The Climate Change Double Header

Green government policies designed to control the weather are killing people and resulting in disaster. Leftist news sources now openly boast about using fear as a tactic to manipulate public sentiment in favor of the climate change agenda…

▶️ READ THE FULL STORY HERE

Technocrats Now Openly Bragging About Using Emotional Manipulation To Promote Climate Change Hysteria

FILLER

hey used to have the decency, or perhaps the shame, to conduct such psychological operations in the dark. Now they’re just coming out and saying it: engineered mass anger, guilt, and fear are what will propel their “climate change” agenda forward.

Via The Guardian:

Anger is by far the most powerful emotional predictor of whether somebody plans to take part in a climate protest, research suggests.The study, which asked 2,000 Norwegian adults how they felt about the climate crisis, found the link to activism was seven times stronger for anger than it was for hope. The effects were smaller for other actions, but fear and guilt were the best predictors of policy support, while sadness, fear and hope were the best predictors of behavioural change.

On average, people reported having fairly mild feelings about the planet heating.“The problem isn’t that people feel too scared about climate change,” said Thea Gregersen, a climate psychologist at the Norwegian Research Centre and lead author of the study. “The problem, in Norway at least, seems to be that they’re not scared enough.

Also at the above-mentioned study:

Analyzing responses to the open-ended survey question “What is it about climate change that makes you angry?”, we find that the most common reason was human actions causing climate change. Respondents also frequently pointed to responsible agents, especially politicians. Controlling for other climate emotions, as well as socio-demographics, anger strength was differentially related to three types of climate change engagement; it was the strongest predictor of self-reported activism, positively related to policy support, but not related to individual mitigation efforts*. Among those reporting anger, directing it towards human qualities or actions was consistently and positively related to individual behavior, policy support, and activism while referring to responsible agents was not related to either. ‘Contrarian’ anger, reflecting skepticism towards the threat of climate change or dissatisfaction with mitigation measures, constituted 10% of the responses and had a negative effect on all outcomes. Overall, we find that both the strength and content of climate anger are relevant for climate change engagement. Our findings illustrate the need to avoid simplistic discussions of climate emotions and their motivational potential.

Interesting, is it not, that anger correlated to “self-reported activism” and climate change “policy support,” but not to “individual mitigation efforts?” In other words: “I’m so angry that I believe the government should fix a problem I’m not willing to do anything about myself.” Sacrifice is always the job of someone else; alas, sadly, this seems to be universal and immutable nature.

I know I have sometimes beaten this dead horse into the ground, but it’s essential to understand the very basic paradigm at play that the technocrats use over and over and over to advance their agenda du jourproblem-reaction-solution (Hegelian Dialectic). The three-step process works as follows:

First, the social engineers either promote and amplify an existing actual problem of public import or, in the case of the alleged existential threat of climate change, essentially manufacture it out of whole cloth. Second, the public — or at least large elements of it — reacts in the intended manner, which in this case is with anger/guilt/fear. And third, on the back of that, the social engineers offer a novel solution that (surely only coincidentally) increases their own power — in this case, “zero carbon” crackdowns on energy and agriculture and ultimately, depopulation.✪

▶️ READ THE FULL STORY HERE

When Fear-Driven Government Climate Policies Turn Deadly

FILLER

ollowing the staggering tragedy of the fires on Maui, the media is screeching about climate change as a cause or exacerbating factor. But the reality is that government negligence and foolish policy-making, driven by climate change propaganda are the factors which led to the massive devastation on Maui—and elsewhere.

Last week, I joined a media call on government negligence, “climate change,” and the Maui fires, that included multiple climate experts: Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 Coalition, H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and Trump transition team member Steve Milloy of JunkScience.

Preventative measures have largely been ignored or actively ended (even cheap measures like fire brakes) by governments instead obsessed with spending millions on “green” measures like windmills. The media encourages the obsession with its unscientific drumbeat of impending climate doom (which has been falsely predicted for more than 50 years now). Hawaii Electric even gave the Hawaiian government “a $190 million plan last June to prevent wildfires, and the government just sat on it,” according to Milloy.

In other words, as Milloy put it, “Lahaina was just a sitting duck for something to get out of control.” The government continued to display gross incompetence once the Lahaina, Maui, fire started. Water was not initially released to fight the devastating fire, people were blocked from escaping, and the exact death toll is still unknown as hundreds of people are still missing, including many children. Because government negligence had exacerbated the flammable nature of the area, and because the government spent taxpayer money on all the wrong measures due to climate hysteria, possibly hundreds of people unnecessarily died in Maui. In Lahaina, climate fear-driven policies turned deadly.

The experts noted that California turned its forests into tinderboxes with foolish “green” policies that put an end to preventative measures like logging. Milloy had previously commented in July, “Whether drought or no drought, California will remain at risk of out-of-control wildfires as long as greens block sensible forest management, including logging. Wildfires since 2012 have ironically entirely offset the emissions cuts from the state’s expensive cap-and-tax program.” In other words, climate alarmists are shooting themselves in the feet, allegedly trying to cut emissions while creating situations ripe for polluting fires.

California wildfires too often turn deadly. For instance, fires in 2020 killed 15 people; in 2018, wildfires killed 85 people. Would those wildfires have been as deadly had commonsense preventative measures been taken instead of heeding climate alarmists? We don’t know for certain, but the answers of the climate experts above indicate the answer is likely “no.”

Some of the people who push climate alarmism and “green” policies really believe, to a greater or lesser degree, that the narrative is true and that they are saving the planet. This is especially true of young people, although many of the teens and youth who glue themselves to priceless works of art or highways don’t really want to sacrifice all their comforts like air conditioning and travel and iPhones—they want the government to come up with a magic solution. Oh, and they want to feel like the heroes.

Then there are the people who are in it for the fame and fortune—individuals who make lots of money or earn notoriety and important positions by being apostles of climate hysteria. Al Gore, for instance, moved on to the next doom prophecy as soon as his last onewas found to be wrong and is still making money and earning positions like a board seat for the World Economic Forum (WEF). John Kerry got himself an appointment in the Biden administration as the first-ever U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate for his climate alarmist views. Then there’s Greta Thunberg, who became an international celebrity and sought-after speaker because she accused us of stealing her dreams and polluting the earth.

I would also argue that some leaders in politics and powerful international groups are weaponizing climate alarmism to increase government control and change society as we know it. You can take a look at WEF’s plan for the year 2030, which is a dystopian tyranny but allegedly better for the environment, the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, or the Biden administration’s campaigns against ceiling fans and gas stoves.

The climate crisis movement is a scam, and a dangerous one. We have to start rejecting the lies, or more people will die as they did in Maui and California. ✪

▶️ CLICK HERE TO VIEW

NOTE: This feature module is currently under construction. More podcast/series channels links will be added in the coming days & weeks. If there’s a podcast or video link you’d like to see posted here, please email your suggestions to vip@thenewamericanist.com

▶️ CLICK HERE TO VIEW

▶️ 46 Minutes 13 Seconds


▶️ 10 Minutes 40 Seconds ⭐️ Michael Brower, wtd


▶️ 8 Minutes 48 Seconds


▶️ 6 Minutes 13 Seconds