How the climate change denial machine works and how it is funded

Cinnabar

Verified User
The unfortunate thing is, the general public is practically bombarded on a regular basis by this multi million-dollar climate change denial machine. As the video shows, it is well-funded and it is relentless. In order to protect yourself and avoid being a passive recipient, we have compiled the top five techniques climate change deniers use to influence the masses, and provide tips on what you can do to be able to sift through their propaganda:

Technique #1: Frequent use of so-called “experts.

Technique #2: Perfecting the art of cherry-picking.

Technique #3: Use of faulty arguments.

Technique #4: Reducing climate change warnings to conspiracies or money-making efforts.

Technique #5: Manipulation through the “keystone domino” strategy.

It pays to be vigilant about strategies such as this. When in doubt, always check the science and the credibility of the source. If the reference is just one person or only one source, then it’s most likely propaganda. Compare this with the tons of research papers that talk about the disappearing Arctic sea ice due to climate change and its resulting impacts on the polar bear populations that depend on it.

https://ecowarriorprincess.net/2018...hange-deniers-use-how-counter-climate-denial/

At the link they provide great tips on how to counter the propaganda that these traitors to the planet and humanity regurgitate.

To understand how the climate change denial machine works and how it is funded, this video produced by Greenpeace about The Koch Brothers and their anti stance, gives you some great context:

 
The unfortunate thing is, the general public is practically bombarded on a regular basis by this multi million-dollar climate change denial machine. As the video shows, it is well-funded and it is relentless. In order to protect yourself and avoid being a passive recipient, we have compiled the top five techniques climate change deniers use to influence the masses, and provide tips on what you can do to be able to sift through their propaganda:

Technique #1: Frequent use of so-called “experts.”[/QUOTE]
This is YOUR problem. It is YOU constantly referencing unnamed 'experts' is if they were God.
Technique #2: Perfecting the art of cherry-picking.
YOUR problem again! It is YOU that is constantly picking out a single storm and saying it's the whole.
Technique #3: Use of faulty arguments.
YOUR problem again! I have constantly shown you the fallacies in your own arguments, yet you continue to make them.
Technique #4: Reducing climate change warnings to conspiracies or money-making efforts.
Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
Technique #5: Manipulation through the “keystone domino” strategy.
Buzzword fallacy.
It pays to be vigilant about strategies such as this.
Is that why you use them? Paradox.
When in doubt, always check the science
1st law of thermodynamics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't trap or slow heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

No gas or vapor has the capability of warming Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.

NoKoch Bros. No money changing hands. I do not work for any oil or energy company. I am stating the theories of science you are denying as they are.
and the credibility of the source.
The theories of science I have stated. The rules of statistical mathematics. That is the only source I need.
If the reference is just one person or only one source, then it’s most likely propaganda.
There is only one 1st law of thermodynamics. There is only one 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is only one Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is only one statistical mathematics.
Compare this with the tons of research papers
No research paper overrides any of these theories or the mathematics. You are claiming 'experts' again. You are cherry picking again. You are using faulty arguments again (false authority fallacy). You are using buzzwords.
that talk about the disappearing Arctic sea ice
It's not disappearing.
due to climate change
Define 'climate change'.
and its resulting impacts on the polar bear populations that depend on it.
What impacts? Define 'climate change'.
At the link they provide great tips on how to counter the propaganda that these traitors to the planet and humanity regurgitate.
Lie. They use the same propaganda that you do. Buzzword fallacy. Earth is not a government. Treason is not possible. There is no global government. You don't get to speak for humanity. You only get to speak for you.
To understand how the climate change denial machine works and how it is funded, this video produced by Greenpeace about The Koch Brothers and their anti stance, gives you some great context:
Define 'climate change'. A propaganda video put out by the Church of Green is propaganda, just like what you are doing.
...deleted propaganda video from the Church of Green...
False authority fallacy. Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No Holy Links to hide behind. Do it yourself.

1st law: U(t+1) = U(t)-W
2nd law: e(t+1) >= e(t)
Stefan Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4
 
@ post 1

There is a whole field of psychology devoted to research of relentless Climate Denial in the face of an overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus of the nature of global warming.

If you want the readers digest version of the research, it is this: Climate Denial is largely limited to and correlated with old, cranky, conservative men who are close minded, lack empathy, and have an affinity for status quo, hierarchy, and authoritarianism.

