RealClimate logo

IPCC Communication handbook

Filed under: — gavin @ 31 January 2018

A new handbook on science communication came out from IPCC this week. Nominally it’s for climate science related communications, but it has a wider application as well. This arose mainly out of an “Expert meeting on Communication” that IPCC held in 2016.

6 principles to help IPCC scientists better communicate their work

There was a Guardian article on it as well.

The six principles are pretty straightforward:

  1. Be a confident communicator
  2. Talk about the real world, not abstract ideas
  3. Connect with what matters to your audience
  4. Tell a human story
  5. Lead with what you know
  6. Use the most effective visual communication

Each is supported with references to the relevant literature and with climate-related (“real world”) examples that are themselves confidently communicated with effective visuals.

But what do people think? Is this a useful addition to the literature on communication? Anything you think doesn’t work? or that perhaps surprises you?

PS. I’m perhaps a little biased because they use a Peter Essick photo for their cover art that was also in my book.

144 Responses to “IPCC Communication handbook”

  1. 101

    nigel asked:

    KM and Thomas, J Hansen does seem to have published peer reviewed science that we are facing a global emergency, and rapid climate change. I didn’t know this. I thought he only said this in a few public discussions.

    But where does this get us? I think the larger point around this is the media don’t really report this sort of research, or that over 90% of climate scientists think we are causing climate change, because they would rather keep a manufactured pretend controversy going to attract more readers interest. Isn’t that the main thing here?

    I think that it gets us to the necessity of trying to disseminate that message. Not easy, of course, and the methods chosen will vary according to the abilities of the disseminator. But we can:

    1) talk about it in daily life;
    2) talk about it online;
    3) talk about it in purposive ways, such as giving lectures;
    4) talk about it in organizational settings, such as churches, business or community groups;
    5) write about it in whatever fora are open to us, from letters to the editor, to online essays, to formally published essays, fiction, poetry, or whatever;
    6) organize, by joining pre-existing groups such as, CCL, or political parties and the like, or by creating our own;
    7) participate in a whole spectrum of political actions, according to one’s values, risk assessments, and inclinations.

    I think the media does report some of this news, but it tends not to get a lot of ‘pickup’ because it is, frankly, not something that very many people want to hear. As I said elsewhere, I think we’re all in denial to some extent.

  2. 102
    Thomas says:

    Hi niglej. So if i am following you correctly Vendicar Decarian is scott nudds – and you know this because you have both been “chatting” on that other website you mentioned recently. This is how my ‘logic’ operates. It’s also an example of seeing the forest by noticing the trees. Or what a have completed jigsaw puzzle can describe the “whole” of the picture if one is paying attention and not obsessed about one piece of the puzzle or only one domino in a conga line of dominoes. Details matter and can make a difference. Forest trees and trees forest. Both matter but it all depends on the quality and attitude of the Observer as to what is “seen” and what it “means”. aka horses for courses. Not all horses are equal but we can all learn from other horses when we are paying attention. (smiling)

    But I digress, sorry.

    92 nigelj, aha, ok I can see what you were saying now and why I got muddled. No worries.

    RE: “J Hansen does seem to have published peer reviewed science that we are facing a global emergency, and rapid climate change. I didn’t know this.”

    T: I understand this and it’s to be expected. You are not the only one. But I wonder how many others here will have the honesty and integrity to admit that publicly, now that I have laid one example of that in plain view.

    I am not hopeful, but willing to be pleasantly surprised. We can discuss this in greater detail, however the question you need to be pondering in your own downtime, is how come you didn’t know this, given all the time and effort and ATTENTION you have already put in over years to inform yourself better?

    RE: “But where does this get us? I think the larger point around this is the media don’t really report this sort of research, […] because they would rather keep a manufactured pretend controversy going to attract more readers interest. Isn’t that the main thing here?”

    T: From where I sit, it is one of the “things” sure. Not the main thing, nor the holistic (dynamic) story. What the media do is one of the trees, kind of but all media is not the same either. There are many “media trees”, and so it depends on which tree you are looking at from one day to the next. Is this a “metaphor/analogy” you can follow or am I making things worse and more confusing/muddled unintentionally?

    96 nigelj says:
    “Thomas @95, I’m also a bit confused by what your ultimate point is about Hansens paper.”

    Great question, thanks. Let’s come back to this later, as for me there are several different (but interconnected) points to this I am attempting to show/expose.

    “However the way I see it, the media are reluctant by my observation in NZ to highlight things like Hansens paper (and even his more public utterances on the danger of rapid climate change).”

    T: But do they know about his papers and what he says in them? There’s a good reason why they do not report on it. See?
    How about this observation: PhDs in science, and working climate scientist here on RC either do not know about it either and/or if they do know they DO NOT report/comment ACCURATELY nor FULLY on what Hansen (and the dozens of his co-author climate scientists) have been saying for YEARS NOW in his published peer-reviewed papers?

    Why are they ignoring what those Scientific Papers contain and conclude? I have not.

    Now one reasonable “excuse” is for Gavin who is employed as a Public Servant in the US Govt – and as such he has severe constraints in what he can do and say publicly. It’s a fine line with severe implications to him personally (and NASA/GISS) if he crosses it. BPL may also be so constrained, but it appears his employer has no issues if he falsely and publicly accuses others of being “traitors” or worse with zero evidence. Of course, I have the legal right to Sue him and/or report him to his Employer and the FBI for such outrageous crap and persistent online harrassment. It’s illegal. But I digress, sorry.

    RE: “I think this is because the media are scared of upsetting their corporate advertisers. Once the public realise how worried Hansen and others are and how deep it goes, it wont go well for the fossil fuel industry.”

    Or the MEDIA that are spreading gross disinformation and the rest of the science community who are minimizing the extent of the known Science and it’s implications. It happens here as well as in the media. Of course people will argue about that, and attack me personally for saying so, but that is precisely how entrenched PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL manifests Niglej. Ask John Cook! The “subject matter” is besides the point when it comes to Denial. ;-)

    RE: “The NZ media have also never to my knowledge reported on the consensus that 90% plus climate scientists think humans are warming the climate. I think this is because the media would rather pretend there’s a huge debate because this keeps readers interested. Its most annoying.”

    T: Yes, I understand what you are saying and why you see it this way. You are right and correct. My position is that it goes much further than this, it runs deeper and is far more complex to explain – but the solutions are relatively simple, and these all comes from basic Principles.

    The problems also arise due to the non-stop DISTORTION of basic Principles.

    I can summarise that as: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    I am 100% behind what Scott Nudds has to say – not only now but always.

    I am 100% behind Chris (aka Climate state) too, now and always. Any disagreement on one issue or another is irrelevant to the big picture wisdom being expressed by these two people. (there are others too).

    Let me use this as an example by Chris: “Climate denial online is a sophisticated organized streamlined process, tweaked and directed with generous resources. – The Koch intelligence agency….”

    Now IF the Koch Brothers were Russian then they would be pilloried in the US, NZ, and Australian Press for operating a TROLL FACTORIES and for funding Governemtn supported THINK TANKS with very close ties to the Russian Govt and Deep State and for interferring in the POLITICAL PROCESS of FreeDUMB loving western dmeocraicxes.

    They would then have SACTIONS dumped upon them by multiple Nation’s Givernment, and anyoine with Business, Diplomatic or Government ties to them would likelwise be SANCTIONED forthwith.

    Of course this is NOT what happens. I mean shit man — Freedom of Speech is so precious to ALL Amercians ….. until you disagree with one of them! By default you must be worng and you must be evil and you must eb a threat to their FreeDUMBS mate!

