A while ago, I had a chat with Robert Bryce for his Power Hungry podcast. During the chat, Robert asked me “What is propaganda?” It’s a concept I often refer to in my writings as you know but the question caught me unprepared.
Ah, well, I didn't say they'll go quietly into the good night. And to be precise, it took 100 for Bolshevism to be born, grow up, mature, and die. In an age without social media. Nowadays everything happens faster, I've noticed, so let's not be too pessimistic!
While I agree the pendulum seems to have reached its extreme and is beginning to turn back, I fear there will be an extraordinary amount of resources still wasted on the climate change agenda. At what point is the question of cost-benefit going to be raised pointedly to the most vociferous climate hysterics (I'm looking at you Greta and John Kerry) and will they have their feet held to the fire to explain why they have oversold the case and wasted trillions of dollars that could have been used more fruitfully elsewhere?
"We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated"
lemme translate this stuff, since it's the corner stone from where the rest of all the crap is spewed: we created a subjective biased sample of words we say is baaaad. with that bunch'o'words, we filtered & counted the papers, without actually bothering to read them. we have a good idea of them, no need to see hard data. if it does not fit in our sampling, no need to waste time with those mis-conspiracy-denier-spreader subhuman proles.
i'm not a climate scientist, but i know a model when i see one.... ;P
This is great insight. But I am not surprised having read your newsletter and hearing you on Robert Bryce's and other podcasts. This provides me a great lead-in to an article I am writing for my newsletter energymusings.substack.com about the CLINTEL.org report on the IPCC AR6 called The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. If you haven't read it, you should.
Thanks! No, I hadn't seen that particular study but I do remember seeing researchers making similar suggestions about climate studies. And there's, of course, Judith Curry's recent interview that explained how it all works...
The Portuguese language includes literally many thousands of cognates with English. However, learning to speak the language is not then nearly so easy as one might suppose. That is because the cognates often have slight differences and occasionally major differences in significance. The one most often cited is the word "legal" which is often actually translated as, "cool" or nice". The one which is my favourite is the adjective "anciosa" which describes a state of mind of excitement or agitated anticipation, rather than the negative, pejorative implication of "anxious" in English.
One more. The word "propaganda" in Portuguese simply refers to "advertising". Doesn't that say it all?
Another great piece Irina. The role of social media in challenging the "group-think" must be a constant burden for the Masters of the Universe who know the Truth... I do wonder however, if we shouldn't just encourage the Climatists to go the extra distance? What comes after Global Boiling? Encourage them to make ever more outlandish predictions that won't come true... The constant ramp-up of fear-porn headlines and soundbites should be welcomed as the tax-paying public will wise up. As you point out, social media has a powerful role in this - so long as it remains free of censorship (c.f. a certain pandemic).
Thanks. I think the climate army is doing very well already, without additional encouragement. It's like they egg themselves on to go ever bigger, scarier, and hotter.
As for censorship, the EU has just make a serious effort in this respect with its Digital Services Act. I do hope it won't affect Substack.
Great post on media bias and propaganda. That bit about scientific consensus exceeding "99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature" is a give away, because contrary opinions can't get published because the 'peer review' process weeds them out. So the "99%" figure is meaningless.
I still maintain they could have done better than 3%, even genuinely randomised. It's like those polls they do here where the headlines say "87% of Bulgarians support the government" and they you learn these 87% are, in fact, 87% of 1,000 people in big cities that the pollsters polled.
I must admit I'm not actually a big fan of social media, but like so many important phenomena, they are doing a lot of good as well as a lot of harm. As long as there's no censorship, as Pandreco pointed out above.
Dr Wielicki does a wonderful job of illustrating historical peak temperatures in US cities. In the last 32 years, 1990 to 2022, there have been 10 days of 100 degrees F in Chicago. In the 1980's there were 12. In the 1940's there were 10 and in the 1910's there were 8. Other cities from around the USA are highlighted with much the same history. So in the past 32 years Chicago has had a couple more 100 F days than in the 1910's, same as the 1940's and less than the 1980's. Spoiler alert - in fact Chicago had 0 100 degree days between 2012 and 2022. Appears climate change is slowing down, not speeding up! Another great substack to follow, though lacking in Irina's style and wit.
