Climate Change and the Magnificent Achievements of Eco-Propaganda — Global Research

James F. Tracy

First published on January 31, 2014 Today a good deal of what qualifies as propaganda is much more subtle than overt. When an entire civilization or way of life is to be significantly altered the tried-and-true method of “repeating a lie until it becomes truth” needs to be done over a period of many years and in a multitude of varying ways to take hold and change the very assumptions and beliefs of a people.

This process is especially vital for reaching a given society’s more elite demographic—the opinion leaders who perceive themselves as “smarter than the average bear” and thus impervious to simple appeals and indoctrination.

A case in point is the agenda backed by powerful global elites and recognizable under names such as “climate change” and “sustainability.” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, released on September 27, 2013, came replete with an assemblage of legitimizing features along these lines (“scientific,” “scholarly,” “authoritative,” “peer reviewed,”). Also termed the “Climate Bible,” journalists and policymakers alike regard it as “authoritative” and “the gold standard” of climate science. The public is told that the official body’s findings are now clearer than ever: “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”[1]

Among the most vociferous agitators for the IPCC’s climate change orthodoxy are the foundation-funded, tax-exempt, progressive-left media that sit alongside the bevy of similarly tax-exempt, foundation-funded environmental organizations that together uphold and publicize the theory of CO2-based anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC).[2] Self-professed as “independent,” “investigative,” even “educational,” the so-called “alternative media” turn a blind eye to seriously scrutinizing the highly questionable IPCC’s “scientific” review of the climatological literature and its implications for the array of ambitious programs and policies stealthily introduced throughout the industrialized world, many of which are seldom subject to popular plebiscite. Think “smart grid” and “smart growth.”

Logical questions from such apparently independent organs might include, “How does the IPCC produce its findings?” and “Who benefits?” Instead, there is an almost knee-jerk response on behalf of progressive-left editors and readerships to trust and support the UN group’s purportedly objective and meticulous review of the peer-reviewed climatological literature.

Between August and December 2013 such progressive outlets published dozens of articles and commentaries whole-heartedly touting the IPCC report. For example, posted 25 articles, ran 40, circulated 38, and featured 11.

These were often presented with bleak headlines accenting the urgent appeals found in the IPCC publicity. For example, “International Scientists Warn Climate Deniers Are Enabling Earth’s Suicide” (Truthout, 9/13/13), “6 Scary Conclusions in the UN’s New Climate Report” (Mother Jones, 9/27/13), “Greenhouse Gas in Atmosphere Hits New Record: UN,” (Alternet, 11/1/13), and “’Africa is Being Pushed Closer to the Fire’: Africans Say Continent Can’t Wait for Climate Action” (Democracy Now! 11/22/13).

Uncritical advocacy of the IPCC’s anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming extended beyond headlines to media criticism. In December, for example, the progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) observed that corporate controlled network newscasts routinely failed to link “extreme weather” to “global warming.” “In the first nine months of 2013,” FAIR observes,

there were 450 segments of 200 words or more that covered extreme weather: flooding, forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes and heat waves. But of that total, just a tiny fraction–16 segments, or 4 percent of the total–so much as mentioned the words “climate change,” “global warming” or “greenhouse gases.[3]

What is left unmentioned is that fact that all of these “extreme weather” incidents have one common denominator that FAIR and corporate and progressive media alike consistently overlook: the sun. As University of Winnipeg climatologist Dr. Tim Ball explains (here at 35:00), the IPCC’s “terms of reference” through which the body proceeds to generate its findings exclude the sun and its many demonstrable atmospheric effects as factors in the warming and cooling of the earth’s climate. It is thus no wonder that at best fringe or nonexistent causes of “climate change”–such as minuscule alterations in atmospheric gases–are pointed to with great alarm by the IPCC and its proponents.

Despite far more unambiguous and compelling scientific explanations the notion that “carbon emissions” are the foremost cause of natural climactic events has become something of a religion, and this is especially the case on the progressive-left, where adherents mechanically accept the curious agenda and its ostensibly “scientific” basis while vehemently condemning non-believers as “climate deniers.”

As Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has documented in her important 2011 exposé, the IPCC’s scholarly personnel is in fact heavily weighted toward what are often third-or-fourth-rate scientific talent whose eco-political stances are strictly in accord with the IPCC’s “research” agenda pushing anthropogenic climate change. IPCC authors often include climatology graduate students and even environmental activists from organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund—indeed, figures with little-if-any scientific training but with clear agendas to promote.

LaFramboise further found that one third of the literature reviewed and cited by the IPCC in its 2007 report was–contrary to IPCC chief publicist Ragendra Pachauri’s pronouncements–not even peer-reviewed, and in many cases included citations of promotional literature devised and distributed by environmental activist organizations.

