Dr. Tim Ball: Seven Ways To Spot Climate Change Propaganda

Written by Dr Tim Ball (Climatologist)

his is an update of an earlier effort to counter the propaganda war that is going on to promote the falsehoods about the environment and climate. An update is required because skills improved with practice and as they lose the war desperation demands greater deceptions. Technocrats are at the center of this development.

They achieve control in various ways, so it is invaluable to read the signs and avoid the deception.  The most reliable tool is simple skepticism. Ironically, fake news is now so pervasive that it is much easier to assume everything is fake. The global warming deception is the oldest deeply entrenched fake news story because it is the product of government and deep state bureaucrats. Maurice Strong established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This is a UN agency run by bureaucrats in Geneva but made up of bureaucrats from the national weather offices of every UN member nation. They work every day using your tax dollars to deceive you.

Here’s what will cause alarm bells to ring on a properly tuned global warming detector:

One. Everything that is going on with weather and climate is normal and not outside historic records as they constantly claim. Therefore, every claim or story about weather or climate is a deception. One way they do this is what climatologists call cherry-picking. You can pick any part of a record to show the trend to support your story. The WMO claims a 30-year long record is statistically significant. They call it the 30-year Normal when it is anything but normal. It was adopted because statisticians claim a sample size (n) of 30 is representative of any size population (N). The problem is that climate cycles are anywhere from 2 years to 100,000 years.

For example, a 2017 BBC headline said “Hottest June day since summer of 1976 in heatwave.” That is 41 years, which is statistically significant but not climatologically significant. A Youtube story reports “Sydney has wettest November day since 1984.” CBS Pittsburgh reported “NWS: 2018 is the 2nd Wettest Year on Record in Pittsburgh.” The record began in 1871 or 147 years ago, but even that is not climatologically significant. The ones I like are this one from North Carolina, that says, “A Look Back at the Coldest day Ever in North Carolina.” “Ever” even in North Carolina is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Other stories focus on a pattern or change in a pattern again with the idea that it is new or abnormal. Headlines like this one from 2012, “Why have there been more tornadoes than usual this year?” Often, they are suggestive such as this 2017 New York Times story. “The 2017 Hurricane Season Really Is More Intense Than Normal.” When you read the story, you find, as is usually the case, that the caveats at the end indicate it is not unusual at all. This is irrelevant to the authors who know the only thing the reader will remember is the headline. Notice that headlines are always in the Active Voice unlike the Conditional Voice words like “could,” “maybe,” or “possibly” in the body of the story.

Two. In 2004 the perpetrators and perpetuators of the Global Warming deception at the University of East Anglia realized the CO2 level continued to rise, but temperatures stopped increasing. It was what Thomas Huxley described as the great tragedy of science the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact. The climate deceivers didn’t skip a beat, they changed the issue from global warming to climate change. This gave them a greater range and made the problem more threatening. Now you see headlines identifying that it was, variably the warmest, coldest, wettest, driest, calmest, and windiest, in the official record, which for most of the world is less than 50 years. In reality, the issue is still only about warming because that is the only part of the weather affected by CO2.

Three. Exploitation of natural fear is central to any attempt to control people. It is no coincidence that the original fear story was Chicken Little and the sky is falling. As H. L. Mencken said, 

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.

Science writer Michael Crichton wrote about the entire sequence as it relates to the climate in his book State of Fear. It is fiction. Here is the comment in Wikipedia

State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton, in which eco-terrorists plot mass murder to publicize the danger of global warming.

However, the science is accurate because Crichton was a roommate at Harvard with Richard Lindzen, a top climate scientist. Crichton was a medical doctor with post-graduate degrees from Oxford.

Four. Mistrust a story the minute it attempts to play on your guilt or emotions. Invariably, it makes you guilty because the children are going to die, some element of the planetary system is collapsing, animals are going extinct, forests are in decline, and coral reefs are dying. Of course, they always distort the animal extinction issue. I would explain to audiences that many animals are thriving because of human activity, pigeons, snakes, coyotes, rats. I then pause and ask if I have mentioned any they like yet? The bias is to furry, round-eyed, creatures like polar bears and koala bears. More new species are found every day than go extinct in 50 years.

Five. Originators of environmental and climate change propaganda stories know the public is ill-informed about science. They take advantage of this by using terms that people don’t understand or mislabeling things to make them more menacing.  For example, they interchangeably and incorrectly call CO2, which is a gas, Carbon, which is a solid. They incorrectly label carbon dioxide, a pollutant. They make meaningless assertions like “Climate change is real,” or “The science is settled.” One way to put the last comment in perspective is to challenge. Say, “fine, then we should cancel all funding for climate research.”

Six. A change of keywords is a sure sign that at least one aspect of their deception was exposed. The classic change discussed earlier was from global warming to climate change. Another change is underway because people are starting to say, hang on a minute, climate changes all the time. There are three contenders for replacement now, “climate chaos,” “climate catastrophe,” and “climate disruptions.” The term “Polar Vortex” was the invention of John Holdren when he was Obama‘s science advisor. It is not a scientific term, but its appearance implied that it was new and due to human activity. In fact, it was popularly referred to as an outbreak of cold air from Canada called an “Alberta Clipper.”

Seven. Another sign of propaganda is a constant raising of the threat. Here is a good example.