The psychology behind climate change denial

n the scientific community there is a strong consensus that humans have significantly affected the climate and that we are facing serious challenges. But there is a lot of misinformation about climate change in circulation, which to a large part is created and distributed by organised campaigns with the aim of postponing measures that could combat climate change. And there are people who are more prone than others to trust this misinformation.

Previous research has consistently shown that it is more common among politically conservative individuals to deny climate change. In her thesis, Kirsti Jylhä has investigated this further and in more detail. Her studies included ideological and personality variables which correlate with political ideology, and tested if those variables also correlate with climate change denial.

The results show that climate change denial correlates with political orientation, authoritarian attitudes and endorsement of the status quo. It also correlates with a tough-minded personality (low empathy and high dominance), closed-mindedness (low openness to experience), predisposition to avoid experiencing negative emotions, and with the male sex. Importantly, one variable, named social dominance orientation (SDO), helped explain all these correlations, either entirely or partially.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004103313.htm
 
NEWSLETTER
THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN PART I: THE CLUB OF ROME
NOVEMBER 14, 2009 0 Comments
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 14, 2009

“(…) Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DC’s and LDC’s, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and or each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” John P. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977

Beatrix and crew

The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.

In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.


In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.

Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.

In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”

This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.” The following example will show that these statements by the world’s upper elites are in no way innocent musings without consequence.

Contrary to popular belief, the original architect of China’s policies was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study ‘Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China’ the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome.

In the early seventies, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades.

Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”

The ‘missile scientists’ Greenhalgh mentions, are Dr. Song Jian and company, visiting several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.

[efoods]

The fact that the Club of Rome stands at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming mythology once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.

In order to force a rising death rate into being one needs to create “a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in a vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.

It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that few dare question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s ‘regions’ and all nation-states falling under her jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs are to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of this year, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave a speech to UNESCO- social engineers in which he admits that:

“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”

To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO will specifically entail, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference next month. Just so you know what to expect from the social engineers in the year to come:

“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”

The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference is not an isolated happening. It is just one piece of the overall global architecture the elite is constructing and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:

“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to the effective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”

Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite site of humanity.

https://www.infowars.com/the-road-to-copenhagen-part-i-the-club-of-rome/
 
At the link they provide great tips on how to counter the propaganda that these traitors to the planet and humanity regurgitate.

To understand how the climate change denial machine works and how it is funded, this video produced by Greenpeace about The Koch Brothers and their anti stance, gives you some great context:
1. How do you explain the fact that the most prominent spokespersons of Climate Alarmism are always wrong with their doomsday predictions?

2. How do explain the fact that the most prominent spokespersons of Climate Alarmism and advocates of "solutions" leave the biggest carbon footprints in their wake?

3. How do explain the fact that there has never been a scientific article published with the conclusion that humans have caused "climate change"?

I did not see any counters or answers to these questions in your link.
 
As I've said before, the whole goal of the Flat Earthers is to create a false paradigm, to create the impression that the certainty on one side matches or invalidates that of the other, to muddle the reality long enough so those that benefit from neglecting climate change, and are largely the sponsors of the Flat Eathers effort, can continue to profit
 
As I've said before, the whole goal of the Flat Earthers is to create a false paradigm, to create the impression that the certainty on one side matches or invalidates that of the other, to muddle the reality long enough
I stopped there. What is the "reality"?
 
I stopped there. What is the "reality"?

That "the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
 
That "the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

What's the problem?
 
As I've said before, the whole goal of the Flat Earthers is to create a false paradigm, to create the impression that the certainty on one side matches or invalidates that of the other, to muddle the reality long enough so those that benefit from neglecting climate change, and are largely the sponsors of the Flat Eathers effort, can continue to profit

I think you're in the wrong thread??

This thread is not about Flat Earthers...
 
That "the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

NASA is not science. False Authority Fallacy.
 
At the link they provide great tips on how to counter the propaganda that these traitors to the planet and humanity regurgitate.

