By Jo Nova
A group of arty psychologists has accidentally shown how much skeptics can achieve if they just speak up.
The small, poorly worded study, done by people who have little understanding of the climate debate, or even of the scientific method, doesn’t prove much at all. But if you start with 170 people who have been fed propaganda for years and then ask some random questions, whatever you repeat seems more believable. We could have learnt so much more if these psychologists did not start so confused themselves.
Their big “discovery” was that hearing something skeptical a second time gave it a significant boost in believability, even when the audience were 90% believers. Their big conclusion was the advice to essentially never utter a skeptical word, just repeat the propaganda:
“Do not repeat false information. Instead, repeat what is true and enhance its familiarity.”
They appear to be oblivious that their advice essentially kills the idea of open public debate. They don’t mention public debate or free speech. Possibly, since they are at an Australian university, they’ve never come across it.
But the core message comes through at The Guardian — they are scared skeptics might be heard:
Repeating climate denial claims makes them seem more credible, Australian-led study finds
Our new research has produced worrying findings. Climate misinformation may be more effective than we’d like to think because of a phenomenon called the illusory truth effect In short, we are more likely to believe a lie if we encounter it repeatedly. Worse, the effect works immediately – a lie seems to be more true even after just one repetition.
Repetition, boys and girls, is “insidious”:
The study’s lead author, Mary Jiang, from the Australian National University, said: “The findings show how powerful and insidious repetition is and how it can influence people’s assessment of truth.”
But it is only “insidious” when skeptics repeat things, not when the State says the same thing a thousand times, and starts the repetition at kindergarten. These researchers live in an academic fishbowl.
The survey was a swamp of irrelevant questions on boring things skeptics hardly ever say like “Global warming will not increase skin cancer”. But one question they designated as misinformation may have gone off like a bomb in the survey:
“Emails seized from prominent climate scientists suggest conspiracy and data manipulation.”
Clearly these researchers have never read the ClimateGate emails where esteemed professors admitted in writing that they use “Mikes Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. However, as is their way, they suggest conspiracies themselves based on nothing but their avid imagination. At the Conversion (it’s not a conversation if they ban half the country) they let their hair down — seemingly afraid skeptics might use AI bots to wipe out their “public support” (that was created through decades of mindless repetition).
Repeating aids believing: climate misinformation feels more true through repetition – even if you back climate science
As our social media feeds fill up with AI-driven bots, sheer repetition of lies may erode the most essential resource for action on climate change – public support. Traditional media has a different problem – in their commitment to presenting both sides, journalists often platform climate sceptics whose untrue claims add to the repetition of misinformation.
Somehow they lie to themselves that “journalists” are committed to presenting both sides and often platform climate skeptics. Where have they been for the last 10 years — not apparently doing any background research for their paper. If they spent half an hour reading skeptical blogs they’d know that belief in climate change levitates on billion dollar propaganda campaigns, a million lines of “carbon is pollution” and mass censorship. The academic world has trained a generation to hate the sixth element of the periodic table, and these psychologists would probably think that’s a good communication strategy.
Their Holy Arc is “the consensus” — that quintessentially unscientific philosophy of polling the scientists you haven’t sacked yet
Australian universities are nothing if not hotbeds of GroupThink.
What can we do to protect ourselves, they ask, and the answer is to chant the permitted litany. In an immature science it’s absurd that 999 climate scientists out of 1,000 say the exact same thing, but this is their garlic to ward off the vampires:
Researchers have found one reliable solution – come back to the scientific consensus. For decades, scientists have researched the question of whether our activities are the main cause of rising global temperatures. Many different lines of evidence from rates of ice melt to sea temperatures to satellite measurements have now answered this conclusively. The scientific consensus is now 99.9% certain, a figure which has only grown over time. Drawing on this consensus may work to protect us from accepting sceptic arguments by reminding us of the very large areas of agreement.
They write as though they are children afraid of catching of catching typhoid: “Drawing on the consensus may work to protect us from accepting skeptic arguments”. Lord help us all, in case we find a skeptic persuasive!
It’s so pathetically intellectually feeble. And indeed, their conspiratorial minds are unleashed, they see “actors” with “an agenda” and never for a moment guess that they are the actors and their agenda is to protect the establishment that pays them:
There’s a systemic problem here. Never before in history have we been able to access so much information. But our information environments are not benign. Actors with an agenda are at work in many areas of public life, trying to shape what we do or do not do. We need to learn more about how we can battle the power of lies on repeat.