    The western media and western societies Nigelj, have been Poisoned by the TOXIC nature of American’s Psychological delusions from living inside an ECHO_CHAMBER of Insanity and endless LIES for decades now.

    Utter DUMBness to the extreme … they cannot think straight anymore. That entrenched psychological sickness is a VIRUS that has been spread via the media globally and especially since 2007 by Social Media Platforms and US GOVT THINK TANKS that setup other corrupt think tanks like the IPA in Australia and then they end up in Parliament making Laws about AGW/CC and Economics and placing SANCTIONS on anyone else in the worlds who’s FREE SPEECH counters the garbage spewing forth from the USA and is then silenced by SANCTIONS — A NON-STOP Hypocritical Abuse of POWER.

    CAPS are free and for emphasis only, sorry. :-)

    I’ll get back to Hnasen’s papers and what they mean, later. Waiting a little longer to see if Mal Adapted or Ray has a single word to say about that. (not holding my breath).

    In the meantime any questions? What do you think, and can you see the jigsaw puzzle I am trying to paint here?

    I am barely touching the surface mate. These are incredibly difficult issues to deal with and recognise for what they are.

  3. 103
  4. 104
    nigelj says:

    Keven McKinney @101, regarding your list of recommendations. I agree totally. Its all we can do, keep going with those, and I don’t say that lightly. It really is.

  5. 105
    Thomas says:

    #100 Whatever!

    (with a huge shrug)

  6. 106
    Thomas says:

    Mal, one day you might tell me something I do not know (and practice) already. Don’t give up your day job. I suspect you’d starve out there in the real world. I am a mirror, beware what you see in it. (again, with a huge shrug)

  7. 107
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @102

    I think media trees is quite a good term.

    Are people like Gavin and Thomas a bit “limited” in what they can say? I don’t know, it depends on their sponsors, funder’s and employers etc. Its probably sufficient to say some climate scientists are probably funded in some way by conservative leaning sponsors (in the climate sense) and so are limited in what they can say. Whether that applies to Gavin I have no idea and its his personal business, and I totally respect his views.

    Its similar to the way the media depends on the corporate sector, so wont want to upset them too much.Even the IPCC has to get the science signed off by “governments” presumably including Saudi Arabia etc. Same issue ultimately.

    The bottom line message I take personally from all this on the entire climate issue is its all going to be significantly worse than the “middle range” IPCC estimates. So pretty serious.

    But I don’t buy into the “earth will become like venus” meme. There are just not enough fossil fuels on the planet. Although if every last drop of tar sand oil is burned I suspect we are looking at more than 10 degrees celsius easily enough. Hopefully sanity prevails.

    I think the Koch brothers and people like the Heartland institute are morally as bad as the Russians. But of course we have free speech and the Koch’s aren’t breaking the law, although they push it to the limits. I dont see an easy way around this because once you make an exception and limit legally what the Koch brothers say its the thin end of the wedge, and soon free speech will be illegal for things you and I want to speak about. I also don’t like hate speech, but making it illegal – I don’t know.

    I sort of come down that free speech should be legal with a few limited exceptions like inciting violence and promoting paedophilia and defamation. HOWEVER websites can of course set their own limits on speech as private organisations. The second amendment is just related to government censorship. Its a tough one for me, because while I hate what climate denialists say, I value peoples rights to an opinion – even a crappy one.

    Having said all that, I think certain types of climate denialists should be banned from websites, if they are just spamming, or making outrageous claims with just pure lists of propaganda slogans, with nothing to back up their claims.

    But this is why J Cook is important, because he promotes awareness of how deceitful climate denialists are, rather than just talking only about the science flaws in what they say.

    But yes the hypocrisy is huge. The people who go on most loudly about free speech, particularly internet climate denialist trolls are often be the first to blow a fuse and become threatening and tell you to shut up! So the irony is huge.

    I agree about the toxic pathological echo chamber thing, and devious, conniving rotten think tanks. Part of me would love to see them all just self destruct somehow. I suppose its the price we pay for freedom of speech and democracy. Maybe democracy is over rated. I dont know. However at least John Cook does what he can to expose their trickery.

    I certainly see the jigsaw. Its huge. Books are written on this thing and more will be written. Its probably too big and intricate an issue for us individually to fully grasp, but we do what we can.

  8. 108
    nigelj says:

    Thomas, oops. I meant are people like Gavin and BPL limited in what they can say…

  9. 109
    Thomas says:

    248 nigelj from UV says:
    26 Feb 2018 at 10:29 PM

    Thomas @246

    I agree to the extent that Cook has not convinced the big target group of hard core ideologically driven denialists and crazies. I do think he has probably convinced a few in the middle of the debate. I just think Cook has a different slant on the issue than simply arguing the science, remember that. His ideas will take a while to gain wider exposure.

    I think one of the problems in America has been the so called email scandal involving P Jones. The numbers who accepted the science fell I think after that unfortunate thing. It was of course a giant beat up with no substance, but had a bad look. It has obscured whether the efforts of people like Cook have achieved anything.

    However Roberts argued the democrats have to own the climate problem which makes sense. Not sure how he thinks that will happen, but I hope it will. Cooks ideas can only help that process imho.

    Yes its not about native tribes. I would suggest more about politics as well as psychology. Although they are ultimately very closely related. Authoritarianism has a lot to do with the denial side of things, but I don’t think that is the only thing. The term tribalism might upset some people, but there are numerous books with political tribalism in the title. I’m afraid we may be stuck with the word.

    Yes N Chomsky is a genius, but you will hate this. I think his theory of grammar is a bit dubious. Probably beside the point.

    You would need to clarify your last paragraph. If you think part of the problem is that the science is badly presented to the public, then this seems to endorse the Cook’s and other peoples attempts to better communicate the science.

    Its tough communicating science to the public, because you have to simplify yet not over simplify. I actually think scientists have done as well as is possible. How could it be explained better, other than tidying up a few rough edges?

    This does rather lead back to the need for liberals to simply own the whole issue more.

    Anyway, I would ideally also love to see the general print media put a bit more attention on explaining how climate denialists use rhetorical trickery, as opposed to just purely writing science articles. I think this element of Cooks approach could have some impact.

    Hi nigelj,

    I can’t address every aspect in your comment, sorry. It seems to me that Cooks focus has been on ‘educating/supporting’ providing tools for active climate scientists to understand and apply, and more broadly academic students and those engaged in the topic, including media journos PR folks etc., and for people like you and other regular users of websites like RC here.

    I’m far from convinced that many are applying his suggestions, but some may have been enlightened about the denial dynamic become aware there are ways to not to fall into the common traps. When I look around over the years I haven’t seen much anecdotal evidence of that happening around here. a very narrow limited observational constraint.

    Cook’s goal wasn’t to better educate the public about climate science or how denial works (from what I can tell) so that the average person would know it when they saw it.

    fwiw have a look at his UQx videos now almost 3 years old. Highest views are 29K in the first two segments, drops to 9K and then to 6K, 5K, 3K, 2K down into the few hundreds. It runs in 5 weekly series of short vids. A few individual videos jump in view like this one about 5 key characteristics of denial at 16K views

    and the Innoculation Theory vid at 12K views

    maybe watch that vid eg “John Cook outlines how to stop science denial: by exposing people to weak forms of science denial.”

    Here’s his channel url w all video playlists

    The activity title is “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”
    Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.

    What’s the Gestalt?

