If 95% of the public are technically challenged and 95% of the public are not critical thinkers then what can be expected from elected representatives at all levels of government when it comes to passing laws? I am living with the uncomfortable realization that NYS laws are being enacted by people who have little understanding of the subject they are voting on. Group think creates a barrier to critical thinking. Political correctness takes the place of immersion into issues.
One would hope that our higher level legislators would be the cream of the crop. As a long time residen of NYS, it is certain that NYS legislators are passing technical laws where all they know is from lobbyists.
I was wondering how the "alarmists" use natural events to fear monger.
When MSM use flooding, I try to look at where people are allowed to build. We have flooding in Australia, but no one ever mentions that a large proportion of housing is on flood plains, the lack of adequate drainage due to infrastructure and so on.
Also with regards to bushfires when people live in highly wooded areas and then get burnt out it is always climate change and not planning that is blamed.
Great post! I absolutely see the commonality between the climate change hysteria and the covid debacle.
Carney is one of those net zero zealots and is tanking Canada's economy putting these policies in place. He started out as Trudeau's financial advisor for five years and then wanted access to the government so he could become richer.
I have not read it, but apparently you can figure out what's he doing from Carney's book Values. Several independent media sources have quoted it.
Our Liberal government is definitely using the fear narrative to control the population. Right now it's fanning the flames of TDS to hopefully get a majority should there be an election soon and then Carney can carry on his carnage. I apologize to our American neighbours.
It's sad that people you would think are intelligent (like the engineers my husband works with) would see through this stuff. But they don't. That's hard to figure out.
Fat Albert became fabulously wealthy trading "carbon credits."
Barack Obama trotted out "proof by consensus," saying "99% of scientists agree…." That was an exaggeration of the original exaggeration that only 97% of scientists agree. Where did that come from?
A cartoonist named John (not James) Cook recruited a dozen or so of his friends to read approximately 14,000 abstracts of "scientific" papers (not the entire papers) about global warming. They threw out all that didn't express an opinion whether human activity was responsible. Then they "adjusted" several that remained. At the end they had a very small carefully selected sample, 97% of which agreed with their predetermined outcome.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
— Mark Twain
"If it's consensus it isn't science. If it's science it isn't consensus. Period."
— Michael Crichton
German newspapers reported "One hundred German scientists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong."
"If I were wrong, it would have taken only one."
— Albert Einstein
There are (at least) two additional reasons that "journalists" participate in the deception: (1) They believe they're much smarter than they actually are, and (2) they are even less scientifically literate than the general population.
"The right to criticize can be granted only to the wiser people over the more stupid ones and never the other way around."
– "... If only the irreconcilable debates of implacable expert enemies are reported, the typical public reaction (and probably those of politicians as well) will be, 'Well, if the experts don’t know what’s going on, how can I decide?' The next reaction would probably be, 'You folks go back and study some more, and when you have more certainty come and tell us so we can decide how to act.' ...” –
And since the climate mob realized early on that they'd never prevail in any actual science debate, they aimed to steer the public away from that debate via a tactic based entirely on emotional response - "don't listen to those skeptics, they're paid to lie just like the 'shill experts' were paid by Big Tobacco to say smoking didn't cause cancer.'
If I have one gripe with my side of the issue, it's how they think we can prevail if we pummel the public with enough science facts. No, the sizable portion of the public favors "courtroom TV drama" exposés, where the bad guys' efforts are exposed in the most damaging possible way. When the public perceives how the skeptic climate scientists are the victims of epic level defamation, and how the promulgators of those accusations now swim in MILLIONS of dark money ( https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=12705 ), then the tide will turn.
Cook's quotation reminds me of Schneider's interview with Discover Magazine — which is mysteriously missing from their archive but paraphrased in Detroit News (November 1989). He remarked about a "double ethical bind," then continued
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. . . . So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Later in the same interview, almost in the same paragraph he said "we have to include all doubts” and “we have to ... make little mention of any doubts.” That proves he wasn’t a real scientist.
"We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
— Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation. Former U.S. Senator.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
— Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
Ah, yes, Dr Schneider's "scary scenarios." The man actually tried to say he was misquoted by the Detroit News, but when he reproduced his full quote paragraph at his own website page ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Schneiders-scary-scenarios.jpg )* you can't miss the spin efforts on his part to downplay what he obviously meant. When a person feels compelled to 'scarify' a situation that is not actually scary, that's disingenuous. And when he speaks of "make little mention of any doubts we might have," he was talking about suppressing any that scientists had on his side, and negating doubts from skeptic scientists - which on more than one occasion ("the Schneider/Hertsgaard error" https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2066 ) he accused of being corrupted by fossil fuel money. A blatantly false accusation. Fundamentally, he and the rest of his alarmist pals knew they couldn't win a public debate with equal caliber skeptic scientists, hence the tactic to demonize those skeptics in the eyes of the public.