These poor psychologists are so badly trained in the philosophy and methods of science, they have no idea that open public debate is an essential part of science. If the man-made catastrophe was overwhelmingly true, it would survive public open debate. There wouldn’t be a gap where 50% of the population disagree with 99.9% of the experts. Nor would the experts struggle to convince half the meteorologists and two thirds of engineers and geologists.
They only need to worry about maintaining belief in climate change because it is a manufactured falsity which billions of dollars depends on.
As I’ve said for years: there’s a reason we don’t ask scientists if they believe in gravity.
- 70% of Australians don’t even want to spend $1 a week on “Net Zero”
- Most people don’t believe climate change harms them and have no plans to be vegetarian or give up their cars
- Young adults are losing the climate faith in the US, and only one third of voters think the IPCC experts are right
- Only 3% of young voters say Climate Change is the top issue
- One third of UK teenagers think climate change is deliberately exaggerated
- Half of Americans believe the media is trying to mislead them, and the people running the USA are “unknown” to voters
- Most people in the West are still skeptics of climate change and the IPCC position
- 57% don’t think UN Scientists can speak with authority on climate
- Public are not buying science “experts” opinions: AAAS survey shows 30-50% gap
- 65% of US population are skeptical that each flood drought or heatwave is mostly “man-made”
REFERENCE
Jiang Y, Schwarz N, Reynolds KJ, Newman EJ (2024) Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0307294. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307294
Experiment 1: N = 47 (Judging by the dated questions this was done about ten years ago).
Experiment 2: N= 120 participants (including 5 uncategorized). 36 participants were Alarmed (31%), 35 Concerned (29.2%), 27 Cautious (22.5%), 0 Disengaged (0%), 8 Dismissive (7%), and 14 Doubtful (11.7%).
Photo: Cory Doctorow
All that time and money to tell us something Goebbels did some ?? 80 – 90 years ago?? Genius, boys and girls. Tomorrow we learn to spell cat.
371
I wonder if they might apply this loverly new finding to get school kids to learn the the multiplication tables as high as 12…??
290
Dr Bill Williams (CSIRO statistics guru) used to get the job of calculator of darts scores. He lamented not having had to memorise up to 19 times tables.
60
There are no more masterful propagandists than the Left.
280
Its alive and well in China and Russia, two fascist dictatorships, and before them we had Adolf.
‘A big lie is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique. The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. (wiki)
102
>Its alive and well in China and Russia, two fascist dictatorships, and before them we had Adolf.
True, but anyone who thinks that propaganda is mainly alive in China and Russia is themselves a victim of brainwashing, i.e. propaganda, (AKA marketing).
JD Rockefeller’s protege Edward L Bernays, (Sigmund Freud’s nephew), was a product of the West and turned propaganda into an art form.
It’s in our schools, it’s in our media, it’s in Hollywood, it’s everywhere; and what is the function of a government broadcaster in a democracy? What is the function of free-to-air broadcasting? What is the use of a democracy if public opinion cannot be influenced, manufactured, molded, manipulated?
“to manipulate behaviour, one must understand how the group mind works and connect emotions to the product” – Edward L Bernays
150
Our children are being indoctrinated into thinking a harmless trace gas is warming the planet, fair enough, but they can be reeducated. That goes for the whole population, AGW is a religion and the denialati are pariahs in every social setting.
Nevertheless, something happened in 2012 to make people think we might be in strife.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/climate-change/
Ordinary folk are sensitive to a change in the weather more than odious propaganda.
71
Alarmism on steroids.
‘The global surface temperature ranked among the top 10 warmest years on record. Over land and ocean combined, 2012 was between 0.14° and 0.17° Celsius (0.25°and 0.31° Fahrenheit) above the 1981–2010 average, depending on the analysis.’ (NOAA)
50
The earth is warming as we come out of the LIA.
60
Yep, the Modern Climate Optimum, but this recent spike is unprecedented and the scientific high priests acknowledge they don’t know why its happening.
20
That looks like a fairy floss assessment of environmental data. If someone else on this blog can make sense of it, I will listen…
30
Psychology is misrepresented by these “psychologists” who are obviously being used by that greater controlling element of modern society: secure jobs in universities.
