The Power of Propaganda

The power of propaganda is  to make something of nothing, but to do it so well that it puts people in a state of fear and keeps them there. I’ve been around a long time, maybe not as long as Clint Eastwood, and it has been going on my entire life. Covid is just the latest episode of a propaganda power play, well thought out years in advance and designed to scare the bejesus out of everyone. I was aghast at how much planning went into that scam. That’s well known to readers here.

Climate Change is just a little bit short of Covid power, and, like Covid, is absolutely based on nothing. I tell people all they have to do is stick their heads outside and look around and see that nothing is changing. But they do not listen, and anyway do not think their own thoughts. They believe in “experts.” The fear agitprop about climate has been going on since the late 1980s. To date, not one prediction made by any climate scientist or agent has come to fruition. It is simply stunning … the results they can achieve with televised news and fake science over real evidence.

I am writing this in order to demonstrate the power of honest information. I just got back from my daily tour of Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts’ web page, probably the most read climate science blog on the planet. He puts out an amazing amount of material, and has been at it for years. Today as I read I saw four really important articles right on the front page. So I am providing links, just for the hell of it during my period of self-quarantine leading up to very minor surgery on Thursday. I took a PCR test yesterday at 9AM, and by 8PM last night had the result, negative. I was far more worried about that than a hernia. Anyway, I ramble.

Here are the four articles in question:

    • Europe is switching back to coal to survive a bleak winter. In case you are unaware, the EU is far ahead of the US in attempting to get to Net Zero. Its reliance on Windmills, and banning of fracking, has put it in peril of freezing in the dark. The wind is not blowing enough. So companies are returning to coal-fired power. There is talk that there may not be enough energy to heat homes. Be thankful, for now, that the US still has abundant supplies of natural gas and oil, neither of which will ever go away. Yes, they are drilling less, but we know the oil is there, and how to get to it. We will not be freezing in the dark. Sanity might return someday.
    • La Nina: Globe expected to continue cooling into next year, extending cooling streak to seven years. La Nina is the flip side of ENSO, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, a recurring weather pattern. Where El Niño tends to heat things up, La Nina cools things down. But I would bet that many readers, even here, did not know that the planet has been cooling these past seven years. Such matters are never reported in the mainstream.
    • New evidence that humans populated the Americas during the last glacial maximum. I was taught that humans first came to North America over the ice bridge to Siberia some 11,500 years ago. I should have thought more about it, but I just trusted scientists, you know? I should adopt comedian Bill Burr’s attitude, that we should always remember that nobody knows shit. Footprints in White Sands National Park are said to be 23,000 years old. Researchers “… used radiocarbon dating of seed layers above and below the footprints to determine their age.” I do not think we know how long people have been here and will continue to stumble on new evidence like this.
    • Shortening Northern Europe Summers … August temperatures have been cooling since, JMA data suggest. (Japan Meteorological Agency). “Last month we looked at July mean temperature data from the stations in northern Europe for which the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) have enough data and found northern Europe (Norway, Sweden and Finland) had seen no mid summer warming in 20 years. Now [the JMA] has the data for the same stations for August. Again the trends show late summer has been cooling, and not warming.” (my emphasis.)

Information like that absolutely confounds everything the IPCC and Climate Alarmists are saying. We are not getting warmer, but rather cooler, and that presents problems. Civilization thrives in warmer times, as during the Minoan, Roman, Medieval warm periods, and now, known as the Modern Warm Period.

Northern European countries picked a really bad time to rely on wind power. If sanity prevails, coal and natural gas will soon return to prominence.

And, if you are ever bored, give Watts Up With That a visit. If you are like me, you’ll be spending a lot of time there.

PS: I found another piece today over at Watts Up With That, Weekly Climate and Energy News, wherein a paper by Richard Lindzen is quoted. Scroll down to the words “Shortcomings of Skeptics.” It is most refreshing and worth our time. He describes exactly what I have done:

“In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd.