These unethical and compromising relationships are not difficult to explain if one is to recognize the IPCC for what it in fact is—a powerful political organization with the overarching objective of manufacturing consent and achieving transnational policy harmonization around the largely discursive construct of anthropogenic carbon-centric climate change.

The fact that the IPCC is capable of forthrightly carrying out one of the greatest scientific frauds in human history, setting long range governmental policies while enlisting allegedly intellectual sophisticates and “progressive” news media as its most devoted foot soldiers, is no small-scale feat. It is, rather, an immense achievement in modern propaganda and thought control that only hints at the powerful forces behind a much more far-reaching agenda.


[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Human Influence on Climate Clear: IPCC Says,” Geneva Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. The notion of “a 97% consensus” has itself become a common mantra for climate change fear mongering and grounds for labeling someone a “climate denier.” Yet there is limited evidence of any such consensus concerning ACC among climatologists. The oft-cited 2009 American Geophysical Union survey alleging a 98% consensus among scientists on ACC cannot sustain even modest scrutiny. See Larry Bell, “That Scientific Global Warming Consensus … Not!”, July 7, 2012. Another study held up as “proof” of scientific consensus, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” asserts only carefully qualified claims along these lines. “A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself,” the authors point out, “the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.” The brief paper assesses “an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers” to conclude that the scientific expertise and prominence of those who accept the IPCC’s ACC tenets surpass those who remain “unconvinced.” This begs the question, To what degree are the requisites of foundation funding related to espousing IPCC/ACC opinion? William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.

[2] James F. Tracy, “The Forces Behind Carbon-Centric Environmentalism,” Global Research, November 12, 2013.

[3] “TV News and Extreme Weather: Don’t Mention Climate Change,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, December 18, 2013. It might be added that corporate media and progressive-left counterparts uniformly fail to consider other possible causes of such unusual weather events, such as geoengineering and similar “environmental modification techniques” acknowledged by the US military and undertaken in many industrialized countries. See, for example, Michel Chossudovsky, “Climate Change, Geoengineering, and Environmental Modification Techniques,” Global Research, November 24, 2013.

via Climate Change and the Magnificent Achievements of Eco-Propaganda — Global Research


  1. The IPCC is a political organization but that produces a tendency towards conservative estimates rather than the reverse. Remember, they have to reach consensus with countries that make their living from the fossil fuel economy (eg. Saudi Arabia). These will tend to push back against language that hurts their bottom line.

    I saw this article recently which claimed that Russia probably cares about climate change now (it recently ratified the 2016 Paris Accord) since it will probably affect their ability to extract fossil fuels from Siberian permafrost. What rich irony!

    “Permafrost is undergoing rapid change,” says the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate report adopted by the IPCC last week. The changes threaten the “structural stability and functional capacities” of oil industry infrastructure, the authors warn. The greatest risks occur in areas with high ground-ice content and frost-susceptible sediments. Russia’s Yamal Peninsula — home to two of Russia’s biggest new gas projects (Bovanenkovo and Yamal LNG) and the Novy Port oil development — fits that bill.

    The problem is bigger than those three projects, though. Some “45% of the oil and natural gas production fields in the Russian Arctic are located in the highest hazard zone,” according to the IPCC report.

    The top few meters of the permafrost, the so-called active layer, freezes and thaws as the seasons change, becoming unstable during warmer months. Developers account for this by making sure their foundations are deep enough to support their infrastructure: including roads, railways, houses, processing plants and pipelines. But climate change is causing that active layer to deepen, which means the ground loses its ability to support the things built upon it.

    But it’s done anyway. IMO, it has always been just a matter of time. The world is locked into a system which will destroy itself. Sustainability + perpetual economic growth = contradiction. The global economic system is a harsh taskmaster which REQUIRES growth not maintenance at a certain equilibrium level. Given enough time, it will convert all life to dollar amounts while chasing its own tail to pay off the debts it also creates.

    However we live in a zoo and that system has become our warden. For example, urban concrete jungles – where more than half of the world’s population now resides – are not natural human habitats. They cannot sustain life without the industrial economy supplying food, water, etc. in nicely packaged forms. As long as we continue on the hamster wheel/treadmill or “running the rat race” the necessities are dispensed to us. This insulates most of us from the living planet that we still ultimately depend on.

    So we have to conclude that the system is inherently unsustainable and cannot last but it must last because we now depend on it to maintain the lives of the ~250 babies born each minute plus the people already here. Collapsing the global economy in an attempt to arrest climate change would cause an untold about of suffering and death. However the economy is compatible with nothing but rampant resource exploitation so it will crash anyway as finite resources are exhausted and habitat destruction results in lost productivity.

    Catch 22.