    Are active scientists and public speakers using these techniques successfully? Is it making a difference iow do they effectively respond to climate change denial when it appears?

    Look how people respond here. See how the same people “defending climate science” deal with ‘deniers’ both here and in other forums, eg open mind, or anywhere else.

    People here are well aware of John Cook, and SkS and UQx Denial101x. I am one who shared info here about these vids and more 2-3 years ago now.

    This information is not for the average person in the public. More than that, basic climate science is not for the average person in the public. They cannot understand either, nor do they have the time or energy or interest to learn it or properly understand it.

    Trying to make the “public” understand climate science and psychological denial and how to fix it is like playing Whack-a-Mole. No matter how big the hammer, you cannot shove this stuff into peoples heads. Not via RC, nor IPCC reports, nor via long winded (or short n snappy) media stories n the press, or Facebook or Twitter. I do not know any reason why this needs to be ‘proven’ to anyone, as it is so self-evidently true and obvious.

    University students and average Graduates can barely grasp these things unless it is their specialty subject.

    What does John Cook himself say about deniers? On the Roberts i’view website he says this: “Not only do I agree with the view that denialists are irrational and largely can’t be convinced.” John Cook
    February 25, 2018 – scroll down

    I agree with him, don’t you?

    So, what’s the gestalt in that?

    And why all the effort in – “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” beyond simply stating point blank that they can’t be convinced and so it is not ever going away.

    That and in the very beginning of the lecture series he even admits it is only a SMALL MINORITY of people who actually are Deniers (eg 13% in the USA, and minuscule % everywhere else).

    What the focus? What’s the Gestalt? What’s the point?

    OK, now it is the point that Innoculation will “as if by a magical hand” protect the average person from being infected by AGW/CC Denial.

    Why? Denial is NOT contagious. Normal peopl;e do not need protection from it – if they needed protection then they would already be DENIERS themselves, and they are not.

    They are simply everyday citizens trying to survive and thrive in this world. They are not stupid, no need to treat them like they are.

    The basic facts are enough explained to htem ina way that makes rational sense IN THEIR LIFE.

    Climate Scientists are not in fact responsible for what is done about their Science. They do have a responsibility to at the very least EXPLAIN IT IN TERMS that a Politician and anyone with a 12 yr old reading ability (ir newspaper comprehension level can grasp) – but that’s it.

    Scientists do not get to decide what to do about it, nor how to go about making any changes in society as a result of the Impacts of a changing climate.

    Scientists are advisers about their Science. Fixing Deniers is NOT their problem nor responsibility either.

    Those of us blessed enough to have a decent mother would have been told at some point ” Listen child, there is no point arguing with a Drunk.”

    Sane well adjusted people understand this. Deniers and their activist promoters everywhere, (Murdoch included) are merely addicted to their own version of Drunkenness which show up as their denial issues.

    That’s not my problem nor your problem nor climate scientists problem. There is no point arguing with a climate science denier – period. Turn your back and ignore them like you would a drunken slob on the street yabbering BS non-stop at passers by at 3 am in the morning.

    Ignore them. It’s that simple.

    Simply explain the basic science of agw/cc in a way they average person can comprehend, place it into their lived experiences, and follow through explaining what kind of AGW/CC Impacts will affect them where they live and work.

    [OK yes sure, life is more complicated than that, but that’s the Principle and the Principle actually works. Roosevelt did it in WW2 as did Churchill and the King. So did Uncle Sam in posters all over the USA. That’s called ADVERTISING and you do not need another Paper by Scientists to tell you that works so well it is all but GUARANTEED to Work and shift people’s attitudes and their understanding of AGW/CC being at a crisis point now already.

    The people will do the rest. Not only will they act on agw/cc issues, they will also VOTE accordingly and they will also FIX the deniers one on one over time…. and tell them 24/7 to shut the fuck up asshole and go home, you drunken dickhead!

  10. 110
    Thomas says:

    So Nigelj, if you were at home in your own ‘space’ and some drunk came screaming at you because you’re a nutcase who accepts the science of agw/cc and he was bashing on your door, would you open that door and welcome into your space?

    Well they do that here and everywhere else every day. In fact some people, actual scientists even, go running all over the internet to argue with drunken idiots everyday.

    What’s the gestalt?

  11. 111
    Thomas says:

    Nigelj, during WW2 in America, the home of freedom of speech and all, how many Fascists or National Socialists (Nazis) were running for election and being backed in and funded by Corporations and Media Conglomerates like NewsCorp is today?

    Answer: None

    Why is that?

    Besides the fact that it was illegal? Where even GW Bush’s grandfather’s company was deemed to be trading with the enemy and shut down and their assets seized.

    The only thing the Government had to do was simply tell the truth about the facts of the matter.

    They did not need to tell every single citizen what the plans were for D-Day. That was for the EXPERTS to decide and fund and implement.

    When the government stops functioning and telling the truth, and the media isn’t telling the truth, then the only thing the Scientists and others have to do is simply tell the truth.

    Repeat repeat repeat.

    That’s Martin Luther King and those who supported his ideals and values and principles did.

    That;s what the anti-Vietnam war protesters did across every campus in the USA … some got shot for their trouble.

    So what? Shit happens. When the going gets tough the tough get going!

  12. 112
    Thomas says:

    101 Kevin McKinney, another excellent comment there with Sage advice to all.

    If I may be so bold to add to point 5) write about it in whatever fora are open to us, from letters to the editor, to online essays, to formally published essays, fiction, poetry, or whatever;

    Yes write about it.

    Write about it in formal letters to your local MP and Rep. no matter which Party. Tell it like it is. If they are an entrenched disbeliever in AGW/CC then call them out for that and tell them what you really think about that and why.

    Put your name to it. Add in your life experience and qualifications, your career experience and titles, your age and family status, your religious beliefs, and speak on behalf of your children, your circle of friends who agree 100% with your views, your local community, and your descendants.

    Plus write to the State and National Ministers/Secretaries, in particular those with responsibilities related to AGW/CC action and Scientific rigor.

    And write to your nation’s Prime Ministers Office, and Presidential Office and tear them a new asshole if that is how you feel about them and they deserve it.

    Then write again a month later, and keep doing it until you run out of steam.

    As an example in my State the issue of Fracking was up for review. Thousands of farmers and farmer/environmentalists groups made submissions through various options.

    Everyone did their own thing. I wrote to “my” relevant Minister responsible for this issue. I spent days collating all the very latest published scientific studies and “letters/articles” by experts in that field, working in the field regarding the impacts of Gas Fracking. Especially in the USA at that time.

    I provided all the necessary References and url links to this cutting edge latest SCIENCE.

    Her staff did NOT wriote back to me, she did herself, personally. She was stunned at the amount of info I had provided. She was in the “conservbative pro-buisness pro-minding political party, eg like the GOP vs the Dems or the Greens.

    She was incredibly grateful for my submission and thanked me profusely. That’s irrelevant imho as quite unimportant to me.

    What was KEY here is that she undertook to ensure my material was immediate sent to the State Scientist who was then responsible for summarizing the “science” for the Government to complete their Review of Gas Fracking and it’s implications and a general RISK ASSESSMENT and Economics of it.

    And she did do that, passed it on to the State Scientist. Why? maybe becasue I told her upfront that there was anvery high chance that even the State SCientist would have NO IDEA about those studies and would likely have NO IDEA of where to find it even if he knew such material was out there.

    And let me say, I know I am right on that score.