That’s it! That is what I face every day with this subject, that the whole damned thing is a house of cards, some of the most specious science ever advanced. Lindzen also incidentally hones in on some other reading I am doing, Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobachevsky, which describes the evil done by psychopaths in our political systems. This is what we are dealing with here, psychopaths. Says Lindzen,

“…the proposed policies would leave us more vulnerable. This strongly suggests malicious intent.”


‘Frankly, I don’t think they actually believe what they are proclaiming – especially when they buy mansions on the coast. Rather, they look forward to the pain their policies will cause to a group that they appear to despise.’

Stop destroying them with details, and hit them hard where they are most vulnerable. Their ideas are absurd. Just absurd.

28 thoughts on “The Power of Propaganda

  1. You may be certifiable to anyone living in Oregon.
    “Climate Change is absolutely based on nothing. I tell people all they have to do is stick their heads outside and look around and see that nothing is changing.” Seriously? I’m new here, but I’ve lived in southern Oregon in the forest for over thirty years and have seen the drought come up from California for the last ten years, with the trees now dying at an alarming rate….not from beetles or other critters/pathogens but from lack of deep water in the aquafers, rivers, lakes and streams due to NO RAINFALL OR SNOW PACK of significance. What was once a six foot deep snow winter is now a light snow twice in a three month season that may not stick at all, and if it does, stays overnight, then melts off. The 100 year old trees are shedding needles and branches all the way up.
    If you are going to tell me there is no such thing as climate change and I’m frigging living in it, looking at it, and just spent TWO MONTHS in summer with doors and windows shut, three air purifiers going 24/7, what other lies would you care to spout before I remove myself from a subscription that begins with ‘the king has a new set of clothes’? Believe you or my own eyes? Do you write at the behest of a fossil fuel corporation of just own a hedge fund?


    1. California is a special case, basically a desert, but special in that they have been suppressing fires and allowing fuel buildup beyond reason for decades, so when it burns, it burns big. Oregon is experiencing climate “variability” and it will swing around the other way again. It always does.

      Since 1920 Oregon has experienced a +.14 inches per decade increase in precipitation. The Annual Palmer Drought Index during that same time is basically flat, with horrible droughts in the 1920s and 30s, and late 1970s. There is no perceivable trend. Oregon’s temperature trend since 1920 is an increase of .254 degree Fahrenheit per DECADE. That’s manageable, and in fact, is a common trend throughout the northern hemisphere since we bottomed out in the trough of the Little Ice Age in 1680 or so. The source of my data is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, drawn down by Bob Tisdale, from the book Extremes and Averages in Contiguous U.S. Climate. He says it is a “book that NOAA should have published,” but due to the Climate Change alarmism, they sit on it.

      You’re not seeing the big picture. HAND.


    2. This is the precipitation chart for Oregon for 1920-2018. The black line through the green one is the moving average. Notice all of the highs and lows – that is called “climate variability” but the long term trend is slightly more precipitation each decade.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Thank you OM for that video, which I will watch tomorrow since I have time, being in quarantine. All data that I have says that the 1930s are the hottest decade “on record”, and no one knows why. If you look at the graph above, the data starts in 1918, and each vertical line is ten years. You can see the lowest precipitation point on the graph in the 1930s, not approached until the 1980s. The thing we have to know is that they only pretend to understand this wildly scattered information, doing, as humans tend to to, forming patterns in the mind. To me, it appears random.,


        2. Here’s an interesting little site which shows the increase (err, excuse me…decrease) in average global temperature from Jan 2015 thru right now, compared to the last thirty years average. Uses official temperature sources (listed).

          Compared to the 30 year average, Jan 2015 thru Aug 2021 clock in at an average decrease in temp of minus 0.336 degree celsius. See the graph labelled “Global Temperature”.

          Just another example of what Mark said in a comment below:
          “they only pretend to understand this wildly scattered information,… as humans tend to do, forming patterns in the mind”


          1. Where do they stick the thermometer? How, who decides where to measure the temperatures to calculate these averages? Wouldn’t it make a difference if you measured temperature in a city and within that city if it was in the park or in a parking lot? A cornfield or a forest in the sun or in the shade, high altitude or low altitude, near a body of water? It seems to me that even the placement of the thermometers would be a political choice not scientific. What use is that number? It seems like the main value is in terrorizing people.


