Climate Propaganda In Academia — Some Big Players

 

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for an intro to the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for humanizing transitions, energy justice.

CLICK HERE, for Max Boykoff’s article in Scientific American.
CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part I.
CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part II.

2. A Shoutout To Uppity Peasants


It’s only fair to cite the source of these articles, as in the person who shared them. They came from a Prairie Nationalist who’s frequently busy sharpening her pitchfork. Go check out Uppity Peasants for this and other topics.

3. Context For This Article


The topic of climate propaganda has been covered on this site several times (see links in Section #1). However, rather than doing a complete review for each of the remaining articles, a brief commentary will be added.

It’s downright creepy how the emotional manipulation and shameless hucksterism of climate change are treated seriously in academia. Rather than admitting there “may” be something wrong with climate research, the idea is to double down and look for alternative ways to sell the scheme.

Still, if plunging into the messed up world of climate propaganda appeals to you, then you have two options:
(a) Get professional help; or
(b) Keep reading more.

4. Heuristic Of Creative Destruction


Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions Martin David Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany.

Scholars looking at policy mixes for the energy transition and seeking to facilitate a move away from fossil-based structures are increasingly addressing the opposite side of innovation. To describe this, the article introduces the concept of exnovation, referring to attempts to end fossil-based technological trajectories in a deliberate fashion. It applies a framework that encompasses innovation and exnovation alike in order to investigate the policy mix of the German energy transition. Beside finding that energy transition policy mixes need to emphasize regulatory instruments more in order to bring about decarbonization, the article also describes some general aspects of the policy mix design required to govern the innovation-exnovation nexus.

Typically, most people want to ADVANCE their societies, but this one considers doing the opposite: leading the public down a less developed lifestyle in order to combat climate change.

5. Bringing About Disruptive Change


A heuristic for conceptualizing and uncovering the determinants of agency in socio-technical transitions Mert Duygana, Michael Stauffachera, Grégoire Meylanb

There has been a growing interest in transition studies on the role of agency in bringing about disruptive change. Previous studies have examined how actors perform institutional work to create legitimacy and transform institutions. In doing so, they have provided insights into specific practices and strategies that actors follow. This paper seeks to complement existing studies by elucidating the foundations of agency that transforms institutions through institutional work. Drawing on institutional sociology and organizational studies, resources, discourses and networks of actors are identified as key elements enabling institutional work practices. The agency of each actor is conceived of as dependent on the configurations it possesses with respect to these elements. A heuristic is presented that helps to determine the configurations associated with a strong agency in empirical settings and use Swiss waste management as an illustrative case example. The heuristic enables a systematic analysis of agency across different organizational fields.

Some research into methods and techniques for bringing about serious and disruptive changes in Western society deemed necessary for environmental protections.

6. Disruption & System Transformation


Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective Frank W. Geels

This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social sciences.

This gem takes the BUSINESS concept of disruptive innovative framework which is meant to introduce new products and technologies into the market. It then tries to apply it to the CLIMATE CHANGE industry in getting changes made.

7. Fighting Opposing “Regime” Against Change


Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective
Frank W Geels University of Manchester and King Abdulaziz Universit

Abstract
While most studies of low-carbon transitions focus on green niche-innovations, this paper shifts attention to the resistance by incumbent regime actors to fundamental change. Drawing on insights from political economy, the paper introduces politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Instrumental, discursive, material and institutional forms of power and resistance are distinguished and illustrated with examples from the UK electricity system. The paper concludes that the resistance and resilience of coal, gas and nuclear production regimes currently negates the benefits from increasing renewables deployment. It further suggests that policymakers and many transition-scholars have too high hopes that ‘green’ innovation will be sufficient to bring about low-carbon transitions. Future agendas in research and policy should therefore pay much more attention to the destabilization and decline of existing fossil fuel regimes.

This paper views political and media types who are skeptical of the climate change industry as “resistance” and studies way around them. No real sense that they may bring up valid points. Instead, they are an obstacle to progress.

8. Humanizing And “Energy Justice”


Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacoolb, Darren McCaule

Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them.

The social justice nonsense which universities push is about to get a new member, so-called “energy justice”. Consider this a bastardized child of cultural Marxism and the climate change scam.

9. Regime Destabilization, Pulp & Paper


Explaining regime destabilisation in the pulp and paper industry
Kersti Karltorp, Björn A. Sandén

abstract
.
A transition to a carbon neutral society will require a shift from fossil to renewable resources. This will affect the conversion of biomass and related industries such as the pulp and paper industry. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to describe and analyse the transformation processes in the Swedish pulp and paper industry and the adoption of biorefinery options, and second, to demonstrate how conceptualisations from strategic management can be used to describe regime destabilisation. The industry’s adoption of biorefinery options has been modest so far, but there is development along two trajectories. The first centres on gasification and the second on separation and refining. Such diverging strategies in response to external pressure can be explained by differences that exist between firms. Signs of increasing firm divergence, or ‘regime fragmentation’, might indicate the entry into a phase of regime destabilisation, and a critical point in a transition.