Fear is definitely the most effective way to control the people and always has been. Fear of dying from a strange virus, fear of losing your job if you speak up, fear of the world burning up from too much CO2. The list goes on and on and the only way for adults to fight back against this is to question everything. Be skeptical and do your homework. THINK CRITICALLY! As for the young children, that's where our future lies. By age seven, their foundations have been laid by their parents and their schools.
fear breeds hysteria, and then the fools are in charge. During Covid I could find very few persons that read the Barrington Declaration, authored by 3 leading epidimologists (Harvard, Stanford and Oxford). Go figure. Since the media wouldn't coer it, it allowed Governments to get the public use to be dependent on the Government. Read the declaration and you will see they were right.
Our schools have been dumbed down in the last two generations according to the data from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, so the populace is more dependent on the leaders telling them what matters. Help!! .
You answered this entire subject in one partial sentence, “or lose their job”. There is no money in fighting the boss!
When the boss tells you to do something distasteful, what is the answer? Do you walk out and lose your job, or do you eat some of your self respect? Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with ecology or net zero. It is all about agendas and control.
John…good video, but, of course we’ve known this for over a decade.
I would add a 6th characteristic to your list. Virtually all previous scams always have to do with food, disease or energy and are so big that only governments could possibly deal with them. The population bomb (food), peak oil energy crisis (energy), and Covid (disease) come to mind. So I think #6 might be something like “Exhibit an existential threat.”
All these big scams always require elites telling normal people what to do through more government control.
Don: Some of us knew this for several decades. Why I showed the video was that it made several good points that should be easy to understand by any open-minded person.
Read "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay (1842). No that's not a typo for 1942. It's still relevant after 180 years. It's available online.
If 95% of the public are technically challenged and 95% of the public are not critical thinkers then what can be expected from elected representatives at all levels of government when it comes to passing laws? I am living with the uncomfortable realization that NYS laws are being enacted by people who have little understanding of the subject they are voting on. Group think creates a barrier to critical thinking. Political correctness takes the place of immersion into issues.
One would hope that our higher level legislators would be the cream of the crop. As a long time residen of NYS, it is certain that NYS legislators are passing technical laws where all they know is from lobbyists.
God bless you all.
It is always a delight to read your wisdom.
Your writing is brilliant! It gives me hope for the future of those living into the future.
Thank you for your wise and knowledgeable writing.
Terry: TY for your kind words,
Michael Crichton used satire to expose this foolishness over 40 years ago! The people around him were too stupid to grok it
Julie: Crichton was a brilliant person with a fine sense of humor.
I was wondering how the "alarmists" use natural events to fear monger.
When MSM use flooding, I try to look at where people are allowed to build. We have flooding in Australia, but no one ever mentions that a large proportion of housing is on flood plains, the lack of adequate drainage due to infrastructure and so on.
Also with regards to bushfires when people live in highly wooded areas and then get burnt out it is always climate change and not planning that is blamed.
Peder: Yes that is one of many head-scratchers...
Great post! I absolutely see the commonality between the climate change hysteria and the covid debacle.
Carney is one of those net zero zealots and is tanking Canada's economy putting these policies in place. He started out as Trudeau's financial advisor for five years and then wanted access to the government so he could become richer.
I have not read it, but apparently you can figure out what's he doing from Carney's book Values. Several independent media sources have quoted it.
Our Liberal government is definitely using the fear narrative to control the population. Right now it's fanning the flames of TDS to hopefully get a majority should there be an election soon and then Carney can carry on his carnage. I apologize to our American neighbours.
It's sad that people you would think are intelligent (like the engineers my husband works with) would see through this stuff. But they don't. That's hard to figure out.
Christine: Good that you get the clear connection. It should tell anyone paying attention all they need to know about the legitimacy of either issue.
Fat Albert became fabulously wealthy trading "carbon credits."
Barack Obama trotted out "proof by consensus," saying "99% of scientists agree…." That was an exaggeration of the original exaggeration that only 97% of scientists agree. Where did that come from?
A cartoonist named John (not James) Cook recruited a dozen or so of his friends to read approximately 14,000 abstracts of "scientific" papers (not the entire papers) about global warming. They threw out all that didn't express an opinion whether human activity was responsible. Then they "adjusted" several that remained. At the end they had a very small carefully selected sample, 97% of which agreed with their predetermined outcome.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
— Mark Twain
"If it's consensus it isn't science. If it's science it isn't consensus. Period."
— Michael Crichton
German newspapers reported "One hundred German scientists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong."
"If I were wrong, it would have taken only one."
— Albert Einstein
There are (at least) two additional reasons that "journalists" participate in the deception: (1) They believe they're much smarter than they actually are, and (2) they are even less scientifically literate than the general population.
"The right to criticize can be granted only to the wiser people over the more stupid ones and never the other way around."
— Josef Goebbels
Van: TY for the good quotes.