    What transpired within a few months was the “right wing” Government including several non-AGW/CC believers in it;’s ranks implemented a major cut back on Gas Fracking in the state, and banned it outright across various regions, and placed upon other regions such stringent environmental controls that a couple of Gas Corps pulled out of the state permanently.

    It would be a far better use of most scientists and PhDs time who comment on this forum and on others like Open Mind to just STOP wasting YOUR time arguing with idiotic “drunken” deniers, and spend their time much more effectively by scouring the internet for such “events” as “Gas Fracking reviews by Government” etc etc in all nations across the world and use your education and skills and knowledge and actually make a positive difference to AGW/CC action by sending them a FORMAL SUBMISSION or offering up YOUR OPINION and EXPERTISE to be considered in their deliberations.

  13. 113
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @109

    Yes there are also too many issue in your comments to fully address as well, but I will tackle a couple.

    Yeah I broadly agree about Cooks approach. Its rather complicated.

    All I can say is this. I read a book when only about 15 on logical reasoning and logical fallacies, and cherry picking etc, and I’m glad I did. Came across it by accident. It really has helped me personally make sense of science theories and conspiracies etc. So I think these are important things, but Cook does kind of make it a bit complicated and nerdy. But look, anything is better than nothing.

    I do feel too much time in the print media has gone into demolishing the denialists on the basis of the science, rather than the simple truth that most of their ideas are just rhetorical trickery.

    BUT talking about misleading arguments and trickery needs to be kept simple!

    Yes its not scientists jobs to convince the hardened core group of denialists. Scientists will only convince normal people.

    The way I see it is most people are actually born scepetics. When confronted with a new theory, we don’t take it at face value just because an expert says so, and we want some proof or evidence. Then most people become believers. But you are always left with a small group of denialist nutbars who are really stubborn.

    Roberts is right, in that nobody including Cook will EVER convince this core group of denialists, other than perhaps one or two.

    There are still a few flat earthers and a core group that think tobacco smoking is harmless despite a mountain of evidence, and then there’s evolution….Anyway while these republican leaning climate denialists cant be convinced, they can be scared. If the Democrats own the climate issue more as Roberts says it will influence at least what the Republicans do and say in the way of policy,even if it doesn’t change them deep down.

    However I personally still like combating climate denialsists on websites. Its good mental exercise, I get really bored with television, I’m semi retired, and I know I have influenced a few of the rational ones. But each to their own and I totally understand your view on it.

    And I have no illusions about most of the denialist characters that appear, they are as stubborn as god knows what. Its mostly deliberate ignorance, although some of them are just plainly thick.

  14. 114
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @111, point taken. Talking about the science, and evidence in the natural world is the simple truth and so it needs to be stated constantly.

  15. 115
    Thomas says:

    In the last 9 years, there has been 5 different Prime Ministers of Australia.

    I have written to every single one of them on issues connected/related to AGW/CC. When I do that I do not speak to them like I speak to some people here. I use the issues that arise here to develop my “letters and essays”. I edit what I ahve written and what others have written and combine it into compelling positive arguments (arguments in the sense of debating, maths and science, NOT arguing or being insulting)

    I have written on AGW/CC issues to all my State Senators, there are 12 of them, not 2. I continue to do so, when it feels “right” to me to do so. I do NOT harass them endlessly, I do NOT go all partisan political, nor spam them. I pick my battles carefully and with much thought.

    I have written to other MPs and Senators, LNP, Labour, The Greens and Independents (yes we have them here unlike the USA) thanking them for speaking out on such issues such as the GBR, Adani Coal Mine and AGW/CC related issues across the nation and to a couple of other State Premiers who head their Governments as well.

    eg commending what was going on in South Australia re the new Tesla battery and their new roll out of 50,000 homes being connected into a Virtual Battery, and so on.

    I copy/paste quote HARD SCIENCE from Published Peer-Reviewed Research papers by well known Universities and Climate Scientists from all over the world.

    These are all at my fingertips saved to my PC and backed up on Disc. I have been doing this about 15 years now. I sleep well at night and no one knows I have been doing this except for my close family members, and even they do not know all of it.

  16. 116
    Thomas says:

    RE “regarding the impacts of Gas Fracking.”

    At that time multinational corporate conglomerates with deep pockets were in the public domain calling for the State Government to allow Gas Fracking in SYDNEY as close as 5 kilometers for the Harbour Bridge, and claiming it was SAFE and the State government would make a ton of $$$ and could cut taxes on people!!!

  17. 117
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @110, just adding to me reply above, there is however another issue issue. If nobody responds to denialists, it does create an impression with some politicians etc that the denialists could be right.

    So at least something has to be said, even if its a very brief rebuttal and there’s no shortage of people doing that. However it does run the danger of spending all the time defending, rather than providing good information on what climate change is actually doing to the planet.

    It probably needs a mixture of both rebuttals and promoting the science.

  18. 118
    Thomas says:

    Useful Tools

    “Axis of Evil” is a metaphor.

    It activated the Evil Empire (Russia) and Axis Powers (WW2) Fear Frames simultaneously. Very powerful.

    “The President’s Tax Relief Plan” is a metaphor.

    It activated the Taxation is an Oppressive Burden Frame

    Frames are everywhere. One cannot think about anything without Frames being activated.

    Documentary which explains the role of Advertising and Marketing’s use of Frames and Metaphors. Short ending extract from his link.

    Freud’s nephew was leading light in applying the early knowledge of Psychology to be deployed as a tool for Propaganda aka Marketing today.

    What Freud, Bernays and the Gestaltist’s etc. couldn’t know about back then was what is now known through the last 25 years scientific research in Cognitive Science and using modern technology like MRI scans etc.

    Metaphors and Frames are embedded into our physical bodies…. but what Bernay’s et al were really good at was applying basic scientific techniques n their “marketing research”. They created little “theories” and then went out and tested it on “consumers” in the real world. They tracked that using data and then refined their approach accordingly. This happened across ~75 years before Cognitive Science discovered the proofs of what they had been doing and why it worked so successfully.

    And so it is that when has had training and experience in what is/was known as Direct Marketing in the 1990s, later to show up on your TV screens late at night as Info Commercials, they have direct knowledge about how that “scientific research and testing and analysis using Math” works in the real world and how that is directly connected back to Psychology, and Freud, and Marketing and Cognitive Sciences of today.

    Such people may also conclude, despite not being a Cognitive Scientist themselves, that people like Emeritus Professor George Lakoff is almost 100% right and on the money, and Dr John Cook’s Communication theories are much less so, and that the IPCC Communication handbook, whilst containing some realty good advice kind of misses the mark.

    Better to use that than not, but the Communication of AGW/CC science and it;’s implications for people has a very very long way to go.

    Unfortunately, time is of the essence and running out fast.

    That ref again:

    Make of it what you will, or ignore it all. Doesn’t really matter in the big scheme of things.


  19. 119
    Thomas says:

    Introducing the Anti-Christ
    (that’s a Metaphor too)

    Start here and he will appear shortly after @3h9m – but don’t be scared no matter how hideous he appears!

    Notice “inner psychological needs” @ 3:08:40 which also became the new “definition” for one’s Tribe in the late 1970s and into the madness (and economic rationalism aka early neo-liberalism) of the 1980s in the west.

    In switching on this “new Frame”, using Metaphors across the public domains repeatedly, by it’s very existence it broke down the existing historical connections to one’s Tribe and Communities in which they grew up and had accepted by default unconsciously.