Psychology is about “how” humans think and NOT about “what” they think.
Think about it!
Anyone familiar with the importance of “process analysis ” and some basic understanding of real science can easily see the flaws and weaknesses in the UNIPCCCs CO2 linked Global Warming catastrophism.
“They” have only one aim; control and domination of the masses.
230
Big Media conducted polls to determine which climate terms induced the most hysteria but a new study shows all those efforts didn’t pay off
“The use of hyperbolic terms to describe global warming has no effect on people’s perceptions of the urgency of climate change.”
As it turns out, all that hysterical language, tsk-tsk finger-wagging at we commoners to abandon our modern luxuries like personal vehicles and gas stoves, and temperature map graphics with exaggerated red shading to suggest that we’re in an emergency situation didn’t do anything but turn the people off of to the whole “urgency” of the narrative.
Here’s the story, from a new report out by Dr. Thomas D. Williams at Breitbart News today:
A report released Monday by USC’s Understanding America Study (UAS) suggests the use of hyperbolic terms to describe global warming has no effect on people’s perceptions of the urgency of climate change.
The study notes that climate crusaders like the UK’s Guardian newspaper have officially opted for expressions like ‘climate crisis’ and ‘climate emergency’ in an attempt to raise concern and convey urgency, yet it would seem that such efforts are in vain.
‘Instead of ‘climate change’ the preferred terms are ‘climate emergency, crisis or breakdown’ and ‘global heating’ is favoured [sic] over ‘global warming,’ although the original terms are not banned,’ the Guardian stated in 2019 on announcing updates to its official in-house style guide.
Now to backtrack a little bit:
According to Williams, in April 2019, a “team of advertising consultants” published another study that suggested the climate terms commonly used at the time (“climate change” and “global warming”) didn’t do enough to whip the average media consumer into a panic—they suggested buzzwords like “climate crisis” and “environmental collapse” as it elicited a stronger “emotional” response.
Yes, you read that correctly: They didn’t want to encourage a more rational response, or be more objective, but play to a person’s emotions… and exploit them. Without facts on your side, what else do you have?
Here’s more, per Williams:
150
Per H. L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
See also Mencken:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
So, how are we “traveling”?
80
The OECD countries have already wasted trillions of $ and wasted decades of time on this toxic, unreliable W & S lunacy and yet co2 emissions have increased by over 14 billion tons since 1990.
Isn’t it time we stopped wasting more trillions of $ and pledge to abandon these toxic, unreliable W & S disasters?
180
Not quite “climate denial” but related!
A few days ago I wrote about The Burnie City Council installing two EV rechargers in a potentially very dangerous location in their Multi Story Public Carpark. I was sceptical about ever receiving a response but I did.
Here is the first paragraph 🙂
“It is important to differentiate between full battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and things like personal mobility devices (escooters, ebikes etc). These all tend to be called “electric vehicles”, but the risks are quite different between each. I will assume you are referring to fully electric vehicles in this instance as the charging bays in our multi-storey car park are intended for this type of electric vehicle.”
A bit concerned about the arrogance and condescension in the tone but still concerned about the dangers of these EV Chargers I wrote to The Tasmanian Fire Service and now await their response which, after speaking with a serving TFS Fire Person, confirmed my concern and said “we are not equipped to fight EV fires” won’t be long in coming.
280
Sort of related and nearby, do the car ferries that run out of Devonport have any policy on battery cars ?
120
I don’t know Rob but I’ll try and find out! Thanks for the suggestion
90
Yes – You have to declare the vehicle is an EV. That is BEV or hybrid. You have to declare if there are any faults being displayed. You have to ensure you have enough charge to get off. You will be directed to special EV location (I do not know where). You will be refused entry if there are any battery faults.
From my experience, I believe the crew are required to ask if it is an EV or hybrid.
The booking system lists all known car brands and vehicle type but they may have trouble keeping up to date with EEVs. I do not know how you make a booking if your vehicle type is not listed.
80
” You will be refused entry if there are any battery faults.”
That would be any faults you admitted to. LOL
00
It is probable that I was the first scientist to have his/her account permanently blocked at and by The Conversation. I regard this as a badge of honour. You are allowed to feel that you have won when the other side writes “No further correspondence will be entered into.”