Dr Wielicki is a great source of factual information. Sadly, few people care about factual information. It's booooring. Climate anxiety is so much more exciting.
Thank you for those rays of hope. They're much needed, especially after reading "Elite Crackdown on Free Speech Worldwide Intensifies" over on Public.
I will say I think the CCN-type people did adapt their narrative a little bit. When it started to feel like the wheels were coming off of the "Batteries will fix all the problems with wind/solar" narrative, they somehow got talk and commitment to harebrained H2 plans to pop up everywhere overnight.
"Hey, we're in danger of losing subsidies for batteries. Let's trot out the new subsidy generator, H2."
Shocked I say, Shocked…thank you Irina for your time and effort putting forth your thoughts. Bolshevism died because Reagan was willing to spend the USSR into bankruptcy trying to keep up with our military spending because democracy/republicanism was best in his mind. Forty years later I’m heartsick to say our current administration and intelligence agencies prefer Bolshevism.
I've been wondering how or if it would be possible to have a reasonable conversation with any member of the climate cult, the indoctrinated. Thank you for pointing out the inevitable, that we will all come to see the lies and half-truths for what they are, all the sooner due to social media. I'm going to take that as hopeful (as precious as any rare mineral these days).
I don't think it's possible. I remember a conversation with a friend -- a good friend -- about the Power of SIberia pipeline. I'd put a picture of it on my Facebook profile and she asked if it was what she thought it was. Yes, I said, it's a pipeline. From there she proceeded to lament all the trees that had died for this pipeline to be built and what a tragedy this was because we were digging our own grave. I noted the pipeline will prevent more trees to be felled for firewood by replacing it with gas and asked if she had any idea just how many trees there are across Siberia. The response: Oh, great, so because there are so many let's kill them at will. That was the last conversation on this topic we ever had. And that friend wasn't even a true cultist just a regular woman concerned about the environment based on what she consumes as news, It's pointless.
If you think we’re inundated with climate change news now, just wait. Alleged journalists cum influencers, not an honest thinking one among them, will be attending a propaganda training event.
A conference at Columbia Journalism School in New York City aims to “forge a path forward together” on climate change coverage.
Climate Changes Everything: Creating a Blueprint for Media Transformation will be held at the university Sept. 21 to 22, hosted by Covering Climate Now, Columbia Journalism Review, The Nation, the Guardian, and Solutions Journalism Network.
“Join leading journalists from around the world for an unprecedented conversation about how to cover a world on fire,” organizers wrote.
The agenda includes the following:
• Hear from newsrooms innovating to meet the moment: How can news outlets everywhere treat climate change as a story for every beat, not just silo it on the weather desk?
• Discuss whether news outlets should still take fossil fuel advertising, and how journalists can grapple with climate disinformation.
• Look ahead to 2024 elections that will have profound implications for global climate action. How can journalists make those implications clear to voters, refute misinformation and hold candidates accountable?
• Learn from journalists covering and living in frontline communities how to highlight climate justice in our reporting.
• Recognize that telling the entire climate story means not just including solutions — but interrogating those solutions, so the public and policymakers know which ones actually work.
I choose to see this as good news -- the more they harp on about the climate instead of anything, else, the sooner everyone will get sick of the whole affair.
"FACT: More than 99% of climate scientists agree that human activity is overheating the planet."
Speaking of the Soviet Union and so-called scientific consensus on Climate Change, remember how candidates of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would receive 99% (or 97%, I forget) of the votes?
Second, many of our governments are falling in line with the "fully electric by 2030" mandate (or 2035 or whatever it is). This has an exact parallel in Stalin's "Five-Year Plans" to FORCE the industrialization and collectivization of the Soviet Union.
The result? Millions dead.
It also has a parallel in Mao's Cultural Revolution. The result? Millions dead.