    Their Unconscious was instead being scientifically and intentionally manipulated from the outside by the Media, Corporations and Political Classes – aka The 1%


    Oh if AGW/CC scientists and the IPCC and their supporters for action were oh so clever as using such modern day cutting edge science as well as those shills like Murdoch have been.

    Time for a Fox Hunt? Tallyho!

  20. 120
    Thomas says:

    Meet the Teens Schooling Us on Climate Action

    Zero Hour, a national movement mobilizing youth to protect a livable future, is planning a youth march this summer

    Generation Z – millennials’ younger brothers and sisters – are increasingly finding their voices in the Trump era, expanding media-savvy campaigns for racial equality and gun control to encompass climate change. A group of high school students are now planning a nationwide series of climate marches on July 21st, when they will confront lawmakers in Washington, D.C. with a list of their demands for a livable climate.

    “I’d say I do about three hours of conference calls every single day,” says Jamie Margolin, a 16-year-old high school sophomore in Seattle who is the lead organizer of the march. “I’m not new to the climate activism world.” […]

    Now, the group is drawing inspiration from the teen-led movement for federal gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Margolin was particularly impressed when the Parkland students confronted lawmakers about accepting money from the NRA – which produced some predictably awkward stammers. Her team is considering making similar demands for politicians to refuse money from the fossil fuel industry.

  21. 121

    #112, Thomas–

    Thanks. And I’m delighted that your efforts bore some visible fruit, as you report. Myself, I usually get back a form letter/email that essentially says “Thank you for contacting me; your views are important to me. However, I am going to do the exact opposite of what you wish.”

    But, hey, it’s not like getting tear-gassed, hit with a high-pressure spout from a firehose, or attacked by police dogs, is it? So I need to keep my grumping in context.

  22. 122
    nigelj says:

    Just adding to the discussion on climate advocacy by KM and Thomas.

    Right now business and fossil fuel lobby groups have a lot of influence over politicians as we all know. So this is the most important thing to counter, and so the public should personally communicate to politicians, by writing them or meeting them. I have done so a few times.

    I agree go into your personal history a bit as well as your concerns.

  23. 123
    Thomas says:

    121 Kevin, well i have no idea if the material made any difference at all, but at least they had a proper process, were fair dinkum about it, used the state science officer to do the review and advise, then acted on that advice, and were grateful enough to say thx to people who tried to assist. No one got everything they wanted, not the environmentalists, the farmers or the miners. … at that time there was very little ‘science’ on the impacts of fracking, leakage, water impacts etc. most of what i found was from the USA at that time. It was a situation of one side always pushing “an absence of evidence meant evidence of no problems” … they would not lie. Yeah right. Let’s hope that it never comes to firehoses or bullets on Kent state all over again.

    meanwhile in other states there is a ban, a moratorium on fracking or go all out. each state is different, while the federal govt washes it hands no matter which party has been in govt. Oh well, c’est la vie. I can’t do it anymore.

  24. 124
    Thomas says:

    nigelj says:
    27 Feb 2018 at 5:19 PM

    Thomas @110, just adding to me reply above, there is however another issue issue. If nobody responds to denialists, it does create an impression with some politicians etc that the denialists could be right. etc. and
    It probably needs a mixture of both rebuttals and promoting the science.

    Nigelj, yes I;m am with you on this as a “generality” whereas I am more focused on the specific “hows” of that. Sometimes the “intention” is good but the application faulty and counter-productive. This my “angle” if you will.

    113 : re Cook fallacies etc “But look, anything is better than nothing.”

    Oh sure is! It made a real difference to you and learning that also helped me enormously …. Cook’s issues about deniers are real, I agree with him, again “generally” but there is a limit how much his “activity” tryign to sell can be. Even Under Graduates have to WANT to learn something and at least first recognize they NEED to leanr it before it will become a part of their nature. Passing a course is not the same thing. It doesn’t then follow they wil go out ointo the world and assist in “educating the public” let alone being able to SPEAK with thme in ways that aplies what Cook et al are teching how they should do it.

    Theoretically he’s right, but there is no time to do that now, and the it is a losing casue to expect even 10% of the population can be “inoculated” like he expects. You and I are (imho) but we still have our blind spots too, but he;s the criticval thing – You and I and many others, Killian included btw, consciously went out of way and CHOSE TO LEARN and INOCULATE oursewlves. No one else could have done that for us … see?

    So my concerns is that Cook et al are fundamentally wasting their time and resources. I say this because Cook was a poster child here on RC and I cannot see any of the most outspoken residents in speaking out against with Deniers or supposedly assisting newbies here who actually apply a single thing in the methodology that Cook (and m any others) have taught …

    I have “observed” what has happened here for years and see ZERO change in approach., None. I could in fact collate the examples I have, turn it all into graphs and have it submitted for Peer Review … but whats the point, Nothing will change anyway.

    If Hansen did they’d still ignore him. Don’t believe me? then you can see the same characters spinning their wheels on Open Mind for several weeks. :-)

  25. 125
    Thomas says:

    and 113 con’t.
    Roberts is right, in that nobody including Cook will EVER convince this core group of denialists, other than perhaps one or two.


    However I personally still like combating climate denialsists on websites. Its good mental exercise, I get really bored with television, I’m semi retired, and I know I have influenced a few of the rational ones. But each to their own and I totally understand your view on it. [end quote]

    Yes, totally agree with you. Horses for courses, and yes flipping illogical denialists with their nose already out of joint is “good Sport” :-)

    And yes, yes and yes to other things you have said above.

    I’ll leave with another anecdote fwiw, and hopefully we can both slow it all down. I’m overdoing it and need to stop.

    Years ago Gavin did the ‘interview’ thing on FoxNews. It’s up online @youtube. They set him up ie LIED to him about the kind of interview to be done. Rather than be caught in a bind and submit, Gavin outright refused to sit at the same desk and argue with a denier/bs artists known climate scientist. They either had to do the discussion separately, or he would leave. So they did that. Gavin went first, and then he left the stage.

    That was one of the most sanest rational psychologically sound thing I have ever seen a climate scientist do, ever. But to be honest here, I personally would gone the extra yards and simply walked out from the get go. Better yet, refused any and every invite from Fox because you should already knwo what you’re going to get, and then some!

    Gavin never did another i’view with Fox. Others keep showing up. They are fools on two legs. Gavin has it right. Give them NO AIR and do not ever have the appearance that there is ANY “equivalency” between a Gavin and a denier scientist who is off with the faeries and utterly flawed.


    Part 2: But scientists still will not learn, and neither do the “peanuts” here and elsewhere for that matter.

    M Mann gets an invite to House reps science committee led by Lamar Smith. Now Mann is a co-founder of this here website as well, ok?

    M Mann accepts this invite, I personally would have said sorry, got little league with my kiddies, so can’t make it on that date and time. But he didn’t.

    So he turns up on a table with 3 deniers versus M Mann. It was pathetic imho. Mann could not cut through, the whole thing was a show trial. And Mann could not properly communicate what he needed to say in a way that the normal everyday citizen watching Cspan could understand.

    There was one democrat guy who could. What he said “as part of his questioning” made a 100 times more simple sense than anything Mann had to say.

    Now not picking on Mann, for really the guy was under a lot of stress, trying win a fight he was always destined to lose. And when that happens the frontal cortex shuts down and we lose the plot and our memory goes out the door temporarily.

    It didn;t matter if Man was right either, he lost the “battle” and looked like a dill to those are already gullible dills and they were in the majority in the US. Therefore anytime Mann shows up gain on TV they all basically switch off and do not listen.