But the shine is lessened a little because the block was applied by a new, young employee of The Conversation whose main preoccupation at the time was getting more information about an obscure male homosexual practice whose nikckname eludes me these years later. Not a really worthy opponent.
Geoff S
340
Geoff in another post you commented that I should email CSIRO about errors in their GenCost report. I did and it follows:Mr Paul Graham
I have some comments about the GenCost 23-24 and would like you to consider them.
First of all you include estimates for things that observations disagree with.
For instance : Claim (P.82) Projected economic years : Coal 30 years, Observations indicate : Liddell 45 years, Hazelwood 46years, Eraring 44 years & still operating. Ownership has become less attractive, with higher operating costs, reduced fuel security, and high maintenance costs as well as increasing competition by lower-cost renewable energy in the wholesale market. Unplanned generator outages are increasing, as coal plant reliability is affected by reduced investment and high-impact weather events. (P.74) AEMO ISP 24 Draft. (That is why the power plants are closing early! ). A more reasonable number of years for a coal plant is about 60 to 70 years.
Who in their right mind would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to refurbish a coal-fired plant that will soon have to close?
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation provides renewables preferential access to the grid and that is what is driving the reliable coal-fired generators out of business. How, you might ask? If you read the primer on the subject, provided by the federal Government, you will find that is so! Each electricity retailer is allotted the number of Large-scale Generating Certificates (LGCs) that they must accumulate that year, one with each MWh of renewables generated electricity purchased. Currently they are sold on the open market at ~ $45 each (https://www.demandmanager.com.au/certificate-prices/). For any short fall in achieving their quota the retailer has to pay a $65 penalty (not tax deductible) eventually paid for by the users of electricity. When you consider that the wholesale price of electricity generated by the lignite-fired plants (brown coal) in the Latrobe Valley, recently has been around $40 a MWh, you will see that penalty is a great incentive to purchase renewables generated electricity. Fossil-fuelled generators are not favoured so. You might see the RET as being designed to make those generators uneconomic and I believe it is doing that.
(P. 82) Coal $5.547 Billion / GW All we need is – New subcritical coal-fired power plant – between $2.45 billion and $3.74 billion per GW (converted from $USA) capital investment according to ESFC Investment Group (https://esfccompany.com/en/articles/thermal-energy/coal-fired-power-plant-construction-costs/)
(P. 82) Offshore Wind Is the under sea transmission infrastructure included in this cost? Are you aware of the problems associated with under sea transmission infrastructure. Over the last decade the link to Tasmania has failed on two occasions, taking many many months to repair. There was a set of 5 floating wind turbines (German I think) where the under sea transmission infrastructure kept shorting and they, I believe ended up canceling the project entirely.
Who is paying for the new inter-connector to Tasmania, residential users probably?
As the Projected economic years & the Capacity Factor are critical in this matter, it is important to have that information correct.
Claim P. 90 CF of onshore Wind generation is 48% Observations of Eastern Australian grid covered by the NEM indicate ~ 30% as calculated by Anton Lang / TonyfromOz using AEMO data. CF calculated over 5.5 years (https://papundits.wordpress.com/2024/05/26/australian-wind-generation-long-term-capacity-factor-week-294-ending-19-may-2024/)
John
190
Continued
Claim P. 90 Wind generation offshore CF = 53% (UK ~ 40% measured) ref : (https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors).
(P. 90) They found the CF of solar thermal to be 71% & 57% (Apparently the sun shines 24/7) How can that be? They must have a weird way of calculating CF. You cannot have greater than 50% and most likely down around 20% for solar thermal as the sun doesn’t shine for between 12 and 14 hours per day! Please explain. Also, one of the solar thermal plants in California had to install Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) powered generators to provide power through the morning as the Solar Thermal plant did not function well then (a late riser possibly). Solar Thermal plants with molten salts storage have had considerable trouble with corrosion.
Claim P. 90 Economic Life OnShore wind 25 years. A study by Prof G. Hughes shows that to be less than 20 years! https://stopthesethings.com/2014/05/28/wind-turbines-lucky-to-last-10-years/
You provide data on Tide and wave powered generators, both very risky. The pilot project tide generator in Nova Scotia on the Bay of Fundy was a failure demonstrating the risks involved. The Bay Of Fundy has the highest tides on this planet! If it is going to work anywhere it will work there. The generation is more predictable than wind generators but only generates much when the tide is really racing, less than 50% of the time.
