Staff Contributor
This really has little to do with if one group or another is right, or has accurate information, has made predictions that have proved to be wrong etc… It is about how these big agencies, Governments, Media outlets, have turned into cult-like groups with an agenda including written policies on how to push the agenda. I’ll take this snippet from the end of this post to give you an idea.
“All members, including all lead authors, must sign a conflict of interest form, which indirectly obligates them to uphold the IPCC principals and products. It is undisputed that not only does the IPCC recommend propaganda, it teaches and promotes it.“
They want you to be a scientist but agree that your findings will not be different than theirs????
This is the first few sections of a paper from
You can read the full page at this link here>>> as well as read or download the full PDF via a link at the bottom of the page.
ABSTRACT
This article addresses the relationship between science and propaganda using the Climate Change controversy as a study model. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the recognized leader on this model issuing multiple Assessment Reports. This review begins with a discussion of the basics―what is propaganda and how does it work, followed by whether the IPCC adopted or rejected it. Next explored is how propaganda can be seamlessly fused into “report writing” in a way that arouses and makes interesting humdrum details. Some unexpected results emerged from current and historical observation data involving the Greenhouse theory, CO2 sources, ocean pH, sea levels, and ice balances. The final section confronts whether “a point of view” constrains objectivity in favor of outcome. The overall conclusion is that the earth is boringly healthy.
Keywords: Climate Change, IPCC, Propaganda, Greenhouse Theory, Ozone, Ocean pH, Sea Level, Ice Balance
1. Introduction
This article delves into the thorny topic of science and propaganda. In the ideal world, science should be objective, honest and fact oriented. But that is not the world we live in and it never has been. The two are interwoven in a fabric of power and money. Addressing this relationship is unpleasantly necessary to have any chance of uncovering accuracy. The climate change controversy cries-out for analysis, and the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) takes front stage.
2. What Is Propaganda and How Does It Work?
Propaganda is a manipulation tool focused primarily on emotions. It has little to do with truth or facts and everything to do with persuasion and motivation. Whether that is good or bad, depends on whether you feel science should be boringly independent and often ignored, or entertainingly deceptive but viewed by many. If the initial reaction is emotional, it’s probably propaganda.Some techniques are apparent. “Name calling”, “catchy phrases”, “must act immediately”, “transfer” or “change the topic” and “repetition” are easy to spot. Name calling like, skeptic, denier, alarmist, etc. is nothing more than a tool to tickle emotions.Others take more effort to spot. Calling an “opinion” a “fact” has become pervasive because of influences from the entertainment world. “Exaggeration” overly embellishes one feature. Lawyers blow up photographs to make an injury look worse. “Misdirection” is more hidden and remarkably convincing. The left hand of a magician draws attention while the other hand camouflages a surprise.The use of the words “man-made” and “your fault” are propaganda tools. Most people instinctively feel responsible for something that went wrong. A football fan feels guilty if his team’s loses because he forgot to wear his lucky shirt.“Guilt” or “instilling fear” of a cataclysmic event is the strongest because it triggers the deepest emotions. It has been used by every nation, ancient and current, to manipulate. Animal sacrifices to change the weather have been carried out in most ancient civilizations. The media publishes bad events because it’s watched. The more outrageous, the more it is repeated. News that there is “nothing to worry about” or it’s “another nice day”, is usually ignored. A Pew Research Center [1] study showed that public interest was highest in “war and terrorism” and “manmade or natural disasters” with science and technology coming in last. Why? Emotions.
2.1. When Propaganda Appears
Not reading or watching television whenever propaganda pops up may lead to blissful ignorance, but active engagement is better when supported by awareness. “That horse bucks every time”, (facts) will likely lead to a better decision over statements about its “beauty and fame” (propaganda.)Propaganda does not mean that it’s always bad. “stop smoking ads” have produced beneficial results, while “eliminating weapons of mass destruction” may not have a positive outcome, albeit the catchy phrase sounds good.
2.2. IPCC’s Position on Propaganda
IPCC Organizing Papers dictate its policies. The organization wrote a seven page manifesto (Guidance Note for Lead Authors) on propaganda techniques to guide authors in writing reports, [2] which was used and adopted ( [3] , p. 1¶2), ( [4] , pp. 30¶7, 34¶4.2) ( [5] , pp. 1¶2, 45¶4.2) All IPCC documents are available on its web site. This manifesto plays a significant and key role ( [5] , p. 4¶5.4). Members are encouraged to undergo media training ( [5] , p. 39¶22). Whenever low probabilities appear, climate consequences (emotions) with high certainty are to be included [2] . Authors are to list their positions with positive words, and state their findings as if they were “statement of facts without using uncertainty qualifiers” [2] . Expressions showing lack of knowledge must be avoided [2] . Where a zero probability negative to their position appears, (Honey, I will lasso the moon and pull it closer.) the author can use the word “unlikely” as opposed to impossible ( [2] , p. 3). When communicating low probability the authors are cautioned to use “calibrated language” [2] and if the author chooses to use language of low probability, then “the reasons for their presentation should be carefully explained” i.e. a written justification is needed [2] . Governments may review and comment on the reports before approval [6] .
The US Climate Change Group mirrors the IPCC manifesto plus adds another 89 pages. The title describes the content―“Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making.” [7] . At page 8 it recommends that when communicating uncertainty, one must use psychology and decision science [7] . Spending a billion dollars on more research would likely result in their opinions being less accurate ( [7] , p. 58). In most cases formal analysis (fact based science) plays a lesser role than emotions and feelings ( [7] , p. 65), open ended interviews (mock trials) are recommended ( [7] , p. 68) to test the effectiveness of the message. Assuming a result, and then working backwards is an effective tool in making critical decisions ( [7] , p. 74).
The IPCC members are obligated to uphold, maintain, and implement its principles and promote its products, and act in accordance with the manifesto ( [3] , p. 24¶8). They must proactively communicate with the media and correct any incorrect representations that may be damaging ( [3] , p. 33¶2&3). Bureau members must not express any views beyond the scope of the reports ( [3] , p. 36¶6).
All members, including all lead authors ([4] , p. 16¶1-7,) must sign a conflict of interest form ( [4] , p. 19¶5), which indirectly obligates them to uphold the IPCC principals and products. It is undisputed that not only does the IPCC recommend propaganda, it teaches and promotes it.