Sure, let’s make the pulp and paper industry completely unprofitable and put all of those workers out on the street. Rather than finding better solutions, let’s sabotage what already exists. While it is true you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, this seems excessive.

10. Apply Pressure To Destabilize Industries


Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilisation: Understanding the downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998–2015) Gregor Kungla, Frank W. Geels

ABSTRACT
This article makes two contributions to the emerging research stream on regime and industry destabilisation in the transition literature. First, we replicate the multi-dimensional framework developed by Turnheim and Geels with a more contemporary study that has closer links to sustainability transitions. Drawing on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, we analyse the destabilisation of the German electricity industry, which faced multiple external pressures: renewable energy technologies, nuclear phase-out policy, the financial-economic crisis, and negative public debates. Second, we elaborate the role of multiple pressures in industry destabilisation, focusing in particular on their sequence and alignment. We inductively identify patterns such as the ‘masking effect’ of highly visible macro-shocks, ‘perfect storm’ pattern, a ‘killer blow’ effect, and spillover dynamics between external environments.

Not sure what to add to this. If industries are considered to be environmentally unsound, let’s apply various pressures in order to destabilize and destroy them.

11. Politically Accelerated Transitions


Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture Cameron Roberts, Frank W. Geels

ABSTRACT
This article investigates the conditions under which policymakers are likely to decisively accelerate sociotechnical transitions. We develop a conceptual framework that combines insights from historical institutionalism and the Multi-Level Perspective to better understand the political dimension in transitions, focusing particularly on the mechanisms of political defection from incumbent regime to niche-innovation. We distinguish two ideal type patterns, one where external (landscape) shocks create a ‘critical juncture’ and one where gradual feedbacks change the balance of power between niche-innovation and regime. We also identify more proximate conditions such as external pressures on policymakers (from business interests, mass publics, and technologies) and policy internal developments (changes in problem definitions and access to institutional arrangements). We apply this framework to two historical case studies in which UK policymakers deliberately accelerated transitions: the transition from rail to road transport (1920–1970); and the transition from traditional mixed agriculture to specialised wheat agriculture (1920–1970). We analyse the conditions for major policy change in each case and draw more general conclusions. We also discuss implications for contemporary low-carbon transitions, observing that while some favourable conditions are in place, they do not yet meet all the prerequisites for political acceleration.

This is basically the same concept as before: gutting and destroying various industries. However, this one involves using political pressure in order to achieve it.

12. Plant Based Milk?


Rage against the regime: Niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milk
Josephine Mylana, Carol Morris, Emma Beech, Frank W. Geel

This paper engages with the debate on niche-regime interactions in sustainability transitions, using a study of plant-based milk and its struggles against the entrenched liquid dairy-milk regime, which has various sustainability problems. Plant-based milk isunder-studied, so our empirical contribution consists of an exploration of its diffusion in the UK. We make three conceptual contributions. The first calls for a bidirectional analysis that addresses niche-orientedactivities by incumbent actors, in addition to the outward-oriented activities by niche advocates presented in most studies of niche-regime interaction.The second contribution nuances Smith and Raven’s fit-and-conform and stretch-and-transform typology: using a societal embedding framework which distinguishes four environments, we suggest that hybrid patterns are possible in which innovations follow a ‘fit’ pattern in one environment but ‘stretch’ in another. The third contribution highlights th epotential role of cultural meanings in galvanizing transitions by eroding positive associations that support theregime and stabilise consumer purchasing.

 

Plant based milk?
Okay, hello unemployed dairy farmers.

13. Destructiveness Of This Agenda

Under the guise of “protecting the environment”, these academics conduct research in how to undermine and destabilize existing industries. There seems to be no concern for the workers and families who will be impacted if these efforts are successful.

Of course, there are many more authors doing this sort of work, but this is a fairly accurate representation of what is going on. Ways to impose their agenda on others.

These people are serious about it.
They really want to bring about the end of Western society.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.

Predatory Publications By Professor Pyne (Part 4: The Followup)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, the paper and backstory.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Pyne interview.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, TRU responds in case.

CLICK HERE, for the Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee report.

2. Context Of Followup

In 2017, Professor Pyne released a research report on so-called “predatory publishing”. In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.

Although the report did not drop specific names, it was not well received by Thompson Rivers University. In a sense this was understandable, as it is not a topic that most people wish to address. Professor Pyne claims that this led to the atmosphere at the school changing, and to his eventual suspension.

Regardless of how touchy the topic may be, this was the wrong way to handle it. Truth should never be censored just because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.

This topic was originally covered early this year. However, since then the Committee investigating the case has ruled that Professor Pyne’s rights were violated.