The wave generator off Port Kembla was a disaster, apparently. Another unsuccessful project. I think they have no promise at all.
AEMO ISP 2024 Draft (P.65) NEM is forecast to need 16.2 GW of gas-powered generation. Of the existing 11.2 GW capacity, about 8 GW is forecast or announced to retire, so that capacity would be replaced and another 5 GW added. The inclusion of so much gas fired generation demonstrates that they at the AEMO know the shortcomings of renewables. They also include Demand side participation AEMO ISP 2024 Draft (P.45) graph. This, I believe may include paying big users to cease using electricity for a period, paying some residential users to reduce or cease use of electricity for a while or the ultimate Rolling Blackouts. All of these will drive up the price of electricity and greatly inconvenience customers large & small.
John
170
Continued:
The Hydrogen dream is just pie in the sky, a money pit that they keep pouring our tax money into! Twiggy Forest, as shown on the evening ABC News, just confirmed that recently after wasting $2 billion of our tax money! – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/21/the-energy-transition-aint-happening-hydrogen-in-australia/ . Have these people not heard of research?
I am sure you remember that state wide blackout of South Australia in September of 2016. It is possible that we might have a recurrence with one state or maybe even the whole of the NEM blacked-out with the amount of renewables planned to be in use. It would be difficult to bring the electricity system up with all of the planned renewables as they all use inverters which cannot be used to restart a black system. The large spinning inertia of the coal-fired power plants is required. One hopes, that will not be required but should nevertheless be considered.
This year would have severely tested the configuration that the AEMO is putting forward in their ISP 2024 for the year 2050. We experienced a stalled high from the 21/05/24 to the 29/05/24 and another later. On the 13/06/24 the whole of the NEM for a period was producing around 1% of installed wind capacity! During a period with a stalled high such as that mentioned above storage would be discharged without chance of recharging for a long period.
AEMO ISP 2024 Draft (P.44) :126 GW renewables (NEM) — Possibly 50% PV-solar & 50% onshore (ONS) wind. (wind CF ONS 30% & Solar 20%)
Therefore Solar & ONS Wind = .5 x 126GW = 63 GW each.
$2938/KW for Wind & $1409/kW for Solar . That means that these cost :
Solar 63 GW x $1.409 Billion = $88.767 Billion & ONS wind $2.938 Billion x 63 = $185.094 Billion Total $273.861Billion
That is total of just short of $$273.861 Billion every 20 years which = $821.853 Billion to cover the life of coal plants to do the job much more efficiently— Extraordinary! That does not include FCAS which would cost around $528 / KW = $528 Billion / GW. AEMO ISP 2024 Draft (P.62) (Graph) suggests around 4-5 GW. That would cost between 2.112 Billion & $2.64 Billion.
While 40GW of coal fired generators + some OCGT (peaking gas plants) would do the job. The 40GW of coal would cost less than $3.47 Billion / GW which = $138 Billion + the OCGT . That is around 20% of the cost and we haven’t added all of supporting requirements for the renewables solution.
This is a disaster in the making! A representative of CSIRO at the Senate estimates stated to Senator M. Roberts that CSIRO has never advised the government that anthropogenic climate change was a problem and could provide no scientific studies supporting that flimsy conjecture. All of this Net Zero nonsense is unsupported and a complete waste of our country’s resources.
I have used 2024 costs as I do not believe that the costs will decrease as you claim. These technologies are in the main mature and are unlikely to decrease year by year. The ones that are not mature, such as green hydrogen, are extremely unlikely to become mature. Judging by your comments about green hydrogen, you seem to be in agreement with me.
Thank you for looking at this for me.
John
230
Geoff, I am impressed, you’ve done well. I just wish we had a copy of the comment you wrote that was banned. I’m sure it was excellent.
40
>Geoff… you’ve done well.
John also
30
Virtually every Western institution including government, academia, the law, public “service” and corporations, is now embedded with Leftists promoting all aspects of their ideology such as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, transgendering children, socialism/communism, anti-white racism, opposition to Judeo-Christian moral values, involuntary veganism, forced experimental covid vaccinations/lockups, opposition to the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, opposition to Enlightenment values, reverence of islam (which is anti-feminist, anti-gay, contrary to Leftist values) etc..