            1. “if you measured temperature in a city and within that city if it was in the park or in a parking lot?” Yes, they call it the heat island effect, and placement of thermometers has become a political choice in this era of “climate change”. This has been documented, along with results. I will try to find a link or two.


              1. That’s a good bit of documentation of the hidden hand guiding public perceptions. I am going to do some screen grabs, as I cannot run such a video here, or don’t know how, and link everyone to it. It is ten minutes, concise and easy to absorb. Thanks, OM, for bringing it to us. (What I especially like is a simple narrator, no annoying music running behind him.)

                It’ll be a few days as tomorrow is under the knife.


            2. One of Anthony Watts’ early projects was to locate every temperature station in the country. He used volunteers and ran them all down. Indeed, many were on airport tarmac or on cement on campuses, creating urban heat islands.


    3. Funny you say that … I was buying in to Climate Change, then called Global Warming (until warming stopped), as I was not looking at actual evidence, but merely absorbing the atmosphere around me, having news and “science” bounce off me. That’s how it works with us. If we do not take time to read, evaluate evidence, think, we get snookered. At that time we lived in Bozeman, and I watched a movie called Rancho DeLuxe, filmed in Paradise Valley, a fifty mile corridor from nearby Livingston to Yellowstone National Park. We drove it often, on our way to camp and hike YNP. As I watched the movie, I felt sadness, as it was filmed in the 70s, and I imagined that the snow pack would never again be like it was then.

      It comes and goes, as always. The 1980s in Montana were a drought, as I recall. In the 90s we took a trip with friends to see some pictographs in the Pryor Mountains, maybe a hundred miles away, and on the trip home we got rained on. That’s why I remember the trip. It rained!

      1988 is when Yellowstone burned up, two million acres. If you go there now, it is green and luxurious new lodgepole pines fill the area, getting ready to burn again. The soil in that area, based in rhyolite, the area called the caldera, does not support much else besides lodgepoles. These trees produce cones that are sealed by resin, so that when there is a fire, the resin melts and the new seeds quickly regenerate the burned area. Nature appears to me to be far better planned than a typical senior prom. The north part of the park, based in much older volcanic soil (andesite) produced doug firs and other kinds of trees that do not so quickly regenerate. Up in that part of the park, we now see lush meadows and lots of stumps, still beautiful.

      Climate change is real. It does not threaten us. Change is constant.


      1. “Climate change is real. It does not threaten us. Change is constant.”

        Yes, and it’s called the Four Seasons: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. And, as it’s pointed out here on more than one occasion, the Earth is actually cooling, not warming. And yes, some of the unusual changes are manmade (think geoengineering). But on the grand scheme of things in the real world, it’s nothing like the apocalyptic nightmare the climate alarmists are selling us.

        Liked by 1 person

    4. One final thought, Ms. Cynthia:

      How to say, Does one’s intellect rise and fall in tandem with politicians (All Gore?) and successors (Greta Tunberg, etc) …or can one rise above television and admit to being Conned?

      The origin of the word Conned is Confidence. It is a Confidence game…to stand proudly before millions of people and lie to each and every one with a straight face, and to have bought-and-paid-for “scientists” up their sleeve to support them.

      But don’t worry, the same piticians who proclaim the End Of The World…are literally the same politicians who will “fix it”.

      Gotta love how that $#@& works, huh??



    5. 30 years sure seems like a long time.but if you had a heatwave for 10 years that was a once in 100 years event, than those 30 years just aren’t long enough are they. The news lies. The media lies. Science lies. Please tell me how you are so sure climate change is real? Oh I’m sorry, is it because you have not seen this kind of heat for 30 years…..


