For example, Truthout.org posted 25 articles, Alternet.org ran 40, MotherJones.com circulated 38, and DemocracyNow.org featured 11.<\/p>\n

These were often presented with bleak headlines accenting the urgent appeals found in the IPCC publicity. For example, “International Scientists Warn Climate Deniers Are Enabling Earth’s Suicide<\/a>” (Truthout, 9\/13\/13), “6 Scary Conclusions in the UN’s New Climate Report”<\/a> (Mother Jones, 9\/27\/13), “Greenhouse Gas in Atmosphere Hits New Record: UN<\/a>,” (Alternet, 11\/1\/13), and “’Africa is Being Pushed Closer to the Fire’: Africans Say Continent Can’t Wait for Climate Action<\/a>” (Democracy Now! 11\/22\/13).<\/p>\n

Uncritical advocacy of the IPCC’s anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming extended beyond headlines to media criticism. In December, for example, the progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) observed that corporate controlled network newscasts routinely failed to link “extreme weather” to “global warming.” “In the first nine months of 2013,” FAIR observes,<\/p>\n

\n

there were 450 segments of 200 words or more that covered extreme weather: flooding, forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes and heat waves. But of that total, just a tiny fraction–16 segments, or 4 percent of the total–so much as mentioned the words “climate change,” “global warming” or “greenhouse gases.[3]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What is left unmentioned is that fact that all of these “extreme weather” incidents have one common denominator that FAIR and corporate and progressive media alike consistently overlook: the sun. As University of Winnipeg climatologist Dr. Tim Ball explains (here<\/a> at 35:00), the IPCC’s “terms of reference” through which the body proceeds to generate its findings exclude the sun and its many demonstrable atmospheric effects as factors in the warming and cooling of the earth’s climate.[4] It is thus no wonder that at best fringe or nonexistent causes of “climate change”–such as minuscule alterations in atmospheric gases–are pointed to with great alarm by the IPCC and its proponents.<\/p>\n

Despite far more unambiguous and compelling scientific explanations the notion that “carbon emissions” are the foremost cause of natural climactic events has become something of a religion, and this is especially the case on the progressive-left, where adherents mechanically accept the curious agenda and its ostensibly “scientific” basis while vehemently condemning non-believers as “climate deniers.”<\/p>\n

As Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has documented in her important 2011 exposé<\/a>, the IPCC’s scholarly personnel is in fact heavily weighted toward what are often third-or-fourth-rate scientific talent whose eco-political stances are strictly in accord with the IPCC’s “research” agenda pushing anthropogenic climate change. IPCC authors often include climatology graduate students and even environmental activists from organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund—indeed, figures with little-if-any scientific training but with clear agendas to promote.<\/p>\n

LaFramboise further found that one third of the literature reviewed and cited by the IPCC in its 2007 report was–contrary to IPCC chief publicist Ragendra Pachauri’s pronouncements–not even peer-reviewed, and in many cases included citations of promotional literature devised and distributed by environmental activist organizations.<\/p>\n

These unethical and compromising relationships are not difficult to explain if one is to recognize the IPCC for what it in fact is—a powerful political organization with the overarching objective of manufacturing consent and achieving transnational policy harmonization around the largely discursive construct of anthropogenic carbon-centric climate change.<\/p>\n

The fact that the IPCC is capable of forthrightly carrying out one of the greatest scientific frauds in human history, setting long range governmental policies while enlisting allegedly intellectual sophisticates and “progressive” news media as its most devoted foot soldiers, is no small-scale feat. It is, rather, an immense achievement in modern propaganda and thought control that only hints at the powerful forces behind a much more far-reaching agenda.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Human Influence on Climate Clear: IPCC Says<\/a>,” Geneva Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. The notion of “a 97% consensus” has itself become a common mantra for climate change fear mongering and grounds for labeling someone a “climate denier.” Yet there is limited evidence of any such consensus concerning ACC among climatologists. The oft-cited 2009 American Geophysical Union survey alleging a 98% consensus among scientists on ACC cannot sustain even modest scrutiny. See Larry Bell, “That Scientific Global Warming Consensus … Not!<\/a>” Forbes.com<\/em>, July 7, 2012, and “Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like a Myth<\/a>,” Investors Business Daily<\/em>, February 15, 2013. Another study held up as “proof” of scientific consensus, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” asserts only carefully qualified claims along these lines. “A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself,” the authors point out, “the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.” The brief paper assesses “an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers” to conclude that the scientific expertise and prominence of those who accept the IPCC’s ACC tenets surpass those who remain “unconvinced.” This begs the question, To what degree are the requisites of foundation funding related to espousing IPCC\/ACC opinion? William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change<\/a>,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.<\/p>\n

[2] James F. Tracy, “The Forces Behind Carbon-Centric Environmentalism<\/a>,” Global Research<\/em>, November 12, 2013.<\/p>\n

[3] “TV News and Extreme Weather: Don’t Mention Climate Change<\/a>,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, December 18, 2013. It might be added that corporate media and progressive-left counterparts uniformly fail to consider other possible causes of such unusual weather events, such as geoengineering and similar “environmental modification techniques” acknowledged by the US military and undertaken in many industrialized countries. See, for example, Michel Chossudovsky, “Climate Change, Geoengineering, and Environmental Modification Techniques<\/a>,” Global Research<\/em>, November 24, 2013.<\/p>\n

[4] Independent journalist James Corbett has published several insightful interviews with Tim Ball, available for download here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Like this:<\/h3>\n

Like<\/span> Loading…<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1238,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-103071","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-editorials"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103071","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1238"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103071"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103071\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}