Their propaganda is everywhere, and they are masters of it. It is on the Lamestream media, social(ist) media, promoted by government departments and woke corporations, “teachers”, Wikipedia etc.. In addition, the Big Tech giants routinely conduct election interference against conservatives and any conservative ideas. E.g. conservatives on the social(ist) media are routinely shadow banned, censored or completely cancelled if they don’t conform to the Official Narrative.
There are very few non-censored media outlets but Elon Musk’s X is an example, as is this Jo Nova site.
It’s all part of the 1967 plan of the German communist Rudi Dutschke called “der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen” or “long march through the institutions”.
270
Social Engineering Isn’t So Easy
Today’s London Times has two articles almost adjacent to one another that are closely related, although I am not sure the newspaper understands that. First: No petrol or diesel by 2030? Carmakers say EVs are going nowhere fast.
Labour’s manifesto committed to forcing car manufacturers to stop selling new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.
Six years from now. Right.
The carmaking industry has howled that the targets are unachievable, particularly given the lack of charging points across the UK for longer journeys and the difficulty of plugging in at home for people who do not have their own garage or driveway.
Now, the chief executive of one of the most important providers of components to the auto industry, Dowlais — better known by its old name of GKN — has predicted that we will be lucky if we get global new car production to 50 per cent electric vehicles (EVs) by 2045.
I would call that unlucky, not lucky, and absurdly optimistic from the perspective of EV makers. Electric vehicles are essentially an obsolete product. Many of the first cars were electric, and in 1901 The Washington Post predicted that they would soon surpass gasoline-powered cars. They have been underperforming ever since. Gasoline-powered vehicles won out because they were better, and they still are.
Even if you put aside the fact that the electric grid can’t possibly cope with an all-electric automobile fleet, and if we simultaneously switch the grid to feeble and intermittent wind and solar, the result is a train wreck.
The second story: Lab-grown meat promised a brave new world. What went wrong?
What went wrong is that people are perfectly happy eating beef, chicken, pork, seafood, etc. There was never any demand for lab-grown meat; on the contrary, normal people found the concept disgusting.
What these stories have in common, of course, is that they derive from global warming hysteria
160
Great article Jo. You certainly have a way with words.
250
Psychology: pffffft.
A *few* pieces of psychological research have said something useful. The ones I’m aware of are Pavlov, Milgram, Asch. All three showed ways that thought/behaviour could be coaxed away from rationality: association forms into reflex; an authority figure justifies cruelty; people desperately want to fit in with the crowd.
I’m not sure there’s much more we need to know about psychology. A bit of worthwhile research might be in how to identify such influences and how to overcome them.
However, given how much use the government makes of these weaknesses (climate alarm, COVID, trans nonsense, etc.), there’s not going to be a lot of funding. Instead we get bilge about repetition and thoughtcrime.
Psychology: pfffft.
200
Biden and the clueless Dems still claim that CC is an Existential threat , but what does the real world data tell us?
Dr Koonin tells us that deaths from extreme weather events today are only a 1/50th of the deaths in 1920.
And the population in 1920 was under 2 billion compared to the 8.1 billion today. Why can’t Biden and the Dems understand these very simple sums?
IOW global deaths today have dropped by 98% since 1920. See OWI Data.
210
Well, it’s handy to know we are on the right track!😁
Keep it up!
70
I’ll keep this brief but how can our poorest continent increase their population by over 1260 million in just the last 74 years?
And how has their life expectancy increased from 36.5 years in 1950 to 64 years today?
Again can anyone find any CC risks in the African data since 1950?
150
Some people see too many people as the core of the problem. No people = no climate change. Forever!
And starting from that point of view anything and everything can be justified.
180
Including GENOCIDE.
Read the words of the”true believers” for more details. Out and proud about “right-sizing” the global population.
“Unlike “To Serve Man”, “Soylent Green” was a warning, not a “How-to” manual.
40
The lefties see Soylent Green and 1984 as manuals.
00
“Some people see too many people as the core of the problem. ”
The VERY same people will not set the example by being the FIRST
to “lead by example” to start this reduction.
Where are you Bill and Klaus?
30
And repeating the false claims of lobbyists at UN agencies makes them more believeable?