3. From Ad Hoc Investigative Comm Report

Our investigation has found the following:
1. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, TRU appears to suffer a broad institutional weakness when it comes to understanding academic freedom beyond its narrow application to support faculty members’ freedom to pursue what they expect to be fruitful avenues of research and publish their results.

2. There were significant breaches of Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom with respect to the Administration’s responses to his intramural and extramural communications criticizing the School of Business and Economics, its programs, and its faculty. These breaches arose from the failure to properly consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom, which is encoded in the collective agreement governing his employment at TRU, in managing workplace complaints against Dr. Pyne.

3. The collective agreement between the University and its faculty association contains an article on academic freedom that creates a positive obligation on the parties to consider academic freedom in any case involving speech and other communications from faculty members. The failure to consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom in human resources processes has had the effect of denying Dr. Pyne access to procedural fairness, and hence the decision to suspend him was not made on a sound basis.

4. There is no evidence that any person at TRU attempted to interfere with Dr. Pyne as he carried out his study into publishing in predatory journals.

5. Dr. Pyne’s privacy was breached by both TRU and TRUFA on multiple occasions.

Point #3, the school was found to be lacking in having a strong understanding of its academic freedom obligations.

About point #4, that is true, though it doesn’t appear that the school knew what was happening as the research was being done. As no live subjects were used, no ethics approval was needed.

Point #5 concerned leaking of personal information which Professor Pyne believes was done deliberately.

There is a differentiation between open access publishing and so-called predatory publishing that is often over-looked. Open access publishing relies on the same processes as traditional publishing, including rigorous peer review, whereas predatory publishing does not and attempts to co-opt the open access model for financial gain. In an increasingly complex arena for publishing research, universities and academics grapple with assessing faculty members’ published research for tenure and promotion, and for various institutional benefits, including salary increases and research awards. Academic librarians have long provided their expertise in identifying scholarly resources and are now assisting researchers in identifying which constitute legitimate open access publishing and which do not. There is a clear need for universities to ensure the integrity of their academic decisions for tenure and promotion, in particular, by having policies that differentiate between legitimate and predatory publishing.

Dr. Pyne’s research on the rewards of publishing in predatory journals has raised questions about the way his own colleagues and institution are managing the complexity of publishing research at a time when there is a growing number of journals with questionable peer review practices. These questions go to the heart of the credibility of TRU, and one would expect them to be taken seriously by the university’s senior administration. Even if one wishes to critique Dr. Pyne’s published results – as would be expected as part of a robust scholarly discourse – it seems irresponsible for the Administration to ignore the issues his work raises for TRU, which include whether the fundamental academic judgments involved in tenure and promotion decisions are being made on a sound basis.

The only evidence the Committee has seen of any discussion of the issue of predatory journals is related to the TRU Senate discussion of a motion put forward by a faculty senator in April 2017 to refer the matter to the Senate Tenure and Promotion Committee, which is chaired by the Provost. The matter seems to be still with this Committee, which appears not to have made any reports to Senate since then.

It is the Committee’s opinion that the apparent failure of TRU’s Administration to consider seriously the issue of publishing in predatory journals and its potential impacts on TRU’s core academic decisions represents a profound failure of academic governance at the university

Again, read the whole report for a more thorough reply.

An interesting point is raised: even if one has issues with the topic being raised, the way it was handled was completely wrong.

Beyond that, the report on predatory publishing raises very valid concerns. Academics should be concerned about the quality of the screening that is done of their research. Predatory publishes may reward professors with money or more status for work that by all rights should have been rejected. Academia can be a vicious place. In fact, shedding light on this could be viewed as investigative journalism.

Finally, retaliation (no matter how subtle) creates a chilling effect for everyone. What topics are now off limits? Who will be next? Is this really where we want to go with free speech?

4. Comments From Professor Pyne

1/ What exactly did the ruling say?
-TRU and TRUFA violated academic freedom
-Committee tries not to attribute motives to people
-TRU lacks strong policies in academic freedom
-TRU violated privacy laws by leaking confidential information
-TRU should pay wages lost during suspension

2/ Can or will TRU appeal?
-TRU refused to participate in the process, so not likely
-There have been claims of defamation, even though people were not named in the paper

3/ What has changed since this case happened?
-I’ve had my office transferred elsewhere
-People were unhappy with some Facebook postings I made
-The issue still isn’t sitting well with people

4/ Do you think it will make a difference at TRU?
-No, it doesn’t seem to have
Committee has been hand picked by the President
-They say that they have not been provided with all the information, but won’t say what they don’t have

5/ What would you say to people concerned about academic freedom?
-It’s an important cause
-There are a lot of hoops to jump through
-Check out the Society for Academic Freedom

The Frankfurt School: What’s Behind Cultural Marxism, Feminism

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for ThoughtCo, on Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.
CLICK HERE, for UToronto, MA Program, Women’s Studies.
CLICK HERE, for University Of Toronto, Gender Relations, Feminist Theory.
CLICK HERE, for a previous article on the wage gap.
CLICK HERE, for Harvard lawsuit against racial quotas in admissions.
CLICK HERE, for 11 year old wanting puberty blockers.
CLICK HERE, for Post Millennial article on Vancouver Rape Shelter.
CLICK HERE, for purging “Shia/Sunni” from terrorism reports.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic culture of violence and sexual exploitation.