    That’s the problem in a nutshell.

    Arguing with deniers is a waste of time and energy and high blood pressure in any forum. The odd exceptions, do prove this Rule is solid, based on Psychology and Cognitive Science and anything ever written about Communication. (sorry for repeating myself) And Mann did NOT practice what Cook et al had been preaching by that time for years and years.

    So, repeating the same thing over and over again that repeatedly fails is the definition of what?

    How “obsessed” is Mann et al in trying to push shit up hill with a spoon but and yet never quit?
    With a great detachment and constraining oneself to leap to conclusions, please have a read of this:

    Please note: Anyone who reads the above as a direct ‘criticism’ or ‘put down’ of M Mann or any agw/cc climate scientist or any supporter of that science is simply not understanding what’s been written here and what it really means. Have another look.

    Thanks Nigelj, really thank you, for this stuff is pretty important and these genuine real dialogues here have drawn that out. Arguing does not go anywhere.

  26. 126
    Thomas says:

    So what;’s the alternative? Here’s one. If Mann had asked me about the House reps appearance, I would have advised do not go.

    Instead, find a supporter, someone like Jennifer Lawrence the movie star )or better).

    Get them to announce an important Press Conference where she had a major announcement to make and that she would be there in a tiny bikini or maybe even naked.

    The time set for that Press Conference at the exact time of or 15 minutes into Lamar Smith’s Science Committee “discussion” with Judith Curry et al.

    HUndres of prees and live feeds show up, and J-Law walks out in a proper dress, and she then has a word ot two about agw/cc science risks, and impacts and then she introduces Michael Mann to the podium and he takles over, while she keeps standing right behind him ….. maybe she might take off her jacket becuase it is hot and give a morsel of her breast to the TV Producers inclduing FoxNews Live.

    The whole world would have heard at leats a little of what Michael Mann had to say ….. and not a word aboiut Lamar Smith’s deniers BS.

    THis is PR at it’s best. This is Marketing. This is promotional advertising. This works. That’s why it si a multi-trillion dollar global industry.

    Cook et al hasn’t got a hope of getting “within Cooee” of that. Nor can the Heartland Institute or Fox or Monkton or Real Climate. ;-)

  27. 127
    Thomas says:

    Are you (anyone) interested in learning something useful about Advertising and modern Marketing? And what is and is not effective Communication with the General Public?

    Go here

    Research who “Gruen” was.

    Note that the Host is a Stand Up Comic.

    But realize that he also a University Graduate who went on to study journalism at the University of Canberra, graduating top of his course!!!

    He is no fool.

    And then go do some research about Todd Sampson as well. Todd Sampson is a Canadian-born Australian award-winning documentary-maker, television presenter and former CEO of the communication company Leo Burnett Australia. He wrote, produced and presented the science documentary series, Redesign My Brain which won Documentary of the Year. He wrote, produced and hosted BodyHack, an adventure science documentary for Discovery International which was nominated for Best Factual Series and Most Outstanding Documentary of the Year. He is the host and producer of the upcoming ABC science documentary series, LIFE ON THE LINE.

    He then studied economics and biology at Queen’s University in Ontario, working as a college counsellor to supplement his income. He applied for another international scholarship and went on to complete an M.B.A. at the University of Cape Town.[3]
    Business career.

    Russel Howcroft is an Australian business man and media personality best known as a panellist on the ABC television program The Gruen Transfer.

    He is the former national CEO of advertising agency George Patterson Y&R. Howcroft also served Executive General Manager of Network Ten from February 2013[1] to February 2017 before moving to PwC[2] just months before the network was placed into voluntary administration.[3] Howcroft holds a Bachelor of Business (Marketing) from Monash University.

    Do you how highly Monash Uni rates on the international Uni scale?

    Does anyone here imagine they are more intelligent, more knowledgeable and scientific about “communication” or more talented in the latest Mind Science and changing people’s behaviour or more successful than these guys are?

    Really, do you?

    I am not worthy of tying up their shoe laces but I do understand WTF they are talking about and WHY. I respect and listen to credible experts. Do you?

    Oh the answer to who was Gruen

  28. 128
    Thomas says:

    Kevin, fyi, Thirty-one of Australia’s leading climate scientists and doctors have written an open letter to the Northern Territory Government calling on it to not permit the opening up of new gas fields through hydraulic fracturing.

  29. 129
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @124 – 126 etc.

    Yeah interesting points. Just replying to say I read them really.

    The innoculate thing is a good idea to me, but I agree its hard to see it scaling up fast enough to have much impact on the climate thing. It would be ideal in schools as a general guide to life, as a longer term project. Maybe John Cook would be more effective elsewhere, but maybe not. His expertise is partly psychology, so he is in his area of skill.

    I think public debates on television etc between climate scientists and climate sceptics are a VERY bad idea. Its like the terrible red / blue team idea, and I have lobbied against this on other websites, and suggested climate scientists not get involved, and if they feel they must, only if the structure of the debate is 100% to their satisfaction. Looks like the red / blue idea has died anyway.

    Basically climate scientists dont have the rhetorical skills, no criticism intended, and the sceptics are often not even scientists, but lawyers and have very good debating skills. Decent, genuine scientists like M Mann are no match for people prepared to lie and twist things, and who are trained in public speaking.

    I think websites are a little different in terms of attacking denialists. I hope this doesn’t sound contradictory, its just a different environment.

    But yes, people like Mann are going to achieve more in one on one discussions with the public. I saw ones of these and he was great.

    I hate the trickery of rhetorical, sneaky debating. I consciously try to debate on the facts and keep it a little bit laid back old fashioned in style. Its my protest against the twisted, attention seeking debating crap we often see (Dan H is a typical example). I may not get quite so much attention, but never mind. Hope this makes some sort of sense.

  30. 130
    Thomas says:

    The US Based network of funding and PR on behalf of Anti-AGW/CC science deniers are extremists who will not fail stoop to any low any lie use any tool or opportunity “meme” at their disposal. Such is the power of money and the power of psychopathy.

    Propaganda:101 — see page 3 I. Russia works to disrupt U.S. energy markets
    and Fracking Threatens the Kremlin’s Agenda and pg 5 I.
    Republicans and Democrats agree (quoting Clinton) the Kremlin is manipulating environmental groups in an attempt to carry out their agenda

    These GOP Neoliberal Thugs had no problems when the Bush/Cheney Oil/Gas Neocon Network took the nation to war in the ME using false claims, lies and propaganda while abandoning the Right of the EPA to have jurisdiction over the environmental impacts of Fracking across the nation.

    This is only touched on lightly as an aside in the report.

    eg on Page 4
    Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing as a means for producing oil and natural gas began in the early 2000s.10 aka Cheney et al.
    At that time, there were “approximately 26,000 hydraulically
    fractured wells” in the United States, which accounted for “less than 7%” of all U.S. marketed natural gas.11
    By 2011, fracking had become the primary method for oil and natural gas development in the United States. 12
    Since 2014, fracked wells have “accounted for most of all new wells drilled and completed.”13
    The number of fracked wells had climbed “to an estimated 300,000” by 2015, and were responsible for approximately 67 percent of all U.S. natural gas output.14

    Therefore sooner or later, given the typical level of manipulated media and fake news in the US and lying shills, anyone who raises their voice to question or protest against Fracking or the lack of Govt action on reducing Fossil Fuel Use in the USA will be getting labeled as a Russian Troll or a Russian Agent.

    Welcome back to the 1950s and the US House Committee investigation into Un-American Activities.