  2. In Europe, there is a paradox. Today, the woods are in a depressing condition. Trees suffer from a fungus, are removed to prevent spread, which doesn’t work. Chestnut looks fine in spring, sick some weeks later. Oak looks sick too, roots rot, century old ones just fall over. Of course, it’s claimed the reason is climate change. In the early 80s, forrest dieback was the panic televised, actually, we got that situation today! Back in the day, much money was spent on research, scientists expected forrests would disappear. In the 90s, the problem disappeared from the media. An explanation was given, powerplants had filters now. But people with memory know, back than, the panic was way out of proportion. Ironically, they want to put wind power stations into the woods now, to prevent … climate change. It’s insane. We just had big fff demonstrations, including a hungerstrike, timed with the election. It’s a death cult, “last generation”. We had some dry years here, lakes got less water than some years before. But “the” climate change as the one reason for all problems is just too simple. This is a campaign, infantilisation the method.


    1. Seems to me I read something about a recovery in forests in Eastern Europe in the 1990s due to dismantling of radar stations. EMFs have a significant negative effect on vegetation, and bees. I do recall a book by Arthur Firstenberg called the Invisible Rainbow that addresses these issues.


  3. Well, my response has nothing to do with climate change, really, but last night I had a brush with propaganda that left me both infuriated and, maybe, a little encouraged.

    For reasons I won’t go into, I had to attend a Lauren Daigle concert as part of my job. All I knew about Daigle was that she’s a “crossover” Christian pop singer and her big hit, “You Say,” sounds like it’s about a woman in a really deranged relationship with a man until you realize she’s actually in a deranged relationship with her mental construct of God.

    The concert was held at a stadium with signs on the door declaring “Masks are required.” There were security guards handing masks to people (like me) who weren’t wearing one. Happily, I noticed that lots of people immediately took their masks off when they passed the security checkpoint, so I accepted the mask the guard handed to me, stuck in my back pocket, and forgot about it for the rest of the night. Nobody bothered me about it. (I live in a conservative state in southern Indiana. Also, I’ve since learned that Daigle was reprimanded by the mayor of New Orleans for violating “safety” protocols at an event in his city early on during the scamdemic. As far as I can tell, she never publicly apologized, and she made a comment during her concert about how the media has been “acting a fool” of late… so that’s all a point in her favor.)

    After the opening act and before the intermission, a spokesperson for a “nonprofit” called Child Fund came onstage and delivered an aggressively saccharine pitch for contributions. Child Fund is one of the outfits where you “sponsor” an impoverished South African child for 30 dollars a month and become the child’s pen pal. The spokesperson was an appallingly transparent, cheaply manipulative phony. Child Fund “volunteers” (employees? mind-controlled slaves? who the fuck knows?) went up and down the aisles of the stadium ready to accept donations from audience members, and the spokesperson urged people to sign up with one of the volunteers during intermission. It was difficult to tell because the stadium was… well, a stadium… and it was packed, but it looked to me like the volunteers didn’t get many recruits. I would like to believe the audience saw through that guy’s bullshit, but I may just be projecting my own visceral repulsion onto the rest of the crowd.

    The fact that Child Fund was the main sponsor of Daigle’s tour–and that the concert itself was funding drive without being advertised as such–makes her as repugnant to me as any other famous pop musician. But at least she and most of her audience reject the scamdemic, and if my limited view of Child Fund’s money-raising efforts was accurate, the audience saw through Daigle’s phony-ass sponsor as well.

    I feel as though the Elites are turning up the heat with propaganda of EVERY kind, and it’s possible that a lot more people are beginning to see through it simply because it’s become so obnoxious and aggressive. But, again, I may be overly optimistic about that.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. This is a timely post regarding climate change propaganda; as it is the next existential crisis that will be exploited along with covid to justify even more drastic and draconian limitations on our liberty. The climate change psyop comes with the potential to disrupt nearly every aspect of our existence: food production, energy distribution, access to basic goods and services, etc.

    However, I do not believe that climate change is a hoax or as the author suggests absolutely based on nothing. I agree it is likely a scam in the sense that we are certainly being manipulated into believing and acting according to the objectives of the official climate change propaganda, one of which is obviously to sew confusion surrounding the whole topic. After many years of casual research I have yet to come to any conclusions as to the validity of the claims on any side of this rather nebulous argument. I suspect there are elements of the truth in the dire predictions as they relate to greenhouse gasses. My sense is that there are many more pieces to the climate puzzle and we have yet to incorporate enough of them into a logical and unifying theory, that accounts for all the gasses that humanity has altered the balance of in the past couple of centuries.