And humankind does not have long to act, according to a study in the journal Nature Geoscience. British and Australian scientists report that they calculated the pattern of temperature rises if immediate action is not taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The propaganda war was made necessary from the start because there was no scientific evidence for the claims of environmental collapse and human-caused global warming. Start with a lie, and you admit it when evidence exposes it, or continue the lie with ever increasing deceptions. As Sir Walter Scott said, “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Dr Tim Ball is co-founder and inaugural Chairman of Principia Scientific International

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (13)

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    I agree with Tim Ball. I am very alarmed at the continued rise of the “warmists”….it’s not over. Jeff Bezos just pledged $10 billion for the cause….that is going to buy a lot of propaganda and the media and increasingly politicians and businesses are all in. Goebbels would love the narrative….man makes CO2….causes warming….ice melts…oceans rise….storms grow larger….forests burn down….populations migrate….OH NO!!!!…here come the locusts….we are doomed….doomed I tell you! Pols are joining in….plant a trillion trees to feel good….reduce that CO2 stuff….business leaders are saying don’t buy stock in those stinking oil companies. ….shun those oil people. One interesting event is happening…the Chinese economy is partly shut down so there should be a noticeable drop in CO2. Have a nice day.

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    A really good article,to bad we can’t get some political party to use it for a platform. Unfortunately it seems that the MSM and the mainstream political parties all want this deception to continue as it means more money in govt. coffers. In BC we have had a carbon tax for over ten years now and it has done nothing to reduce co2 but it has made everything more expensive in an already expensive province to live in. Not that reducing co2 should be a goal, this has been nothing but a tax grab from the beginning. Almost the perfect tax,how dare you not pay it are you in favour of making the world uninhabitable for our children. The madness continues.

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      “…this has been nothing but a tax grab from the beginning”

      which is true, but also it is a good way to explain to other people about the AGW scam. People are naturally suspicious when it comes to taxation even though more inclined to assume that ‘scientists’ and media are telling the truth about the climate. So use their natural suspicion of tax as a route into the AGW topic.

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    Great article, it’s very hard to find fault with anything Tim writes. He has done more to expose the origins of the climate scam than anyone else.

  • Avatar

    Monty

    |

    I am writing this during the Democrat Debate discussing climate change. Biden says it is an existential threat.. More of a threat to minorities. Threatens to impose tarriffs on China for using coal and polluting the environment.Bloomberg wants to rejoin the Paris Accords Agreement and wants to get rid of coal fired plants. Warren wants no drilling on public lands She says she believes in science. Sanders wants ban on fracking. He says we have only 6-7 years left till all hell breaks lose. Plus Chris Dodd, a commentator, asked leading question about fracking to shame Klobuchar, who had a more transitional approach to move from fracking. Bloomberg realizes that it has to be transitional. .Buttegieg has a plan for zero carbon. He didn’t have time to elaborate.

    • Avatar

      Andy Rowlands

      |

      From what I’ve learned about US politics, the Democrats are now little more than closet Communists. They are promoting the climate scam as a way of getting ever more control of every aspect of your lives. To my mind, calling themselves Democratic Socialists is a contradiction in terms; you’re either one or the other, and I suspect their eventual aim is a full-blown Communist dictatorship.

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    “climate chaos,” “climate catastrophe,” and “climate disruptions.”

    It’s very important to track the words being used and to watch out for the meaning of the words being altered. “Climate emergency” is the latest term, and used to try to make us panic and agree to ban CO2 first and engage brain second.

    The conflation of carbon with carbon dioxide we can use to our advantage by saying – yes you are right to talk about carbon. “Carbon-based life form” is a familiar term. Life needs lots of it but biological processes lock it away for vast lengths of time. It needs to be released back into the atmosphere, and since volcanic activity has been low for a few thousand years its just as well that humans are doing so as well.
    They always talk about planting trees – well, a tree needs a lot of carbon!

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      Science is not an argument. You have gone through a list of words which you state are not ‘scientific’ words and then wrote: “well, a tree needs a lot of carbon!” Terrible!

      Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Rosie Langridge

          |

          Here’s another for you to consider,
          “The contents of 21 trace and major constituents in the leaves or leaf blades of three species of deciduous trees, sycamore, horse-chestnut and beech, have been studied at regular intervals throughout the season. The various elements can be grouped into three categories: (A) Co, Ni, Fe, V, Ti, Cr, Pb and Al, (B) Mn, B, Si, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Mg, and (C) Cu, Mo, Zn, P, K, and Na.” They are not listing array of compounds, just the elements. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01373076
          A tree needs cobalt, nickle, iron, vanadium etc and oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. I think that’s ok.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Rosie,

            You wrote: “They are not listing array of compounds, just the elements.”

            But do you expect that all these elements exists as ‘pure’ elements and are not components of compounds? A long time ago Louis Elzevir wrote that a common saying in 1638 was: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” as translation by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio in Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences.

            How far you seem to have fallen!

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Rosie,

            But what you wrote, that I have complimented you for writing still stands. For I read that Galileo stated: “I have never met a man [women] so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him [her].”

            Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Andrew Mark Harding

    |

    The scientific ignorance of the majority of the general public, together with the manipulation by the political Left is responsible for the success of this scam. The fact that after the primordial Earth cooled its atmosphere consisted of 20% CO2 as opposed to 0.04% currently, should be a clue that we are being lied to. The fact that we are solving a climate ‘crisis’ by burning wood, using windmills and other medieval means of power production should provide additional evidence that there is an underlying, hidden motive! If the situation is so dire that the existence of all life on the planet is at stake, then shouldn’t we be commissioning new nuclear power stations? Have people forgotten about other alleged planet changing threats like BSE, AIDS, Y2K, SARS etc?

Comments are closed