    This is where it is now heading at light speed – and anyone pointing to this US Corporatist Deep State 1% Psychopathic Conspiracy of Deniers against AGW/CC Science and it’s obvious Impacts and Implications will of course be vilified and falsely accused of being a Spy Anti-American of all kinds of crimes that can be imagined.

    See no one in their right mind would ever expect that any person or any Heartland Institute operative would ever stoop this low to “win” a fraudulent argument against SCIENCE.

    And that’s why they are winning the Propaganda War against the USA and the people of the world. The science and the scientists are all impotent against such inhuman pathological psychopaths and biased illogical manipulators with no boundaries – they will use an issue any hint of bad will and any lie to WIN.

    What’s the “science” got on it’s side?

    A 6 point Communication Handbook and John Cook and totally corrupted News Media landscape that;s been gutted of genuine investigative Journalism by the Neoliberals and Neocons before them.

    Could not write a fictional conspiracy movie this good.

    But just like those who kept reporting on the looming 2008 Mortgage Debt driven Financial Crash barely no one will really “look at the facts” or “listen” and continue on head in the sand living in denial and ignorance until it’s too late.

    300,000 fracking wells? Good luck when that beast slaps back hard.

    Zebra will have is way sooner than he expects. US Lunacy:101

  31. 131
    Thomas says:

    How long will it take before Dr. James Hansen is accused of being an foreigner agent provocateur for attending Science Symposiums in China and all his associated scientists and friends?

    How soon before Dr. Michael Mann is ordered to attend Lamar Smith’s United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology again to be asked pointed manipulative questions about where his LOYALTIES lay?

    People have already accused me of just that right here on RC and I am a nobody.

    So many people, especially Scientists and Academics have absolutely no idea what they are dealing with when it comes to the AGW/CC Denier networks and what and who is behind those front groups and their gullible volunteer foot soldiers.

  32. 132
    Thomas says:

    Sorry guys. You have already lost this ‘psychological war’ long ago.

    Best option now? Walk away while you still can. The lunatics already hold the keys to the asylum, own the SCOTUS and the private prisons.

    Or take the gamble of not ending up like Gary Webb, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Martin Luther King, Senator Robert Kennedy, Julian Assange, Edward Snowdon, Chelsea Manning, Daniel Ellsberg and all the rest. It’s a choice.

  33. 133
    Thomas says:

    And how soon before Environmental Orgs like Greenpeace are declared a threat to national security and being a network of foreign agent provocateurs and outlawed by the psychopaths in the US Congress as well?

    Where then any nation who provides Govt funding to such environmental non-profit groups or offers Tax deductions to their private donors are threatened with punitive Sanctions by the US Govt?

    Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

    Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


    Quotes from BPL to me Thomas:

    Barton Paul Levenson says:
    24 Feb 2018 at 6:54 PM

    And more deranged pro-Mother-Russia ranting from Commie Tommy. Good dezinformatsiya, Comrade!

    Barton Paul Levenson says:
    25 Feb 2018 at 5:26 PM

    Synonyms for Thomas: Chekist, Traitor, Communist, Red, someone with a nice office reserved for him at the Lyubyanka when the Australian authorities finally catch onto him…

  34. 134
  35. 135
    Thomas says:

    129 nigelj, it all makes perfect sense to me mate.

    Apologies to all Kiwis and ur PM during recent visit for the trashy insidious version of our current political environment here and for deporting all manner of Kiwis back to NZ using a new Law designed only for Islamic Terrorists and their Provocateurs.

    Unfortunately Australia has with great gusto adopted the US version of what’s “normal” in politics and the media.

    To our great loss I might add.

    You take care mate. I’ll be stopping soon and returning to my prior mundane pattern of simply posting of a key news science papers with little comment by myself.


  36. 136
    nigelj says:

    Thomas, some good news, although you may already have this information. Americans have changed their attitudes on climate change in recent years. More and more think human activity is to blame as per this gallup poll below:

    It seems to have changed particularly over the last three years, possibly reflecting the big jump in global temperatures of 2015 – 2016. I think educating the public gradually works over time.

    Apparently the majority of young republicans aged 18 – 30 also accept the science possibly because they get information at school that is relatively free of all the distracting political noise.

    But we are still left with about 30% of non believers, and they are probably going to be very hard to shift.

  37. 137
    Thomas says:

    136 nigelj, it doesn’t matter, I am not encouraged by that. Eventually the whole world will ‘believe’ in agw/cc and the science of it.

    The issue is what actions are all the govts of the world doing about it, in particualr the US because of their footdragging.

    an analogy may be useful. Think about polio, small pox and TB. Did the govts wait until Polls showed a high % of people ‘believed’ those illnesses were bad enough and people ‘believed’ the given solutions were a good idea before they took unilateral/multi-lateral action globally to address those illnesses?

    No they did not. Govts instituted logical science based actions to eliminate those diseases by changing the Laws of the land approving mass chest xrays and use of antibiotics and immunisation programs. People’s individual beliefs and their personal fears of Govt over-reach were and still are irrelevant.

    See what I mean?

    An example of the problem is that idiots like Aus PMs in Howard and Abbott. The only thing Howard ever read about agw/cc was a book sent to him by the mega-rich Lord Nigel Lawson head of the GWPF. Anything passing his desk from Aus govt institutions like the CSIRO and other science bodies was ignored and not rad by Howard. He knew better, because the people who really counted (donors to his Liberal party for the next election) like billionairess miner Gina (Hancock) Reinhardt bluntly kept telling him it was all bullshit and radical greeies trying to institute a left wing take over of global govts like his. Several of Howard’s and Abbotts ministers all got jobs on the board of her companies post-politics.

    They have the power, not those being Polled here or in the USA. That’s nthe facts of the matter. Then there is what the Saudis Russia Canada and all the other FF exporters think and they have “equal voting rights” at UNFCCC meetings as Pacific Island nations, or 1.3 billion Chinese & the USA have.

    It’s really that simple…. Polls are nothing to get excited about, especially in the politically corrupt land of America. It’s all “image” no substance.

    OK fwiw consider all the info provided in the Century of the self doco, in Lakoff videos etc etc etc and consider the economic-politcal theory of the neocons and the neoliberals such as this little section of a Lecture at UNSW ….

    Prof. Philip Mirowski

    and later

    Now most people will simply assume, well Thomas has seen this guy talk and then defaults to “believing him” and that has influenced MY thinking. iow unknowing people not aware of what is, 99% default that the ONLY way I could have formed a view is by BLINDLY BELIEVING what someone else had told me. Not true!

    No, not at all, I already knew this stuff, this is but an example of another person who agrees with what I already knew and keep emphssising. Polls are irrelevant – they are responses by unknowing uneducated scientific illiterate and emotionally driven Puppets who have been been long manipulated by the Puppeteers.

    Kevin the video link above also addresses the fact that CapnTrade ETS are all neoliberal ideas put up to stall action on agw/cc .. there’s $$$$ in it for them in the interim, and they it will not work.

    The Carbon Tax and Dividend scheme that james Hansen and so many others suport is but another Trojan Horse and a Manipulation of those who buy into it and believe it is a good idea. Of course YMMV, but what else can I say?

    Start at youtube links above or jump to here and really think about it, and research “neoliberalism” with a high dose of skepticism.

    “Most people will be stupid, it’s just the way it is.”