This will be the ultimate result of the Climate Change™ ideology, too, i.e., millions dead.
By the way, God warned us about this around 2,000 years ago.
"When he broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living being say, “Go!” I looked, and there in front of me was a pallid, sickly-looking [Greek: chloros, i.e., pale GREEN] horse. Its rider’s name was Death, and Sh’ol followed behind him. They were given authority to kill one-quarter of the world by war, by famine, by plagues and with the wild animals of the earth."
- Revelation 6 (CJB)
Notice the word "authority", i.e., governance, government, power over society.
Also notice the word "plagues" - i.e., epidemics, pandemics - in the context of "authority". Who were the nincompoops who foisted the COVID-19 plague on the world but our "authorities", all for money.
Irina,
It took almost a full century for bolshevism / the soviet union to die.
The dark ages of europe lasted hundreds of years
The taliban continue to successfully rule
Bad ideas do not just die. They need to be strangled kicking and screaming until the life is completely sucked out of them
Ah, well, I didn't say they'll go quietly into the good night. And to be precise, it took 100 for Bolshevism to be born, grow up, mature, and die. In an age without social media. Nowadays everything happens faster, I've noticed, so let's not be too pessimistic!
Yes, everything is happening much, much faster.
While I agree the pendulum seems to have reached its extreme and is beginning to turn back, I fear there will be an extraordinary amount of resources still wasted on the climate change agenda. At what point is the question of cost-benefit going to be raised pointedly to the most vociferous climate hysterics (I'm looking at you Greta and John Kerry) and will they have their feet held to the fire to explain why they have oversold the case and wasted trillions of dollars that could have been used more fruitfully elsewhere?
I share your fear. And no, none of those responsible for that waste will be held accountable, I'm certain of it, sadly.
"We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated"
lemme translate this stuff, since it's the corner stone from where the rest of all the crap is spewed: we created a subjective biased sample of words we say is baaaad. with that bunch'o'words, we filtered & counted the papers, without actually bothering to read them. we have a good idea of them, no need to see hard data. if it does not fit in our sampling, no need to waste time with those mis-conspiracy-denier-spreader subhuman proles.
i'm not a climate scientist, but i know a model when i see one.... ;P
Great translation, thanks!
This is great insight. But I am not surprised having read your newsletter and hearing you on Robert Bryce's and other podcasts. This provides me a great lead-in to an article I am writing for my newsletter energymusings.substack.com about the CLINTEL.org report on the IPCC AR6 called The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. If you haven't read it, you should.
Thanks, will do!
Another great article, Irina! And thanks for bringing "Agitprop" back into the conversation, as it fits them perfectly.
Did you see the recent study that found over 2,600 peer-reviewed papers in the US GOV-funded journal "Science" contain misleading information?:
"Top journal 'Science': 2,600 of its papers may have 'exaggerated claims'
'Rhetoric' makes it harder to 'decipher what is groundbreaking'"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04759-6
It's as revealing as it is unsurprising, and I'd sure like to see just how many of the 2,600 were climate-related.
Thanks! No, I hadn't seen that particular study but I do remember seeing researchers making similar suggestions about climate studies. And there's, of course, Judith Curry's recent interview that explained how it all works...
The Portuguese language includes literally many thousands of cognates with English. However, learning to speak the language is not then nearly so easy as one might suppose. That is because the cognates often have slight differences and occasionally major differences in significance. The one most often cited is the word "legal" which is often actually translated as, "cool" or nice". The one which is my favourite is the adjective "anciosa" which describes a state of mind of excitement or agitated anticipation, rather than the negative, pejorative implication of "anxious" in English.
One more. The word "propaganda" in Portuguese simply refers to "advertising". Doesn't that say it all?
Languages are very legal, indeed. One can learn a lot about a lot of things by learning languages.
Great piece Irina.
Thank you!
