Aletho News


Climate Change and the Magnificent Achievements of Eco-Propaganda

By James F. Tracy | Global Research | 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.

January 31, 2014 - Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , ,


  1. With few credentials to license me as a legitimate participant in this debate over the value of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I nevertheless jump in and offer a few personal reactions. First, I am not surprised there is no one commenting on this item prior to my modest entry. The article doesn’t deserve comment – based entirely on James Corbett’s Report, from a man who finds it necessary to hide himself away somewhere in Japan, where he feverishly attempts to secure financial backers for his polemic journalistic endeavors. Both Tracy and Corbett speak a lot about fraud. Would that they played back the same words and applied them to themselves. Obviously admiring Corbett’s efforts to incite general revulsion against the significant evidence gathered together by the many scientists who authored the report (even Ms. LaFramboise, whom Corbett cites as another authority who debunks the IPCC’s report, admits there were 450 primary scientists and 800 so-called secondary scientists involved in authoring the report – not an insignificant number. Where is the “unambiguous and compelling scientific explanations …” for global warming from other than human activity constantly referred to? What I see is just another example of a couple of desperate authors attempting to make a case for their warped perspective on reality. Hardly appropriate for distribution by Aletho News.


    Comment by Dale Perkins | January 31, 2014

  2. Dale,

    If there is a theory that something other than the sun drives the climate, should’nt the burden of proof lie with those who make such a fantastic claim?

    Secondly, the scientists involved in authoring the IPCC report are not necesarrily in accord with the summary produced by Pachuri et al. Therefore it is erroneous to assume their support.

    Finally, Aletho News has a major focus on deconstruction of elitist propaganda themes.


    Comment by aletho | January 31, 2014

    • In response to James Tracy, writing for Aletho News – With all due respect, having 450 principal scientific authors (and 800 secondary scientific authors) signing off on a report, is a substantial piece of evidence that something is going on as far as human activity, which generates rapid and dramatic environmental changes. Far more significant than the hand full of contrary voices you and Corbett have dug up. And did you specifically interview each of those 450 scientists to ask whether they were in accord with the summary produced by Pachuri et al? Therefore it is disingenuous of you (and Corbett) to call the entire affair fraudulent. That is the very worst kind of journalistic propaganda I can imagine. I live in the same town, Victoria, BC, with Dr. Andrew Weaver, one of the signatories to the same document. He’s a well-known, international climatologists, and he states definitely that human activity is a significant contributor to climate change – equally important and reputable as Kitrick, Laframboise and Tim Ball. So stick with facts rather than indulging in hyperbole and speculation. And are CNN and ABC News part of the “elitist propaganda (of the Left) …” cabal? Give us the benefit of a modicum of intelligence and use somebody other than Corbett for ideas.


      Comment by Dale Perkins | January 31, 2014

      • Did the 450 “sign off” or contribute to?

        Keep exploring Dale and you will find a fraudulent house of cards.

        I realize that it is hard to face the fact that esteemed members of your community are just sold out scam artists but that’s the sorry reality here. Academia is full of that type of thing. This is why we have today’s pharmaceutical situation for example.

        Yes, CNN and ABC are full of it too. That’s our establishment, the same one that promotes all these wars.

        For a first person insight into the affair try reading the climategate emails at:

        Until you have read the central authors of climate alarmism in their own words you have no idea what is happening.


        Comment by aletho | February 1, 2014

        • Back to you …
          Somewhere in all of this you need to decide whether “certain ends justify certain means” (an old Saul Alinski query). In other words, is the purpose to which all of this “fraudulent” – as you claim – scientific endeavors is directed worth paying attention to? Certainly how the science is done can and must be improved, but if a significant number (and I consider 450 primary and 800 secondary scientists to be significant) send off alarms about what post-industrial, capitalistic society is inflicting on the globe then I believe we need to pay attention. To ignore and carry on with a ‘business as usual = ravage the land and sea and extract as much oil and gas as quickly as we can, for the sake of getting more fuel for cars and gas-guzzling vehicles on the ever-increasing expressways and streets, with the result that the bottom lines of corporate capitalistic enterprises will be fattened and the disparity between the super rich and the rest of us widens – is suicidal. What I hear in the IPCC report is merely one way to put the brakes on this entire scenario by showing as much as possible the ultimate outcome of unbridled resource exploitation and usage. What I hear in your article (and Corbett’s diatribe) is an elitist and arrogant cry to denounce the evidence however imperfectly compiled – so that the mandarins in charge of the body-politic can continue their quest and hasten the demise of human civilization totally. I won’t, by the way, cease my searching and I won’t stop insisting that the Dr. Andrew Weavers of the world studying the situation, use the very best methodology presently known – for their sakes and the sake of all of us. Anything less would be an abdication of our responsibility. But simply to dismiss what he and others have and are doing, because they’re doing it not as well as they should is total foolishness at this point in time. The stakes are high and we, the readers, deserve better from you and Corbett.


          Comment by Dale Perkins | February 1, 2014

          • Dale,

            It’s not about capitalism. Wind turbines and solar panels are the projects of GE and Siemens. Nuclear plants are designed by Westinghouse.

            Business “as usual” is far preferable for ecology and for humanity.

            If the agenda were benign they would not need to lie to ram it through.

            “Putting on the brakes” of energy use is a euphemism for genocidal culling of the world’s poor. Rationing by price is the mechanism.

            Pure evil. Yes, the stakes a high indeed.


            Comment by aletho | February 1, 2014

  3. This is because all the heat from the Global Warming had sunk to the bottom of the Ocean & pushed up to the surface all the cold water & icebergs.
    As per explanation from a “respected” scientist of Climate Change.
    “The science is settled ! Don’t confuse me with facts ! My mind is made up !
    I have a “nobel” Prize to prove it !

    BTW I don’t use anymore a capital letter for “nobel” prize. They have my contempt since Saint Al of the Gore, & the schwarza mamzer son of a whore nomination for a “peace nobel prize”


    Comment by It is I only | September 18, 2014

  4. I have absolutely no credentials on this subject. However, I will say that if you think some 7+billion car driving, factory belching humans have no effect on the environment, well you probably also think bitcoin is real money,


    Comment by Abinico Warez | September 19, 2014

    • Would you choose to deprive some of the 7 billion of the right to use transport or consume manufactured goods?


      Comment by aletho | September 19, 2014

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.