2. Context For The Article

Cultural Marxism, and ideologies such as feminism are often criticized as complete nonsense. It’s pointed out that they use garbage arguments, half truths to justify themselves, and end up fragmenting society.

While this is all true, an interesting piece of the puzzle is left out: what are the origins of these beliefs? Did they grow organically, or was there something more organized helping it along? Also, were these good intentions gone awry, or is there malevolent intent behind these theories?

3. Articles On The Subject

  • Aesthetic Theory, (Theodor W. Adorno)
  • Culture Industry Reconsidered, (Theodor W. Adorno)
  • Critical and Traditional Theory (Horkheimer)
  • Critique of Instrumental Reason, (Max Horkheimer)
  • Dialectic of the Enlightenment (Adorno and Horkheimer)
  • Knowledge and Human Interests (Habermas)
  • One-Dimensional Man (Marcuse)
  • Structural Transformation and the Public Sphere, (Jürgen Habermas)
  • The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics, (Herbert Marcuse)
  • The Authoritarian Personality, (Theodor W. Adorno)
  • The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas)
  • The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin)
  • Towards a Rational Society, (Jürgen Habermas)
  • Traditional and Critical Theory, (Max Horkheimer)
  • The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (Walter Benjamin)

4. From ThoughtCo Site

The Frankfurt School was a group of scholars known for developing critical theory and popularizing the dialectical method of learning by interrogating society’s contradictions. It is most closely associated with the work of Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. It was not a school, in the physical sense, but rather a school of thought associated with scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany.

In 1923, Marxist scholar Carl Grünberg founded the Institute, initially financed by another such scholar, Felix Weil. The Frankfurt School scholars are known for their brand of culturally focused neo-Marxist theory—a rethinking of classical Marxism updated to their socio-historical period. This proved seminal for the fields of sociology, cultural studies, and media studies.

In 1930 Max Horkheimer became the director of the Institute and recruited many of the scholars who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School. In the aftermath of Marx’s failed prediction of revolution, these individuals were dismayed by the rise of Orthodox Party Marxism and a dictatorial form of communism. They turned their attention to the problem of rule through ideology, or rule carried out in the realm of culture. They believed that technological advancements in communications and the reproduction of ideas enabled this form of rule.

Their ideas overlapped with Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. Other early members of the Frankfurt School included Friedrich Pollock, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal, and Franz Leopold Neumann. Walter Benjamin was also associated with it during its peak in the mid-20th century.

One of the core concerns of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, especially Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, and Marcuse, was the rise of “mass culture.” This phrase refers to the technological developments that allowed for the distribution of cultural products—music, film, and art—on a mass scale. (Consider that when these scholars began crafting their critiques, radio and cinema were still new phenomena, and television didn’t exist.) They objected to how technology led to a sameness in production and cultural experience. Technology allowed the public to sit passively before cultural content rather than actively engage with one another for entertainment, as they had in the past. The scholars theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and infiltrate their consciousness.

Marxism (as prescribed by Karl Marx), was a way of “making” everyone equal via Communism. The Government would control the means of production and in effect, run all industries. Everyone who make the same amount of money, regardless of profession or work ethic. Everyone would have access to the same level of Government run social services.

In theory, this sounded great, as everyone would get their basic needs met. In practice, however, the only way to run such a system is by force, and to take away free will. Few people are willing to work hard when there are no rewards for doing do, hence the system falls apart. True, everyone will have access to the same services, but to the same “poor” services.

Cultural Marxism takes those same principles and applies them on a cultural level, despite having extremely harmful effects. This is because “oppression” is often viewed as the root cause of a difference, not simply difference in groups.

How does this destructive ideology manifest itself? Let’s take a look at a few examples of claiming “injustice” where no such thing exists.

5. Long Debunked “Gender Pay Gap”

This was addressed in a previous article. Feminists (a sub-group of cultural Marxists), have long claimed that women are on average are paid less. As proof, they often point to government statistics that show that on average, the hourly wage is more for a man than for a women.

However, feminists don’t want to ask WHY women are, on average, paid less than men. Such an omission completely derails their arguments. Men on average, work in more physical, dangerous, and skilled positions. They work full time more often than women do, and on average, are employed for longer periods of time. Also, there are more likely to take fields in college or university (like STEM or business), while arts and humanities are dominated by women. These differences go a long way towards explaining differences in pay.