Emphasis on point #2 of "how they pulled this off" - early on in the climate issue, folks like the late Dr Stephen Schneider revealed what the problem would be ( https://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Schneider-media-bal-1989.jpg ):
– "... If only the irreconcilable debates of implacable expert enemies are reported, the typical public reaction (and probably those of politicians as well) will be, 'Well, if the experts don’t know what’s going on, how can I decide?' The next reaction would probably be, 'You folks go back and study some more, and when you have more certainty come and tell us so we can decide how to act.' ...” –
And since the climate mob realized early on that they'd never prevail in any actual science debate, they aimed to steer the public away from that debate via a tactic based entirely on emotional response - "don't listen to those skeptics, they're paid to lie just like the 'shill experts' were paid by Big Tobacco to say smoking didn't cause cancer.'
If I have one gripe with my side of the issue, it's how they think we can prevail if we pummel the public with enough science facts. No, the sizable portion of the public favors "courtroom TV drama" exposés, where the bad guys' efforts are exposed in the most damaging possible way. When the public perceives how the skeptic climate scientists are the victims of epic level defamation, and how the promulgators of those accusations now swim in MILLIONS of dark money ( https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=12705 ), then the tide will turn.
Russel: Yes, Schneider's pubished comments are very revealing as to the unscientificness of some people with science degrees.
Cook's quotation reminds me of Schneider's interview with Discover Magazine — which is mysteriously missing from their archive but paraphrased in Detroit News (November 1989). He remarked about a "double ethical bind," then continued
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. . . . So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Later in the same interview, almost in the same paragraph he said "we have to include all doubts” and “we have to ... make little mention of any doubts.” That proves he wasn’t a real scientist.
"We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
— Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation. Former U.S. Senator.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
— Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
Discover October 1989 is available again.
Ah, yes, Dr Schneider's "scary scenarios." The man actually tried to say he was misquoted by the Detroit News, but when he reproduced his full quote paragraph at his own website page ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Schneiders-scary-scenarios.jpg )* you can't miss the spin efforts on his part to downplay what he obviously meant. When a person feels compelled to 'scarify' a situation that is not actually scary, that's disingenuous. And when he speaks of "make little mention of any doubts we might have," he was talking about suppressing any that scientists had on his side, and negating doubts from skeptic scientists - which on more than one occasion ("the Schneider/Hertsgaard error" https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2066 ) he accused of being corrupted by fossil fuel money. A blatantly false accusation. Fundamentally, he and the rest of his alarmist pals knew they couldn't win a public debate with equal caliber skeptic scientists, hence the tactic to demonize those skeptics in the eyes of the public.
*(full context here, his quote paragraph is about halfway down the page under the "The "Double Ethical Bind" Pitfall" heading: http://web.archive.org/web/20040622074255fw_/http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html#TheDoubleEthicalBindPitfall )
Russell: Indeed he was a major embarrassment to all real scientists.
Climate Change Science is never settled
https://thelawisyourattorney.com/epa-cant-regulate-greenhouse-gases/
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/alder-springs-fire-in-central-oregon-was-human-caused-officials-say/
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
arson fire
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/07/09/salem-fire-grass-grass-structure-fire-southeast-salem/84525257007/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth. Cctruth.org donate its tax deductible.
Dave: Yes, one of their objectives is population control.
for certain.
Fear is definitely the most effective way to control the people and always has been. Fear of dying from a strange virus, fear of losing your job if you speak up, fear of the world burning up from too much CO2. The list goes on and on and the only way for adults to fight back against this is to question everything. Be skeptical and do your homework. THINK CRITICALLY! As for the young children, that's where our future lies. By age seven, their foundations have been laid by their parents and their schools.
Nadia: TY for the emphasis on the Critical Thinking part.
fear breeds hysteria, and then the fools are in charge. During Covid I could find very few persons that read the Barrington Declaration, authored by 3 leading epidimologists (Harvard, Stanford and Oxford). Go figure. Since the media wouldn't coer it, it allowed Governments to get the public use to be dependent on the Government. Read the declaration and you will see they were right.
Our schools have been dumbed down in the last two generations according to the data from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, so the populace is more dependent on the leaders telling them what matters. Help!! .
Marty: TY for the reference to the Barrington Declaration — which I signed.
You answered this entire subject in one partial sentence, “or lose their job”. There is no money in fighting the boss!
When the boss tells you to do something distasteful, what is the answer? Do you walk out and lose your job, or do you eat some of your self respect? Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with ecology or net zero. It is all about agendas and control.
Jim: Yes, but I waas also trying to give an overview as to why the Boss was spouting unscientific nonsense.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
— Voltaire
John…good video, but, of course we’ve known this for over a decade.
I would add a 6th characteristic to your list. Virtually all previous scams always have to do with food, disease or energy and are so big that only governments could possibly deal with them. The population bomb (food), peak oil energy crisis (energy), and Covid (disease) come to mind. So I think #6 might be something like “Exhibit an existential threat.”
All these big scams always require elites telling normal people what to do through more government control.
Don: Some of us knew this for several decades. Why I showed the video was that it made several good points that should be easy to understand by any open-minded person.
Read "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay (1842). No that's not a typo for 1942. It's still relevant after 180 years. It's available online.