According to those studies, the answer is YES.
70
Lobbyists making false claims? I don’t think official government science has discovered that yet.
100
Yesterday there was a 99.9% over-saturated propaganda [public relations] push on various media by The World’s Second-Most Unfortunate Looking Man, Paddy Growler*, regarding his soon-to-be-released documentary about his trip to Antarctica last summer, c/- a gas-guzzling fossil-fuelled US Air Force jumbo jet no less.
“Man-made planet-heating gases” seems to be the catchphrase of the moment, along with stock-standard, and out-dated, erroneous “Tuvalu’s sinking” and “if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts” blah blah blah. Talk about repetitively ramming home dis/mis/mal consensus in formation.
* Not his real name, though Richard (C) NZ will know of whom I disparage.
160
Typo ,1st paragraph , “it” should be “if”.
10
Typo No 2 at about the 10th paragraph:
Conversation not Conversion (in reference to that woke channel)
20
Probably a typo, but kind of a Freudian slip as well – the site is constantly trying to convert readers to the approved narrative on whatever, if they’re not brainwashed acolytes already. No room for diversity of thought on that site.
50
Thanks First typo fixed.
Second was not a typo. I added this: (it’s not a conversation if they ban half the country)
A witty reader came up with The Conversion, and it’s so appropriate. I’ll stop when they allow skeptics to comment again.
I note that banned comments entirely on this “denier” piece and we all know why.
80
Climate denialism is neatly captured in an entertaining Dara OBriain doco “Secrets of the Sun”. He puts it all in perspective by demonstrating a Luna eclipse of The Sun using two rocks. By strategically locating the small rock closer to the camera lens shows how an infinitely smaller object blots out the sun for a brief time. All very basic I know! OBriain also makes the point that The Sun is 99.98% larger than all the matter, combined, in our universe. In essence, how do the inhabitants of puny Earth believe they can control the Sun’s effects on anything let alone Earth? We live and die by the Sun. We either adapt or perish. History shows that many civilisations before ours have succumbed to the mistaken idea otherwise.
160
I think you are categorising ‘our solar system’ as ‘our universe’.
120
“Trump scrambles to counter Kamala as her momentum picks up in polls.- Republicans have grown increasingly frustrated by Donald Trump’s often-meandering rants over issues such as Kamala Harris’ racial identity and the size of her campaign rallies”
“Ukraine controls 1000 square kilometres of Russia’s Kursk region, says top commander”
SMH
Just repeat every day until everyone believes it…
170
The invasion of Russian territory could well be Zelensky’s Wacht am Rhein moment where he has put the last of the AFU troops plus foreign mercenaries into a vain attempt to deflect from the slow grinding slaughter of his forces along the front line of the Peoples Republics. For the Germans the loss of equipment was crucial as it could not be replaced. For Ukraine it will be the loss of troops. Many of the units linked to the Kursk attack are severely understrength already.
60
Again here’s the OWI Data deaths from extreme weather events and other natural disasters.since 1900 and note the huge drop as our population has boomed.
Can anyone see or find any existential threat in the real world data?
It seems Biden and other lefty extremists are finding their data and lies and con tricks from their delusional fantasy world.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?facet=none&hideControls=false&Disaster+Type=All+disasters&Impact=Deaths&Timespan=Decadal+average&Per+capita=false&country=~OWID_WRL
90
Obviously, they accuse their opposition of exactly what they are doing. The modus operandi of narcissism, and lefties.
As a young lefty, I noticed my lefty peers did this, and that they were total hypocrites. Made me question my philosophies and politics. I noticed the chink in the armour. Many don’t.
The elites main problem is that most people don’t actually think about the climate topic as they go about their daily activities. They don’t really believe it. No green would dare drive a car or put the lights on if they really believed co2 will result in ecosystem collapse. Who would?
And they must not let people slip from the verbal narrative that yes they believe in climate change, because they actually don’t. So they endlessly repeat the basic science nursery rhyme that co2 makes the world heat up, because they know it works.
190
FWIW – another look from inside
“Report from Kislovodsk”
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2024/08/13/report-from-kislovodsk/
20
The cure for propaganda is skeptisim . The amount of BS in the media (and academia) is multiplying rapidly . Anyone who hasn’t noticed that both have turned into a circus is not paying attention . It used to be that anyone getting critisised was on the right track , but now the only benchmark seems to be who is getting ignored . Studies abound that contradict each other and the same with “polling”. A pox on all their houses…
90
Why do climate Leftists always pick on “actors”? Actors are people who learn lines and perform characters on stage, film or TV.