Despite these obvious answers being easily available, the “gender-pay-gap” is still widely trumpeted in academia and feminist circles. It’s as if the people behind these theories, the Cultural Marxists, don’t want to see it properly addressed.

One such example is here, of a brainwashed feminist. She knows men are not women, but assumes that women earning less is patriarchy. Great use of her BA/MA in gender studies.

Of course, cultural Marxism also pushes the idea that women have to have careers in order to be happy with their lives, and that motherhood is a form of submission into traditional gender roles. Fact is, we need women to be mothers in order to keep the next generation of society going. Population replacement via mass migration is not really a good idea.

6. Abortion Agenda

This area has been brought up repeatedly on the site. To boil it down, cultural Marxists have been pushing the idea that abortion (or killing your unborn children) is actually a form of empowerment to be embraced by women as a whole. This is morbid, as it completely devalues human life.

See here, see here, see here, and see Trudeau, for some examples of accepting viewpoint diversity.

Also worth noting is that the organ trafficking industry — or baby chop shop — is an extremely lucrative market. So there is definitely a financial incentive as well for pushing infanticide.

7. Affirmative Action, Racial Differences

The topic of affirmative action was covered, in this article on Harvard University being sued for having racial quotas. Harvard, like many schools, engages in affirmative action, or have “quotas” for how many people in certain groups get in. The rationale is that “oppression and inequality” get factored into these decisions. But isn’t that inherently unfair to other groups of people?

2 other possibilities could explain the disparity in admissions.

(a) Differences in culture: if a particular group has such a culture that on average does not value education, it seems likely that far fewer people from that culture will successfully pursue academia. It is not discrimination, but the result of personal choices.

(b) Biological differences in racial/ethnic groups: as unpopular as it is to say, there are biological differences between groups, and it includes differences in IQ. This has been researched ad nauseum, but the findings are immediately condemned by many as being racist. Average IQ of whites is around 100, while Jewish and Asians are even higher. IQ in Central and South America is often in the 80s, while in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is in the 70s. Certainly, no one has control over how they were born, but these differences do exist.

Despite IQ and work ethic differences across various groups, cultural Marxists keep insisting that differences in academic entry, graduation, and accomplishment is due to systemic racism and discrimination. It’s as if they don’t want the truth to be told.

8. Promoting Gay/Trans Agenda

Not only are segments of society actively promoting the idea that people should become the opposite sex if they feel uncomfortable, they push it in children as well. This comes despite the enormous health risks, the suicide rates, and the inability to have children in later stages of life.

One recent trend is the push for allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, despite the remaining physical advantages. This will undoubtedly help to ruin women’s sports along the way.

Another development was to block funding, for a rape relief shelter in Vancouver, as it wasn’t interested in letting trans-women in. This is nonsense. Rather than being available to help the vast majority of victims, it will now be available to help no one. Good job.

There is the idea of people living their lives as they are, (controversy notwithstanding). Then there is throwing your weight around and demanding society accommodate you.

9. Increasing Islamization

Islam has such strong influence in Canada today that our government pussyfoots around calling Islamic terrorism for what it is. Our leaders crow about diversity being a great thing, but never get into the sexual violence and exploitation that is so rampant in Islam.

This is on top of Bill C-75, which waters down penalties in Canada for terrorism. This is on top of Bill C-6, which revoked a previous law to deport “Canadians” who were dual citizens, but convicted for terrorism or treason.

Also, please note the incessant demands by Muslims to accommodate their way of life, their religion, and their culture. Note, this accommodation will never be reciprocated.

Islam is completely incompatible with the West, and with every other culture in general. However, cultural Marxists just keep telling us not to be bigots and embrace diversity. Feminists as well, openly embrace Islam, despite is going against everything they claim to believe in. LGBTQ groups support Islam too, despite the fact that Islam openly calls for gays to be killed?

Why is this nonsense embraced, when it is so contrary to Western ideals? What is behind it? Who is behind it?

10. Cultural Marxism A Weapon Against Us?

Consider the long term implications of cultural Marxism. Yes, there is some stereotyping, but largely this is true. Consider the points raised in #5 to #9

(A) Women who become feminists are very likely to reject Western society as a whole. They will hate themselves, and men in general. Rather than having children and perpetuating the species, many will remain childless. Instead, they will believe the lie that career is the key to every woman’s happiness.

(B) Rather than embracing children, killing their unborn children is now seen as totally acceptable. It is framed as “reproductive care” and of “my body, my choice”. The obvious result from this is a much lower birth rate, and population decline.

(C) Instead of promoting a meritocracy, we water down any and all standards in the name of being inclusive and tolerant. Actual skill, experience, and competence take a backseat to being diverse.

(D) Push the gay and trans agenda, especially in children. Forget the emotional and psychological harm that comes of it. Remember as well: gay couples cannot have children, and people who have transitioned fully cannot have children with anyone anymore.