    I strongly suspect that the intense heat and drought experienced along the west coast the past few years is not at all a natural phenomenon. The same with the recent freezing and subsequent burning of Texas, or the very unusual behavior of hurricane Ida, or the flooding of China. There are too many recent severe weather anomalies across the globe not to notice the telltale signs human intervention aka climate engineering. As this facet of the climate is rarely discussed, or even allowed to be discussed, I would suggest it also fits into the broader climate change propaganda narrative, conspicuous in its absence.

    As Fela Kuti so eloquently advised, “Who no know, go know”… I would recommend viewing the recently produced documentary at, “The Dimming”
    Interestingly, at around the 42:00 mark it exposes the causal link of EMF and the ever increasing climate disruptions in terms of severity and frequency that we’ve been promised for so long as part of the propaganda.

    As for what propaganda truly excels at, and we’ve been given a masterclass these past many months, it disorients the subject so that their cognitive ability is seriously impaired. Apparently, to the extent that they no longer can perceive the true existential threats to their survival. Quite a feat for such a blunt instrument of control, only slightly more subtle than a cudgel to the head.

    Surely, the best antidote is to keep our incredulity intact and trust the science… 😉

    Ps. Ms. Cynthia, having lived in Oregon in the ‘80s I have a keen sympathy for what you are witnessing there, and believe that you are correct to trust your experience – thank you for sharing it. I wish you and all our compatriots on that coast the strength to endure this trial.


    1. What is the context of these recent weather anomalies that you are using? Is it 10 year period? 50 year period? 500 year period? Our lives are so short in the context of a few thousand years, it seems likely to me that these anomalies may not not be as rare as we are led to believe.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. My suggestion is that we merely look back in history – take a look at the precipitation graph I posted above for Oregon. No matter what it is, it has happened before. Human interference is a suspicion, things like HAARP causing the unusual heat in the northwest. People have been arrested in Australia for setting bush fires, but even so, those are not the worst fires they’ve had by any means. the news merely reports it so. And again, California is an exception in that they have built up so much fuel due to fire suppression that when it burns, it burns big, and the news magnifies it still more. I am content that we are ok, that the planet is okay, and that the psychopaths who run it have their own agenda which operates just like Covid to limit human freedom and human population, their ultimate objective. Climate will not harm us, as we adapt to constant change. We are in the Modern Warm period following the Little Ice Age, and the warmth is our friend. Cold harms us. People want to harm us.

      As Kary Mullis said in one of his panel discussions, roughly quoted, the thing about climate that will really do us in are asteroids. That’s is something we are not allowed to discuss.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I used to be a climate activist and found that whenever I compared the against-AGW arguments with the for-AGW arguments, the for-AGW arguments always won, however, since I’ve woken up to how fraudulent the science that is put forward can be I’m prepared to look again – but I’m not going to do that now.

    Whichever way you’re going to argue it’s important to use the facts so I’d just like to clarify a couple of facts, Mark:

    “Global warming” didn’t morph into “climate change” because global warming was inconvenient. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 and the two terms still co-exist as they refer to two distinct phenomena each affecting the other. As the global temperature warms the climate will change and as the climate changes the global temperature will be affected. Global warming doesn’t necessarily mean the temperature will rise everywhere, for example, if global warming reduced the Gulf Stream that would mean Great Britain getting colder – at least in the short term. GB is much warmer than other countries at the same latitude who don’t experience the Gulf Stream.
    The technology to harness wind today is significantly different from windmills. There are the classic wind turbines that look similar to olden-style windmills but are more advanced technologically but there are various types of wind harnessing technology that look nothing like windmills.

    Difference between windmills and wind turbines

    Various kinds of wind turbines

    New design from Norway:

    Regardless of climate change I think it’s best to switch to freefuel energy sources. While ALL energy technology has an impact on the environment freefuel energy sources can only have less.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s