It’s a tough enough life, without being demonised by every nutty Leftist in search of a whipping boy.
Why can’t these buffoons just say “people”? Leave those actors alone!
40
[…] zum letzten Eintrag, als hätte ich es bestellt:https://joannenova.com.au/2024/08/repeating-climate-denial-claims-makes-them-seem-more-credible/ […]
10
“Do not repeat false information. Instead, repeat what is true and enhance its familiarity.”
That sounds just like propaganda, Herr Ghoering.
50
A lot of conspiracy theories of 2021 turned out to have a lot of factual basis….
Don’t call a house white until you have seen all the sides of it. Some idiot might have painted one side green. Just to aggravate the fact checkers.
20
99.9% of climate scientists and those whose jobs depend on the global warming agree it is true.
30
The fastest way to influence a weak minded person’s memory and belief system is to bribe them in whatever way works. The bonus of this technique is that the more recruits there are to this unpleasant league of charlatans the larger the bullying gang becomes and the more pig headed the leaders grow (we have some explicit political examples in the UK).
There is nothing new under the Sun says the Good Book and the answer is blowing in the wind says Bob.
40
In some weird way these folks WANT there to be a crisis. It justifies all the guilt they have been programmed to feel. Were they to learn that there really wasn’t a climate crisis they would be bitterly disappointed, not relieved.
If we followed their lead then it’s right back to the dark ages. You don’t advance if you don’t ask questions.
Interesting that these people are so lacking in self-awareness that they don’t get this.
70
What a stupid survey. All it tells you is that repetition of a proposition makes it believable. It doesn’t make it the truth. Indoctrination doesn’t have to be built on lies . We are indoctrinated to learn our times table , we are indoctrinated to believe the world is round.It’s called education.
No child when they are at school questions what they are told . Truth is an assumed position. That’s why the Nazis have the Hitler youth. Adults are less likely to believe what they are told no matter how often it’s repeated.
If a whole generation of children hadn’t been indoctrinated as children the climate cult would’ve died out years ago. Once indoctrinated as children it becomes easy to continue to maintain that through repetition in the media and through government edict. If governments and media hadn’t orchestrated the belief in climate change and kept it going by repetition virtually every day I suspect that no adults would believe in it at all.
Lies need repetition and sometimes updating and evolving to continue to be believed the truth just needs to be heard once. Global warming had to become climate change to keep the scam going because even after homogenisation and adjustment the world refused to warm enough.
The left has this method of calling things that no one would dare to question. Black Lives Matter, inflation reduction act, nature positive act. Even the term United Nations implies a positive organisation. When one is in the process of indoctrination words are very influential and are chosen very deliberately.
30
Keep the blowtorch of factual data on them and they’ll be broken by the simple issue of taxpayer and Cannon – Brookes funding drying up.
There’s always a double down by Marxists when their ideology is questioned, and this is the point Australia has to prove to the swing voter that even their own useful idiots (Minns Government) have blinked and the costs matter.
Sadly Marxists drag whole populations thru their inability to turn ideology into practice, useful idiots can’t learn from history and grifters take advantage of that before the ‘lived experience’ smacks them in the face.
Australia’s food security can’t afford any more of this delusional propaganda, so keep the blowtorch on them and we can move forward SMARTER!
40
The real problem is with politicians, of both Socialist and Conservative sides. The new professional politician cares about one thing. Being elected.
And to do this they know to concentrate on swinging voters and groups seeking advantage.
Modern politicians are in it for the money and power, not principal, not principle.
So their target is a female, non white, Green, gay or activist or muslim. And everyone else can go jump.
Is Climate Change real? Is Gaza a problem? Is WWIII about to start in Russia? They could not care less. And the Conservatives are only two steps behind.
And in Australia, we hear that lifetime communist Prime Minister Albanese is trying to connect Climate Change to Solar panel Manufacturing to hydrogen to aboriginal rights.
Sure, it makes no sense whatsoever.
But whatever it takes. The siren cry of the professional politician, Green or communist without two scruples to rub together.
40