(E) Embracing and making excuses for Islam projects the false image that it is compatible with Western society. Never mind the huge cultural clashes that do go on. And never mind that Muslims have a birthrate that far exceeds Western couples. An attempt to out-breed us?

Is there a pattern here? Although cultural Marxism encompasses other ideas, there is a trend here. These initiatives involve Western, European people having less children — or none at all. The solution of course, will be to import a “replacement population”, who will outbreed and eventually replace Europeans.

The founders of cultural Marxism, why do they do this? Are they of a certain group that has a very strong in-group preference? Is the goal of cultural Marxism to inflict great damage across the West? Is it designed to completely destroy the West?

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part I

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord

2. US & Canadian Copyright Laws

Disclaimer #1: The Canadian Copyright Act has a “fair dealing” provision, which allows for copyrighted material to at times be used for specific purposes: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review and news reporting. Click Here and also Click Here for more information.

Disclaimer #2: The U.S. Copyright Act has a “fair use” provision, which states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Click Here to read the text.

This should be obvious, but just to clarify, this article is about criticizing, commenting on, teaching and researching purposes.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

Feel free to check into his other works.
Now for the book itself.

4. Table Of Contents

(1) Here And Now
(2) How We Know What We Know
(3) Do The Right Thing
(4) Ways Of Learning, Ways Of Knowing
(5) It’s Not You, It’s Me…. Actually It’s Us
(6) Academic Climate Advocacy & Activism
(7) Silver Buckshot
(8) Search For Meaning

5. Quoting Creative Climate Communications

(From back cover) Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no “silver bullet” to communications about climate change; instead a “silver buckshot” approach is needed where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts.

One thing that will be clear right away: this is not about using scientific methods to PROVE that climate change is a serious threat. Rather, it is about using scientific methods to CONVINCE people that climate change is a serious threat. Very different things.

We live in remarkable times. Amidst high-quality and well-funded research into the causes and consequences of climate change, conversations in our lives — and climate communications — are stuck. Consciously or unconsciously, a feeling of complacency has often weighed on our collective and our individual selves.

Another point made early on, Boykoff expresses no doubt whatsoever in the “scientific findings” of the climate change movement. The entire focus of the book is about using social science and humanities research to persuade people this is a problem.

(Page 2) Responding to these emergent needs, in recent years has been a blossoming of valuable research in the peer-review literature addressing various elements of this larger challenge. More research groups, organizations, institutions and practitioners around the world have increasingly explored creative spaces of climate communication to better understand what works where, with whom (what audiences), when and why.

Boykoff makes an important note here. He is not by any means a revolutionary here. “Climate communications” is a growing field, with people all over the world trying to determine better methods for “selling” the climate change claims. In short, this is research about marketing. Not science.

(Page 2) Creative approaches involve the deployment of multimodal communications. A mode is a system of choices used to communicate meaning. What might count as a mode is an open-ended set, ranging cross a number of systems, including but not limited to language, image, color, typography, music, voice, quality, dress, posture, gestures, special resources, perfume and cuisine.

What superficial points are listed?

  • language
  • image
  • colour
  • typography
  • music
  • voice
  • quality
  • dress
  • posture
  • gestures
  • special resources
  • perfume
  • cuisine

We are still just on the second page, and already getting an introduction into the very superficial traits which can subtly be used to convince people of our arguments.

Forget facts, research, data, and logic. This is all about presenting a good sales pitch.

(Page 3) Among many elements seeping into the environments, I consider the dynamics that shape creative and potentially effective messages as well as messengers of those climate change communications. Over time, broad references to communications through media platforms have generally pointed to television, films, books, fliers, magazines, radio and internet for pathways for largescale communications.

Additional modes and manifestations of communications also include (analyses of) documentary films about dystopian futures, stand-up comedy about climate and cultures, podcasts about climate science and policy interactions.

Boykoff notes the traditional forms of media, but laments that they are not enough by themselves to do the job. The job of course, is “pitching” the climate change agenda.

(Page 4) Meeting people where they are takes carefully planned and methodical work. It does not mean “dumbing things down” for different audiences. Through this process of assessment of research and practice in these areas, conversations can more capably seek answers to a provocative question Mike Hulme posted in 2009, “How does the idea of climate change the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?”

(Page 5) KNOW THY AUDIENCE
These creative (climate) communication endeavors must start with consideration of the audience. These may be imagined, (un)intended or actual audiences. Researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to differentiated audiences as key components to deliberate development of effective communication.

Knowing who your audience is actually a useful piece of advice, regardless of circumstances. However, in context of this book, it comes across as manipulation.

(Page 6) Audience segmentation and consequent message alteration has been a part of marketing and associated communications strategies since the 1950s (Smith 1956, Slater 1996). Audience segmentation endeavours as they relate to climate change communications, have proliferated over the last decade (Leal Finho 2019).

This book is about marketing strategies of climate change “communications”. Nothing more. It is about manipulative techniques designed to persuade by non-factual means.

6. Where Things Go From Here

The book is 300 pages, the last 60 of which are references. No doubt that an awful lot of work has gone into this. Yes, the intro article is relatively short, but it is setting the stage for later. Sequels will be longer and quote much more.

As alluded to earlier, this is really a book about marketing. It’s not about research done to prove that humans are causing climate change, but rather research to CONVINCE people that they are.

Rather than going into environmental research, the book delves in sociological and social psychological research methods. It looks at work previously done in the fields of persuasion, and applies those principles to “climate communications”.

Boykoff appears to have no doubts about humans causing climate change. Nor does he seem to have any reservations about using these social studies techniques to pursue what is essentially a political goal. He straightforwardly admits that it’s a growing field, and many have contributed to this area of research.

Boykoff admits that this area is “selling” or “pitching” the climate change narrative. While acknowledging it is a start, he has no problems with it. Seems the scientists have given up on the research area of climate science, and are throwing their resources into the marketing aspect.

It’s both nefarious and creepy.

Creative (Climate) Communications — Effectively Marketing Psuedo-Science

No joke. There actually is a book out on how to “effectively communicate” on climate change. Loads of logical fallacies and emotional manipulation.

1. Important Links


(Other articles on climate change scam)
https://canucklaw.ca/the-climate-change-scam-part-1/

CLICK HERE, for the article in the ironically named “Scientific American” journal, authored by Max Boykoff, to promote his book.

CLICK HERE, for link to book sale.

2. Site Promoting Book

Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people, and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no ‘silver bullet’ to communications about climate change; instead, a ‘silver buckshot’ approach is needed, where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts. This tactic can then significantly improve efforts that seek meaningful, substantive, and sustained responses to contemporary climate challenges. It can also help to effectively recapture a common or middle ground on climate change in the public arena. Readers will come away with ideas on how to harness creativity to better understand what kinds of communications work where, when, why, and under what conditions in the twenty-first century.

Includes strategies that help people have productive conversations about climate change that involve listening and adapting rather than just trying to win an argument
-Bridges sectors and audiences, bringing together important material for undergraduate and graduate courses
-Shows the importance of being creative in communications about climate change in the twenty-first century – many businesses, institutions, and collectives can benefit from this, not just students and academics

Reading through this, you will notice that the topic of additional reading and research never comes up. There is no push to understand other perspectives or review scientific findings.

Instead, the focus is on using sociological and psychological techniques to convert normies to your position, without actually providing evidence. This is all about language and emotional manipulation.

Ironically, there is science involved here. But instead of science relating to researching “climate change”, the research focuses on how to change people’s minds. Seems that the priorities are all backwards.

Item #1: Strategies that help people have productive conversations. Presumably this is ways to insert climate change topics into otherwise normal talks.

Item #2: Cram more of the propaganda into university classes.

Item #3: Be innovative about #1 and #2.

3. The Scientific American Article

From synthesizing this work, I distill these lessons into some important “rules of the road.”
-Be authentic.
-Be aware.
-Be accurate.
-Be imaginative.
-Be bold.
From there, additional features on the road map help to navigate toward resonant and effective communications.
-Find common ground on climate change.
Emphasize how climate change affects us here and now, in our everyday lives.
-strong>Focus on benefits of climate change engagement.
Creatively empower people to take meaningful and purposeful action.
“Smarten up” communications about climate change to match the demands of a 21st-century communications environment.

The first items on this list would only make sense if truth was actually a goal. Be aware and be accurate are good principles.

However, climate change advocates tend to be extremely dismissive of different ideas, opinions, facts and research. A commitment to being accurate would undermine the sense of superiority that many possess.

Find common ground and emphasizing the effects are attempts to emotionally manipulate people by inserting the topic in places where it really doesn’t belong. Indeed, the goal seems to be to make “everything” about climate change. Make it an omnipresent issue.

Lately, climate change has imposed itself on the public sphere. Through extreme events linked to changes in the climate, new scientific reports and studies, and rejuvenated youth movements (along with many other political, economic, scientific, ecological, meteorological and cultural events and issues) climate change has been increasingly difficult to ignore.
.
But you wouldn’t really have picked up on that in the first round of the U.S. Democratic party primary debates that took place in Miami, Florida. As 20 candidates made their case to the American people, it was striking how minimally and shallowly they discussed climate change.

To be fair, in a debate (10 people each over 2 days), there isn’t much chance to give long answers.

However, the author, Max Boykoff, makes the point — and will repeatedly make this point — that everything is connected to climate change. He takes the Anita Sarkessian approach, though not with gender.

Sadly, this illustrates a contradiction we have been living with for some time. That is this: amid extensive research into the causes and consequences of climate change, climate communications—and thus, conversations about climate change in our lives—have remained stuck.

There are many reasons. Among them:
-Climate change is still regularly treated as a single issue. This was clearly on display in the debates, and even during the paltry time devoted to surface-level discussions of climate change.
-There has continued to be inadequate funding provided to support sustained and coordinated social science and humanities research into what constitutes more effective climate communications.
-We have all been short on creativity, and we generally have stuck to ineffective climate communications approaches (e.g. merely scientific ways of knowing) as we muddle along.

Interesting take on the problem. Max Boykoff goes on about how the science is sound, but that we just aren’t making any headway in communicating the solutions.

Yes, climate change is still treated as a single issue (that part is true). The author’s goal is to make it an issue of everything. Again, the Anita Sarkeesian technique.

All the money that we pay in various carbon tax schemes apparently aren’t needed for climate change research. Rather, they are needed to SHARE THE RESULTS of the climate change research.

Boykoff seems to believe that it is the “strictly scientific” approach to sharing research that keeps people from seeing what is before their eyes. Seems condescending.

<

p style=”padding:2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid”>Yet climate change is a collective action problem that intersects with just about every other area of life. It traverses critical issues such as public health, jobs, education, inequality, poverty, violence, trade, infrastructure, energy, foreign policy and geopolitics. While everyday people clearly have the capacity to care, they reasonably often focus on immediate concerns, such as issues of job security, local school quality, crime and the economy. In recent years, however, it has become more and more clear that these issues are interlinked with climate change.

So, in making these connections, we can more effectively get to the heart of how we live, work, play, find happiness and relax in modern life, shaping our everyday lives, lifestyles, relationships and livelihoods.

Apparently we are too naïve to see the forest for the trees. Ordinary people have lives to live. We don’t spend every waking moment trying to connect aspects of our lives with climate change.

Again the author assumes, with no evidence, that every major aspect of your life is connected to climate change. It must all be pointed out.

Of course, Boykoff will never get into the conflict-if-interest that plagues climate change research. Most of it is funded with a certain outcome expected. Remember, if you aren’t concluding that climate change is a threat to humanity, then you likely won’t be funded anymore. Why keep financing climate research if it isn’t an emergency?

There has been an urgent need to improve communications about climate change at the intersections of science, policy and society. With that in mind, I wrote Creative (Climate) Communications. It is essentially a handbook that bridges sectors and audiences to meet people where they are on this critical 21st-century challenge. In the book I integrate research from the social sciences and humanities that has provided insights into better understanding what communications work, where, when, why and under what conditions.

I also examine how to harness creativity for more effective engagement. I integrate these lessons by assembling what I call features on a “road map” along with “rules of the road.” The guide is then meant to help as researchers and practitioners proceed with both ambition and caution into struggles to effectively address the many issues associated with climate change.

Although Boykoff doesn’t come right out an say it, book is about marketing techniques. What tactics are most persuasive and under what circumstances? People can’t straight up accept “facts and truth”, it needs to be pointed out again and again.

In short, most people are too stupid to see the big picture. Boykoff implies it, but doesn’t not actually state it.

Through this guidance, I seek to help maximize effectiveness and opportunities and minimize mistakes and dead ends in a resource-, energy- and time-constrained environment. In putting this together, I also emphasize that successful and creative climate communications strategies must be tailored to perceived and intended audiences and can be most effective when pursued through relations of trust. And I underscore that context is critical; cultural, political, social, environmental, economic, ideological and psychological conditions matter.

Move away from hard data and facts. Use “soft techniques” to sell it. To once more point out the obvious, everything is connected to climate change.

I also argue that an expanded approach involves processes of listening and adapting rather than winning and argument or talking people into something. Authentically considering other points of view fosters meaningful exchanges and enhances possibilities for finding common ground. Facts established through scientific ways of knowing about climate change are important, but they are not enough. We therefore need to enlarge considerations of how knowledge influences actions, through experiential, emotional, visceral, tactile, tangible, affective and aesthetic ways of learning and knowing about climate change.

Facts aren’t enough. Tell people again and again, that climate change impacts everything. Look for more subtle ways to get your message across.

4. Reflection On This Article


To address the elephant in the room: it is darkly amusing to post in “Scientific American” about scientific methods to convince people to accept pseudo-science about climate change.

Boykoff mentions several times about considering other peoples’ perspectives. But this is hypocritical considering the amount of times “skeptics” or “deniers” are ridiculed or scorned for trying to find out the truth.

Boykoff also neglects any mention or idea that any of the “climate change” findings might be exaggerated or flat out wrong.

It seems the climate-change industry has given up on science, and instead focuses its efforts on trying to market their agenda.

Might be worth buying the book just to do a thorough debunking of it. Understand your enemy after all.