    Shared multiple lines of credible solid info here on RC before, as usual was ignored rejected out of hand. No one wants a bar of it and no one (of any import) is able to face it or research it nor understand it. No one is capable of even discussing it and what to me is patently obvious in every nation of the west and especially the (white) Anglophone nations who still think they are Rulers of the entire world and all who live upon it.

    Can lead a horse to water but ….. (smiling and happy and content while Rome Burns)

  38. 138
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @135

    Yes I wont be commenting much more at this stage on the communications issue either. We are talked out. If other people don’t get the issues by now, they never will.

    Its good to be able to address stuff like this and find some common ground even if we maybe don’t see everything else exactly the same.

    The denialists really annoy me intensely. Don’t know entirely why.

  39. 139
    nigelj says:

    Thomas one final thing. Yes polls of opinions are not the same as action. But it’s interesting that a clear majority of the public believe in the science, and also want more done by governments, but the public are ignored by governments.

    The grip fossil fuel lobby groups have on government is huge as you know. Campaign contributions are huge in America, with no limits of any kind. Don’t know about Australia.

    Breaking this deadlock is hard, but I recall someone saying it makes it important for greenies and people concerned about agw to personally contact their local politicians, as this has the most effect.

    Money in politics is a huge problem.

    Of course people have to do something about their own consumption as well, and exercise initiative, but society works best with supportive legislation, and some leadership from the top.

  40. 140
    Thomas says:

    138 thanks, I hear you loudly and feel for you too.

    and Killian, mate, mate …… “under the smoke screen of efficiency …. “

    who said that?

    Check the 3rd Mirowski url (smile)

  41. 141
    Thomas says:

    nigelj asks/says: “Don’t know entirely why.”

    I think I do. It makes you angry. Initially it’s merely a frustration and you respond positively by trying to the engage the person “as if” and in the hope that they are simply “misguided” and a little factual information you know might help them think better.

    That’s your first mistake. Though a noble approach. It shows clearly what your own values are, and that you are not a narcissist nor posses a haughty ego. That’s a plus, because people like myself who are aware of such matters notice it all the time. In fact watch your words long enough and I can work out what your Primary Beliefs are without you even realising it. :-)

    OK, so when your positive appaoch fails, yur default position to think, ummmm, maybe I didn;t ake MYSELF clear in what I said .. so then you have another go. and another, and another.

    At some point that frsutration boils up as anger and then comes out as passive agreesiveness through Humour. That’s your “defense mechanism”, and it works for a while too.

    Later, when they continue with their denialist BS your anger Boils Over and you spit the dummy.

    Now they GOT YOU BY THE BALLS.


    So of course you and most others look upon such episodes and dealing with INDIVIDUALS and that’s your 3rd or 4th mistake now.

    But that’s not completely True. What you are now ARGUING WITH is a MINDSET, and it’s a COLLECTIVE MINDSET not an “individual one” where facts and evidence and reason have NO CURRENCY.

    But you probably STILL see it PERSONALLY and personalise your approach to KIA or Victor or DDS or whoever it is in the moment …. now this is your 6th or 8th mistake, and that too stops you and makes you even angrier, and then you start to ABUSE AND CRITICIZE YOURSELF privately at home for losing the plot and publicly being so “nasty” and “aggressive” online, because that is a major breach of your own really important Personal Values and Belief System – YOU do not do that kid of ting,m and yet, shit, here you are.

    You keeping up here and nodding your head in agreement Nigel, as I go along? You bet you are! (smile)

    Ok so what? So what everything. When this happens, and it is always happening, somewhere, all the time, it not some idle psychological coincidence tor no relevance. No sireee.

    This is already known about by the Experts, and it is THEY who have (base don proven tested eveidnce and analysis and testing) in fact DESIGNED it this way so its send speople like you off the edge as often as possible.

    The entire edifice of what is AGW/CC Denial it’s values, it strategies, it’s thousands upon thousands of global projects being implemented is designed to affect you and Me, and the Cliamte SCientists, and the posters here, and the Voters to operate precisely this way … and in other ways that they KNOW will affect other people who have slightly different beliefs and values than you (and YOUR Tribe) do.

    I am stating very clearly (I hope) and with 100% Confidence that how you FEEL is NOT AN ACCIDENT mate.

    These people know cognitive science and psychology and marketing down to the Nth degree.

    You are in fact Nigel, just another Puppet on a String not aware how easily you have and still are being PLAYED.

    Foolishly believing that to time and effort you put in to the subject might actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

    Well it will Nigel … keep going and it waste your entire life away if it doesn’t send you crazy first.

    Climate scientists? They too are being Played 24/7/365 .. the very few exceptions prove this Rule is on the $$$$$ Honey! :-)

    I don;t believe this, I don;t merely think it may be right, it isn’t a theory mate, I know it is 100% Right beyond all doubt.


    So maybe listen to this, if you can’t bring yourself to believe me:
    They don’t think they are going to change the Science …..

    Think about the “outer project goals” he mentions and simultaneously keep in mind the personal emotional mental aspects and how they have affected you personally.

    Who is They?

    They are the powerful rich Ideologues Narcissists & Power seeking Psychopaths and Control Freaks behind the AGW/CC Denial Collective ….. where the gullible and manipulated Puppets, the talking heads like KIA and all the others online, are irrelevant.

    Knock one down and a hundred more will popup like Agent Smith in The Matrix movie to replace them. The “argument” will never end. So They have achieved their First Primary Goal …. and you’re all burnt out seeking Therapy for dealing with Insanity 24/7 online.

    That’s the truth of it. YMMV but if it does, then you are wrong. (smile)

    Cheers and please follow my leads down the rabbit hole. That’s where the “real truth” resides. Use your rational logical mind here. Not your preexisting beliefs or world views. Hint hint…..

  42. 142
    Thomas says:

    When human beings are pushed into emotional core, get frustrated or angry immediately the Frontal Cortex shuts down .. this means that you can longer think logically to the best of your ability. Your memory gets shot as well.

    Your head turns to jello …. and if that feels unconformable the common response is to get even angrier and hit out it rage. (all things being equal)

    Some have more self-control than others. There are many individual reasons for the differences and in the timing of losing the plot over agw/cc deniers.

    When anyone does this THEY notch up another WIN.

    It’s that simple.

    This is known SCIENCE Nigel. Not fantasyland.

    Just because the REGULAR PEANUTS here and elsewhere in AGW Science Fora have no clue about it, will never make it untrue.

    That’s simply called being Ignorant.

    See UV for more info on that subject (smile)

    and here I thought I was done? Maybe now I am.

    Oh btw Nigel, I have covers these matetrs multiple times over the years here long before you ever showed up.

    Still no one I know of (bar Kilian to a degree) understand WTF I have presented here by a conga line of well known experts in the their Fields.

    People here simply ignore it. C’est la vie. Not my problem. Not my fault. They should educate themselves better!

    And be silent in the interim or at least have the humility to ask an intelligent question on the subject and drop the Haughty Know-It-All attitudes.

  43. 143
    Thomas says:

    And the “peanuts” should drop their own version of Conceit. People in glass houses and all ………

  44. 144
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @141 on denialists, spin merchants, and the PR industry of psyhological brain washing and the arts of lying by omission and sophistry.

    Ha ha entertaining, sad, and very true. I loathe all this stuff. I basically knew it anyway. It confirms my own suspicions.

    Even our new PM, Jacinda Adern has a communications degree, but fortunately she is basically honest and well intended, on the whole.

    Climate denialism and groups like the Heartland Institute are like frankenstein’s monster, with a lot of horrible things stitched together. Hopefully it all blows apart somehow.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.