    Furthermore there is some evidence that, even from a climate change perspective, reducing industrial activity could accelerate warming. It seems strange but some pollution blocks and dims the sun like an umbrella (called aerosols) while other pollution warms the earth it like a blanket (so-called greenhouse gases). The latter are more long lived in the atmosphere so if you stop all pollution the “umbrella” folds first (so to speak) and more sunlight comes in for the blankets to trap. It’s a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario.


    1. Catch 22 indeed. I am not a fan of politicized science. Like the author says, its basically propaganda. But the point you make is very interesting.

      Collapsing the global economy in an attempt to arrest climate change would cause an untold about of suffering and death. However the economy is compatible with nothing but rampant resource exploitation so it will crash anyway as finite resources are exhausted and habitat destruction results in lost productivity

      Damned if we do curtail greenhouse gasses and damned if we don’t. I vote damned if we do. If we dont we destroy virtually every living thing on earth. If we do, we just destroy ourselves (with our rampant resource exploitation). If that happens, other species, innocent and perhaps more deserving, will survive. Earth will sigh good riddance to the virulence that is mankind.

  2. It’s interesting too that feedback loops are such a part of the system that one can sometimes feel inclined to question what the causative factors are even if it’s not in accordance with the scientific consensus.

    For example, it has been widely explained that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that tends to trap heat and raise global temperature. However, it is also understood that as temperatures increase, dissolved CO2 is liberated from the oceans.

    Rising temperatures make carbon dioxide leak from the oceans for two main reasons. First, melting sea ice increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters. Second, “when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out,” says van Ommen.

    So CO2 drives warming and warming produces more CO2 by liberating it from the oceans. Which came first, the chicken or the egg; elevated CO2 levels or the injection of more heat energy into the system? Science says it’s the former but I always like to consider possibilities.

    1. I cannot buy the so-called scientific consensus as long as major variables are omitted from the calculations. Ongoing Geoengineering (chemtrails) for one, atomic bomb detonations for another, and as mentioned in the article, the activity of the sun.

      What is left unmentioned is that fact that all of these “extreme weather” incidents have one common denominator that FAIR and corporate and progressive media alike consistently overlook: the sun.

    2. I find it curious too how the consensus has reversed in recent years. The earth was getting colder, but now its getting warmer.

  3. I just looked up information about one of those purported time issues. The one that caught my eye was the one with the penguin that spoke about surviving the coming ice age. After I searched for it I found a Time Magazine article saying that the cover was doctored.

    The cover on the right [“Be worried, be very worried”] is real. (I should know — I wrote the story about China and India that’s mentioned in the subhead.) The one on the left [the penguin] is very much not. It’s a doctored version of this cover, from 2007:

    Apparently the hoax cover has been floating around the Internet for at least a few years. I’m not sure who created it, and it doesn’t seem to have gotten a whole lot of traction, even among climate-science deniers. Though kudos to whoever initially put the fake cover together. That’s some pretty good photoshopping.

    It goes on to make an interesting point that I also touched on above:

    But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

    The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead…

    So yeah, some air pollution deflects sunlight (aerosols) and some traps the heat that gets to us from the sun (greenhouse gases). It seems that there was some hype about the aerosols in the past (there were articles claiming the earth would cool due to them) but even then many scientists were looking at the effects of the greenhouse gases and expecting warming.

    The sun is the primary source of heat and light energy but there is a reason planet Venus’ surface temperature (864 degrees Fahrenheit!) is hotter than Mercury’s even though Venus is almost twice as far from the sun and therefore receives 1/4 of the solar energy Mercury receives (by inverse square rule). It’s because Venus has a very thick atmosphere. So much so that the pressure at Venus’ surface is equivalent to 3000 feet beneath the ocean on earth. In the past, many probes that attempted to land on the planet were crushed during descent. Furthermore Venus’ atmosphere is over 95% carbon dioxide and traps heat.

    So the composition of the atmosphere can affect how a planet retains the heat energy it receives from the sun. I generally look at everything with a critical eye but that makes sense to me.
    The sun and the atmosphere both matter. If the composition of our planet’s atmosphere is changing, whether from human activity or in combination with natural processes, I wouldn’t be surprised so see that manifest as climatic change.

    1. thanks again. you have to be really careful of the stuff you find on the internet. me, i like to go to those contrarian sites just to see what theyre saying. because i dont think im being told the truth by those with a political agenda, esp when they deny what im seeing with my own eyes (chemtrails). thats why i call this site I’ll See. Im going to examine what people say, whether left or right and try to determine the merits. thanks for helping in this effort. the global cooling meme of supposed earlier consensus is something i frequently run into in the denialist community. i had personally never encountered it before. your observation provides some perspective.

  4. thanks. the fake covers is disturbing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: