Counter Intelligence Firms To Influence Elections (Canada And Abroad), Registered As Charities

This is a follow-up to an earlier article. Various groups, which claim to be fighting “misinformation” are actually run by political operatives in Canada. Some of the grants that Canadian taxpayers shell out are also listed. The previous piece will provide a lot of background.

Now the question remains: what do their finances look like? Since many of these groups are in fact registered charities, this information is freely available.

The description as “counter intelligence” is fitting here. While claiming to promote the idea of fairness and openness in the electoral process, these companies won’t ever give the full picture. They’ll never address topics like central banking, the climate change hoax, the “pandemic” psy-op, or many hard questions. In fact, some of these groups run “disinformation” campaigns to prevent the truth about CV from getting out.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines counter intelligence as: “secret action taken by a country to prevent another country from discovering its military, industrial, or political secrets”. However, instead of a struggle between 2 countries, it’s one between government and its people.

Lenin’s famous quote applies here: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Ongoing programs:
ADVANCING EDUCATION BY INCREASING CANADIAN YOUTH AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTE IN CANADIAN ELECTIONS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CANADIAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THROUGH THE USE OF MULTIMEDIA, ART, FILM, TV, INTERNET PROJECT, WRITTEN MATERIALS, SEMINARS, LECTURES.

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $5,000.00 (0.36%)
Non-receipted donations $14,580.00 (1.06%)
Gifts from other registered charities $220,520.00 (15.96%)
Government funding $1,064,684.00 (77.06%)
All other revenue $76,923.00 (5.57%)
Total revenue: $1,381,707.00

Charitable programs $1,174,140.00 (86.07%)
Management and administration $190,027.00 (13.93%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,364,167.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $30,200.00 (1.35%)
Non-receipted donations $17,083.00 (0.76%)
Gifts from other registered charities $265,000.00 (11.86%)
Government funding $1,724,916.00 (77.21%)
All other revenue $196,872.00 (8.81%)
Total revenue: $2,234,071.00

Charitable programs $1,855,731.00 (88.87%)
Management and administration $232,460.00 (11.13%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,088,191.00

The Apathy Is Boring Project claims to try to increase public participation in elections by producing educational content on how the process works.

Ongoing programs:
CIVIX IS A CIVIC EDUCATION CHARITY DEDICATED TO BUILDING THE HABITS OF ACTIVE AND INFORMED CITIZENSHIP AMOUNG YOUTH. STUDENT VOTE IS THE FLAGSHIP PROGRAM OF CIVIX. COINCIDING WITH OFFICIAL ELECTION PERIODS, STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, DISCUSS RELEVANT ISSUES AND CAST BALLOTS FOR THE OFFICIAL ELECTION CANDIDATES. CIVIX ALSO OFFERS OTHER INITIATIVES BETWEEN ELECTIONS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT BUDGET CONSULTATIONS FOR YOUTH (STUDENT BUDGET CONSTULATION), COODINATED VISITS BETWEEN STUDENTS AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (REP DAY), AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS (DEMOCRACY BOOTCAMP) AND DIGITAL MEDIAL LITERACY THAT AIMS TO HELP STUDENTS DEVELOP THE SKILLS AND HABITS TO BE CRITICAL CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION.
.
New programs:
CIVIX EXPANDED ITS PROGRAMMING TO COLOMBIA.

[2018 tax information]
Receipted donations $51,570.00 (2.31%)
Non-receipted donations $83,463.00 (3.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $550,846.00 (24.70%)
Government funding $1,536,915.00 (68.91%)
All other revenue $7,393.00 (0.33%)
Total revenue: $2,230,187.00

Charitable programs $2,429,729.00 (92.06%)
Management and administration $140,741.00 (5.33%)
Fundraising $68,780.00 (2.61%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,639,250.00

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $25,000.00 (0.49%)
Non-receipted donations $85,822.00 (1.67%)
Gifts from other registered charities $831,491.00 (16.16%)
Government funding $3,483,769.00 (67.70%)
All other revenue $719,631.00 (13.99%)
Total revenue: $5,145,713.00

Charitable programs $4,691,097.00 (94.81%)
Management and administration $162,708.00 (3.29%)
Fundraising $93,850.00 (1.90%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,947,655.00

CIVIX is a registered charity in Canada that claims to promote democracy in locally. Apparently, it’s also involved with elections in Colombia as well. Glad to know that public money is used to meddle with another country’s leadership.

Ongoing programs:
ICC HOSTS CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE COMMUNITY CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ARE A CELEBRATION OF CANADA’S NEWEST CITIZENS AND OFFER UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO REFLECT ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ACTIVE AND ENGAGED CITIZENS. CANOO IS A MOBILE APP THAT PROVIDES FREE ADMISSION FOR NEW CANADIAN CITIZENS TO MUSEUMS, SCIENCE CENTRES, ART GALLERIES, PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES ACROSS CANADA. THE APP OFFERS FREE ADMISSION FOR EVERY NEW CITIZEN AND UP TO 4 CHILDREN DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP. THE CANOO APP IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON THE APPLE STORE AND GOOGLE PLAY. 6 DEGREES IS A GLOBAL FORUM THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND CREATE CONVERSATION IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE POSITIVE CHANGE IN ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR AND POLICY. IT IS ABOUT INCLUSION, CONNECTION, ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION, ENGAGEMENT AND THE POWER THAT COMES FROM BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER TO OPEN HEARTS AND CHANGE MINDS.

.
New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
2 countries
.
GERMANY
MEXICO

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $238,781.00 (4.57%)
Non-receipted donations $1,268,590.00 (24.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $3,553,256.00 (68.06%)
All other revenue $160,196.00 (3.07%)
Total revenue: $5,220,823.00

Charitable programs $4,595,568.00 (89.02%)
Management and administration $386,970.00 (7.50%)
Fundraising $180,044.00 (3.49%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,162,582.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $208,421.00 (7.00%)
Non-receipted donations $809,716.00 (27.20%)
Gifts from other registered charities $6,962.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $1,840,232.00 (61.81%)
All other revenue $112,074.00 (3.76%)
Total revenue: $2,977,405.00

Charitable programs $3,478,136.00 (86.56%)
Management and administration $371,785.00 (9.25%)
Fundraising $168,425.00 (4.19%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,018,346.00

Institute for Canadian Citizenship was started up by Adrian Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada. While claiming to promote citizenship for new Canadians, the NGO is active in gaslighting with claims of racism, and promoting the disinformation narrative. In short, it functions like a media arm of the Federal Government, while pretending to be neutral.

Programs and activities:
.
Ongoing programs:
Educate African journalists about human rights; Educate African public about human rights via media; Award journalists for excellent human rights reporting; Educate Canadian students about human rights; Educate Canadian Aboriginal journalists about human rights; Educate Canadian public about human rights through media; Educate Jordanian journalists about human rights; Educate Syrian journalists about human rights.

New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
11 countries

  • CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
  • KENYA
  • JORDAN
  • SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
  • TUNISIA
  • MALI
  • IRAQ
  • YEMEN
  • MAURITANIA
  • UGANDA
  • SOUTH SUDAN

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $155,295.00 (5.29%)
Non-receipted donations $247,342.00 (8.42%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,736,550.00 (59.10%)
All other revenue $799,066.00 (27.20%)
Total revenue: $2,938,253.00

Charitable programs $2,441,992.00 (85.63%)
Management and administration $245,459.00 (8.61%)
Fundraising $164,388.00 (5.76%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,851,845.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $211,784.00 (7.60%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (0.61%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,866,127.00 (66.98%)
All other revenue $691,054.00 (24.80%)
Total revenue: $2,786,075.00

Charitable programs $2,621,360.00 (93.10%)
Management and administration $147,657.00 (5.24%)
Fundraising $46,742.00 (1.66%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,815,759.00

Journalists for Human Rights is another such group. While it may seem harmless enough to promote human rights abroad, it’s worth noting that these groups remain silent on what happens in Canada. They say nothing about the martial law and medical tyranny imposed on the people who help fund them.

JHR also helps fund “Disinfo Watch”, a supposedly independent website devoted to debunking conspiracy theories about the “pandemic”.

Simon Fraser University (BC) and Ryerson University (Ontario) are listed as being organizations to counter misinformation. Both are registered charities, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

These are just some of the media influencers working in Canada to misinform and deceive the public. And they are partially funded with tax dollars.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/07/backgrounder–helping-citizens-critically-assess-and-become-resilient-against-harmful-online-disinformation.html
(2) https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/
(3) https://www.apathyisboring.com/
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyQckVw?q.srchNm=apathy+is+boring&q.stts=0007&selectedFilingPeriodIndex=1&selectedCharityBn=859483349RR0001&isSingleResult=false
(5) https://nmc-mic.ca/
(6) https://civix.ca/
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=civix&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=873006829RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(8) https://www.ewc-rdc.ca/pub/en/mission_history
(9) https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/institute-for-canadian-citizenshipinstitut-pour-la-citoyennete-canadienne/
(10) https://www.globalvision.ca
(11) https://www.inclusion.ca/
(12) https://www.jhr.ca/
(13) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=journalists+for+human+rights&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=860372853RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(14) www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/
(15) https://mediasmarts.ca/
(16) www.newcanadianmedia.ca
(17) https://newsmediacanada.ca
(18) https://www.ryerson.ca/arts/research-and-innovation/democratic-engagement-exchange/
(19) http://www.samaracanada.com
(20) swna.com
(21) www.sfu.ca/dialogue.html
(22) www.vubblepop.com

(23) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(25) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(26) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(27) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/

CIHR Using Taxpayer Money To Convince Pregnant Women & Children To Get Vaccine

If this doesn’t make your blood boil, nothing will. CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has been handing out public money to pay people to convince others to take the experimental, unapproved, gene replacement “vaccines”. And yes, pregnant women are specifically mentioned in these grants.

To make things even worse, the CIHR wants to hire people to convince children to get poisoned as well.

https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/

Now, who are the people who have sold their souls in return for getting some sweet, sweet “pandemic bucks”?

NAME AMOUNT
Barkun, Alan N $784,125
Berman, Peter $118,575
Bottari, Carolina $218,025
Brignardello Petersen, Romina Andrea $1,365,525
Brunet, Alain F $240,975
Burchell, Ann N $768,825
Campbell, Tavis S $271,575
Caron, Etienne $738,000
Cheng, Adam $248,625
Divangahi, Maziar $569,925
Durocher, Evelyne $115,000
Elahi, Shokrollah $1,071,000
Ehrhardt, Rudolf A $229,500
Estabrooks, Carole Anne $756,890
Foster, Jennifer $332,775
Fowler, Robert A $455,175
Gesink, Dionne $393,975
Harris, M. Anne $325,125
Jan, Eric $445,230
Jardine, Cynthia $348,075
Katapally, Tarun Reddy $554,434
Kaul, Rupert $489,600
Lavoie, Kim $638,775
Lisonkova, Sarka $168,300
Luo, Honglin $562,275
Mazurak, Vera C $344,250
Meyer, Jeffrey H $761,175
Mubareka, Samira $612,765
Nissim, Rinat $294,525
O’Campo, Patricia J $302,175
Oremus, Mark $195,075
Pai, Nitika $378,675
Pike, Ian $267,750
Puyat, Joseph H $302,175
Rigatto, Claudio $562,275
Robillard, Rébecca $168,300
Rothman, Linda $416,925
Rousseau, Cecile $240,975
Sylvestre, Marie-Pierre $457,422
Vivion, Maryline $153,000
Wang, JianLi $137,700
Webster, Fiona $160,650
Woodgate, Roberta L $358,594
Zimmermann, Camilla $423,045

Should anyone raise the topic, no, this isn’t doxing. If one accepts grants from the Federal Government, it is public, and searchable by anyone. Moreover, it’s in the public interest that others know who they are. These people are pushing injections on the general population, most likely without being completely forthcoming.

Interesting to note: most of these grants run until 2022 or 2023. It could be because these drugs are in the experimental stages, and the testing won’t be done until then. These drugs are not “approved” by Health Canada, but instead, are given interim authorization under an emergency order.

  • INTERIM AUTHORIZATION — deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Also known as emergency authorization.
  • APPROVED — Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=agreement_value_fs%20desc&page=1&search_text=vaccine%20hesitancy%20pregnant#
(3) https://archive.is/x1H5x
(4) https://archive.is/PsecY
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(10) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

CV #44(B): BBC’s “Disinformation Specialist Reporter”, Marianna Spring, Is Funded By Gates Money

Marianna Spring works for the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, and claims to be a “specialist reporter covering disinformation and social media”. However, after a look through what she covers (and omits), the only logical conclusion is that she is deliberately spreading lies.

As a bit of a side note: Spring doesn’t allow people to comment on her tweets unless she follows them, or has tagged them. For a journalist trying to reach the people, she certainly doesn’t seem to want to hear from them.

According to her profile, she was a full time reporter with BBC, until in March 2020, she was tapped to head up the misinformation coverage in the network. She claims to report and track conspiracy theories and false reporting.

However, there is an interesting omission. Spring doesn’t like to address the people who are funding her employer, the BBC. Specifically, she doesn’t address the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While it’s far from the only donor, it is a major one, and a regular one at that.

Funding in recent years for the BBC is all freely available online. To their credit, the BBC is quite organized when it comes to their records.
BBC Financial Statement 2006 to 2007
BBC Financial Statement 2007 to 2008
BBC Financial Statement 2008 to 2009
BBC Financial Statement 2009 to 2010
BBC Financial Statement 2010 to 2011
BBC Financial Statement 2011 to 2012
BBC Financial Statement 2012 to 2013
BBC Financial Statement 2013 to 2014
BBC Financial Statement 2014 to 2015
BBC Financial Statement 2015 to 2016
BBC Financial Statement 2016 to 2017
BBC Financial Statement 2017 to 2018
BBC Financial Statement 2018 to 2019
BBC Financial Statement 2019 to 2020

YEAR PAGE AMOUNT (UK POUNDS)
2016-2017 35 2,800,000
2017-2018 12 2,150,000
2018-2019 14 2,003,000
2019-2020 17 1,569,000

Notwithstanding donations to her own employer, Spring has shown no interest in covering any of the financial connections between the Gates Foundation, big pharma, and the education industry. Just a thought: when covering conspiracy theories, it may be wise to see if there is any truth to them.