Another great piece Irina. The role of social media in challenging the "group-think" must be a constant burden for the Masters of the Universe who know the Truth... I do wonder however, if we shouldn't just encourage the Climatists to go the extra distance? What comes after Global Boiling? Encourage them to make ever more outlandish predictions that won't come true... The constant ramp-up of fear-porn headlines and soundbites should be welcomed as the tax-paying public will wise up. As you point out, social media has a powerful role in this - so long as it remains free of censorship (c.f. a certain pandemic).
Thanks. I think the climate army is doing very well already, without additional encouragement. It's like they egg themselves on to go ever bigger, scarier, and hotter.
As for censorship, the EU has just make a serious effort in this respect with its Digital Services Act. I do hope it won't affect Substack.
Great post on media bias and propaganda. That bit about scientific consensus exceeding "99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature" is a give away, because contrary opinions can't get published because the 'peer review' process weeds them out. So the "99%" figure is meaningless.
The size of their sample was laughable, too.
Yes, but I wouldn't be too critical of that, because if indeed it was truly "random", that might make up for the small size.
I still maintain they could have done better than 3%, even genuinely randomised. It's like those polls they do here where the headlines say "87% of Bulgarians support the government" and they you learn these 87% are, in fact, 87% of 1,000 people in big cities that the pollsters polled.
I fully support your view on the importance of social media as a tool to question and challenge the dominant climate change narrative.
I hope this will help the decline of the narrative control movement that is so widespread in most countries.
We need to bring realities with data and sober analysis to society.
Data kills the narrative.
I must admit I'm not actually a big fan of social media, but like so many important phenomena, they are doing a lot of good as well as a lot of harm. As long as there's no censorship, as Pandreco pointed out above.
I love the earth is heating from fossil fuels propoganda. If you go here:
https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/heat-index-wet-bulb-globe-temperature
Dr Wielicki does a wonderful job of illustrating historical peak temperatures in US cities. In the last 32 years, 1990 to 2022, there have been 10 days of 100 degrees F in Chicago. In the 1980's there were 12. In the 1940's there were 10 and in the 1910's there were 8. Other cities from around the USA are highlighted with much the same history. So in the past 32 years Chicago has had a couple more 100 F days than in the 1910's, same as the 1940's and less than the 1980's. Spoiler alert - in fact Chicago had 0 100 degree days between 2012 and 2022. Appears climate change is slowing down, not speeding up! Another great substack to follow, though lacking in Irina's style and wit.
Dr Wielicki is a great source of factual information. Sadly, few people care about factual information. It's booooring. Climate anxiety is so much more exciting.
Thank you for those rays of hope. They're much needed, especially after reading "Elite Crackdown on Free Speech Worldwide Intensifies" over on Public.
I will say I think the CCN-type people did adapt their narrative a little bit. When it started to feel like the wheels were coming off of the "Batteries will fix all the problems with wind/solar" narrative, they somehow got talk and commitment to harebrained H2 plans to pop up everywhere overnight.
"Hey, we're in danger of losing subsidies for batteries. Let's trot out the new subsidy generator, H2."
You're very welcome. Indeed, I remember the recent wave of H2-related stories, which has now ebbed, for some reason, possibly a financial one.
Shocked I say, Shocked…thank you Irina for your time and effort putting forth your thoughts. Bolshevism died because Reagan was willing to spend the USSR into bankruptcy trying to keep up with our military spending because democracy/republicanism was best in his mind. Forty years later I’m heartsick to say our current administration and intelligence agencies prefer Bolshevism.
I suspect it might be a natural tendency, going progressive and forgetting when to stop so you need something to stop you, such as reality.
By definition a progressive can never stop or they then cease to have a reason to exist.
It's not unheard of to change your view of the world. It's happened to a lot of progressives via a process called aging. :D
I've been wondering how or if it would be possible to have a reasonable conversation with any member of the climate cult, the indoctrinated. Thank you for pointing out the inevitable, that we will all come to see the lies and half-truths for what they are, all the sooner due to social media. I'm going to take that as hopeful (as precious as any rare mineral these days).