To understand how the climate change denial machine works and how it is funded, this video produced by Greenpeace about The Koch Brothers and their anti stance, gives you some great context:


Are you fucking mental, that video is nearly ten years old ffs? There is absolutely no way that Greenpeace are in any way shape or form objective. There are part of the Climate Industrial Complex worth around $2 trillion in total, holy shit you're truly incredibly naive. Oh and polar bears are doing just fine. They were just another device to appeal to the sentimentalists in the same way that Greta Thunberg is currently being used!!
 
Last edited:
That "the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Yet 20,000 years ago the North Slope of Alaska was forested and had horses roaming freely.

In a new study, scientists report that about 17,000 to 20,000 years ago, when CO2 levels hovered near 190 ppm, “summer temperatures were higher here [North Slope, Alaska] than they are today” (Kuzmina et al., 2019).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nvironmental_reconstructions_in_Arctic_Alaska

At-190-ppm-CO2-Grass-Eating-Horses-Grazed-Year-Round-in-the-Arctic-1.jpg
 
Deniers have lots of money and use the same techniques that the Cigarette manufacturers used to keep their poison products on the market as long as they could. People died, but money was made, so that is OK to them. They buy phony research and dress it up as respected. They have great sounding names for the dishonest labs. The results are predetermined.
They pay lots of people to watch the internet and defend them from any attacks using the canned messages they have developed. We used to call it propaganda.
 
As I've said before, the whole goal of the Flat Earthers is to create a false paradigm, to create the impression that the certainty on one side matches or invalidates that of the other, to muddle the reality long enough so those that benefit from neglecting climate change, and are largely the sponsors of the Flat Eathers effort, can continue to profit

What has the Flat Earth believers got to do with 'climate change'? Non-sequitur fallacy.
 
That "the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Science isn't a casino. It does not use consensus. It does not use supporting evidence.

Please define 'climate change'.
Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
 
Deniers have lots of money and use the same techniques that the Cigarette manufacturers used to keep their poison products on the market as long as they could. People died, but money was made, so that is OK to them. They buy phony research and dress it up as respected. They have great sounding names for the dishonest labs. The results are predetermined.
They pay lots of people to watch the internet and defend them from any attacks using the canned messages they have developed. We used to call it propaganda.

This tired old argument again?

Sorry dude, you're going to have to DEFINE 'climate change'. You're going to have to describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can make up any conspiracy theories you want. It doesn't do a thing to make these laws of physics go away.
 
What has the Flat Earth believers got to do with 'climate change'? Non-sequitur fallacy.

This one is always a treat, when stuck, he employs the semantics like it is going to convince someone that he knows what he is talking about, "non-sequitur fallacy," beautiful, must have been stuck in a college Logic class too long

Flat Earthers' beliefs deny climate change, the second part of the thought follows the first accordingly, even your attempts at sarcasm are entertaining

And I notice you never address the view that it is all an orchestrated attempt to create a false paradigm, why would anyone go with any theory or concept you come up with when noted sources as NASA which I used above contradict everything you are presenting?
 
Science isn't a casino. It does not use consensus. It does not use supporting evidence.

Please define 'climate change'.
Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But common sense does, you keep regurgitating an aborted weird version of solipsism to deflect off of the obvious

And above I provided NASA's definition of climate change, I'll got with that one, they put a man on the moon, that is enough proof to me they kinda know what they are doing
 
This one is always a treat, when stuck, he employs the semantics like it is going to convince someone that he knows what he is talking about, "non-sequitur fallacy," beautiful, must have been stuck in a college Logic class too long

Flat Earthers' beliefs deny climate change,
Are you sure? I would imagine most of them probably believe in the Church of Global Warming. Some of them probably deny it. You are making a non-sequitur fallacy.
the second part of the thought follows the first accordingly, even your attempts at sarcasm are entertaining
What sarcasm?? WTF are you talking about now??? :palm:
And I notice you never address the view that it is all an orchestrated attempt to create a false paradigm,
The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics is not a false paradigm. Neither is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They are theories of science that YOU choose to deny.
why would anyone go with any theory or concept you come up with
Because they are theories of science. They have not changed. They have not been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
when noted sources as NASA which I used above contradict everything you are presenting?
NASA is not science. It is a government agency. Nothing they say changes any of these three laws of physics.

Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating any of these three laws of physics. You can't run to NASA. You can't run to name calling. You can't run to manufactured numbers. You can't run to any data at all.

Let's see you do it.
 
Back
Top