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

However, Spring will never get into any of this, nor will she report of the financial interests that drive this “pandemic”. The grants to the World Health Organization, GAVI, the Pirbright Institute, John Hopkins, and many more are instantly available. It’s hard to classify someone as a “journalist” when they are so blind to one side of a story.

Even disregarding Gates, the bulk of the BBC funding comes from the British Government, who supports these martial law measures 100%. Surely Spring and her people know who butters their bread.

“We offer partners a number of benefits which include:

  • Exclusive invites to networking events, receptions and dinners hosted by BBC correspondents
  • Getting behind-the-scenes at the BBC with private tours of New Broadcasting House
  • Exclusive recognition on our website and marketing materials
  • Case studies of how your donation has impacted our work, for you to use in both internal and external communications
  • Exclusive opportunities to see and help deliver our work in action, in country.”

The BBC offers partnerships with other organization, and currently, they include Facebook and Twitter. As far as cracking down on “misinformation”, they seem to be ideologically aligned.

The BBC covered the Atlantic Storm pandemic scenario in 2005. Footage is still available of it online. Has Spring not found it strange that all of these preparation cases have been going on for decades?

Facebook has also confirmed that it will be removing content and people that discourages vaccination, REGARDLESS of whether or not it’s true. This is about pushing an agenda, not a search for objective truth. Does Spring not see how precarious her position is if the only way to succeed is to shut down opposing views? After all, she “identifies” as a journalist.

This kind of censorship has a chilling effect, regardless of the subject being discussed.

Volunteers fight back
It was the pandemic’s wave of anti-vaccine content that prompted Dave and Richard to embark on their plan.
.
“I was out of work,” Dave says. “So I wanted to do something constructive.”
.
Although the duo have only met in real life once, they now run multiple “honeypot” Facebook groups that have thousands of members from all over the world.
.
Inside the groups, people who believe in vaccine and Covid-19 conspiracy theories are allowed by the moderators to post false and misleading articles.
.
Richard admits he’s conflicted about the deception.
.
“It was horrible having to lie to begin with,” he says.
.
After members initially joined the group, he says, the pair would observe what they shared, sometimes for weeks.
.
“And then it’d stop,” Richard says, “and we’d start questioning their narrative.”
.
Dave and Richard debunk myths and challenge people in comments under posts and via private message.

Ever get the impression that certain groups and people were honeypots (or feds), deliberately trying to mislead a conversation and steer others away from asking important questions? Turns out, it’s for real. The BBC published an article on doing exactly that.

Rather than condemn such underhanded tactics, Spring tweeted it out approvingly, saying that it was necessary to stop people from falling for conspiracy theories. Does a “misinformation specialist” see nothing wrong with deceiving and misleading the public? Spring is either a fraud, or is engaging in olympic level mental gymnastics.

The screenshot is from last year, but there is a valid point. The U.K. defines “Covid deaths” as:

Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary. Data for the period ending 5 days before the date when the website was last updated with data for the selected area, highlighted in grey, is incomplete.

The death count is for people who’ve had a positive test (real or false positive), and then died within 28 days, irrespective of the cause. This kind of definition opens the door to abuse. If Spring really had been researching conspiracy theories and misinformation, she would have heard that claim repeatedly. Did she ignore it, or check, and simply report lies anyway?

The World Health Organization defines it in the following way:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

While there is a lot of garbage posted online (that part is true), isn’t it the job of a professional journalist to wade through, and sort out fact from fiction?

Listening to Spring talk, it does appear that she has much of an interest in fact checking anything that she calls a conspiracy theorist. She seems to take the Government narrative at face value.

In her own words, this is about “putting a human face” on trying to counter information the Government doesn’t like. This comes across as crass emotional manipulation.

Take a good look. This is the face of deception in the modern age.

(1) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring
(2) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1396858528900567041
(3) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1396859428226441225
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianna-spring-279439b6/
(5) https://archive.is/aL3iN
(6) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(7) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports
(8) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
(9) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/support-us/current-partnerships
(10) https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57051691
(11) https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/social-media-boycott-football-sport-bbc-marianna-spring-dealing-with-trolls-978728
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dmc
(13) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/
(14) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/atlantic-storm-BBC
(15) https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
(16) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(17) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVNlI0ewkBk

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.

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.