I don't think it's possible. I remember a conversation with a friend -- a good friend -- about the Power of SIberia pipeline. I'd put a picture of it on my Facebook profile and she asked if it was what she thought it was. Yes, I said, it's a pipeline. From there she proceeded to lament all the trees that had died for this pipeline to be built and what a tragedy this was because we were digging our own grave. I noted the pipeline will prevent more trees to be felled for firewood by replacing it with gas and asked if she had any idea just how many trees there are across Siberia. The response: Oh, great, so because there are so many let's kill them at will. That was the last conversation on this topic we ever had. And that friend wasn't even a true cultist just a regular woman concerned about the environment based on what she consumes as news, It's pointless.
Media saturation is only going to get worse, Irina.
From my yesterday LinkedIn post:
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/upcoming-conference-to-unify-mainstream-media-on-climate-change-coverage/article_1297cbec-4351-11ee-b5c1-230b032a2a0e.html?utm_source=westernstandard.news&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter%2Foptimize%2Fdaily-headlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1693051203&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline
If you think we’re inundated with climate change news now, just wait. Alleged journalists cum influencers, not an honest thinking one among them, will be attending a propaganda training event.
A conference at Columbia Journalism School in New York City aims to “forge a path forward together” on climate change coverage.
Climate Changes Everything: Creating a Blueprint for Media Transformation will be held at the university Sept. 21 to 22, hosted by Covering Climate Now, Columbia Journalism Review, The Nation, the Guardian, and Solutions Journalism Network.
“Join leading journalists from around the world for an unprecedented conversation about how to cover a world on fire,” organizers wrote.
The agenda includes the following:
• Hear from newsrooms innovating to meet the moment: How can news outlets everywhere treat climate change as a story for every beat, not just silo it on the weather desk?
• Discuss whether news outlets should still take fossil fuel advertising, and how journalists can grapple with climate disinformation.
• Look ahead to 2024 elections that will have profound implications for global climate action. How can journalists make those implications clear to voters, refute misinformation and hold candidates accountable?
• Learn from journalists covering and living in frontline communities how to highlight climate justice in our reporting.
• Recognize that telling the entire climate story means not just including solutions — but interrogating those solutions, so the public and policymakers know which ones actually work.
I choose to see this as good news -- the more they harp on about the climate instead of anything, else, the sooner everyone will get sick of the whole affair.
"FACT: More than 99% of climate scientists agree that human activity is overheating the planet."
Speaking of the Soviet Union and so-called scientific consensus on Climate Change, remember how candidates of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would receive 99% (or 97%, I forget) of the votes?
Second, many of our governments are falling in line with the "fully electric by 2030" mandate (or 2035 or whatever it is). This has an exact parallel in Stalin's "Five-Year Plans" to FORCE the industrialization and collectivization of the Soviet Union.
The result? Millions dead.
It also has a parallel in Mao's Cultural Revolution. The result? Millions dead.
This will be the ultimate result of the Climate Change™ ideology, too, i.e., millions dead.
By the way, God warned us about this around 2,000 years ago.
"When he broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living being say, “Go!” I looked, and there in front of me was a pallid, sickly-looking [Greek: chloros, i.e., pale GREEN] horse. Its rider’s name was Death, and Sh’ol followed behind him. They were given authority to kill one-quarter of the world by war, by famine, by plagues and with the wild animals of the earth."
- Revelation 6 (CJB)
Notice the word "authority", i.e., governance, government, power over society.
Also notice the word "plagues" - i.e., epidemics, pandemics - in the context of "authority". Who were the nincompoops who foisted the COVID-19 plague on the world but our "authorities", all for money.
You're right, ideology as state policy pretty much invariably leads to death.
It is official: climate change is now worse for your health than smoking
https://www.wsj.com/health/polluted-air-shortens-human-lifespans-more-than-tobacco-study-finds-bbcf8f48
🤦♂️
Smokers have finally been vindicated as not THE WORST. :D
Thanks for sharing! To be fair, that's pollution, which is indeed a serious problem, but still.