One of the most insane and often economical-with-the-truth of the many climate propaganda websites is “Climate Home”, formerly known as RTCC.
Last week they wrote a post Climate denial is alive and kicking say scientists, on a paper that has recently been discussed at the Fabius Maximus blog.
The first problem with the Climate Home article is that the people who wrote the paper weren’t ‘scientists’ at all. Both of them work in politics departments. One of them has a Greenpeace flag on his web page, just in case there is any doubt about his politics. Describing academia’s political activists as “scientists” seems to be common, see also this example.
The second curious thing is that the paper and the Climate Home article claim that there has been a huge increase in the output (blogs, reports etc) from sceptical organisations such as the Heartland Institute. Yet their article is illustrated with a picture of a wall covered in posters produced by climate activists. The truth is that the vast increase has been in the amount of propaganda from people like Climate Home themselves.
Thirdly, there is a space for comments at the bottom of the article, which conveys the impression that you can comment there. I did so last Friday, pointing out quite politely, in response to a comment claiming that ‘deniers’ were getting more desperate, that it was in fact climate alarmists who were getting more desperate, as the Wanted posters in their picture show. My comment wasn’t posted.
Another of Climate Home’s topsy-turvy, mad-as-a-hatter posts is Big oil lines up to battle kids in climate court case. The impression given is that the evil fossil fuel companies are attacking defenceless little children via the courts. In fact what seems to be happening is, again, the opposite, that climate activists have brainwashed children – as young as 8 – and cynically manipulated them into launching lawsuits. Ironically, the organisation that is doing this calls itself “Our children’s trust”. Would child abusers be a better description?
Climate Scepticism 
“Would child abusers be a better description?” In my opinion, yes, undoubtedly. It’s now illegal to psychologically and emotionally abuse a spouse or other family members. Unfortunately ‘psychologically and emotional abuse’ doesn’t appear include political activities intended to make children feel generally unsafe or pessimistic about their future. This is clearly a serious oversight that needs to be corrected.
LikeLike
The study, mentioned in “Climate Denial is alive and kicking..” by Boussalis and Coan is also discussed at
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jan/07/era-of-climate-science-denial-is-not-over-study-finds
They only deal with climate denial material issued directly by American think tanks like the Heartland Institute. Boussalis has an earlier version of the article on his blog, in which over half the data came from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. To have amassed so much data from this one (British) source they must have taken every newspaper article ever mentioned on their website. Someone should take a look at their criteria for inclusion of documents studied.
Readfearn in the Guardian article has this tantalising quote from coauthor Coan:
“We are currently working on a study with John Cook that looks at science and policy related themes (amongst other items) in the top 50 climate skeptic blogs through 2015.”
What a pity Climate Scepticism came on the scene too late to make the top fifty. Any paper researched by John Cook will be a joy to analyse, criticise and get retracted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Climate Home (as it was when the RTCC) has oil and mining companies amongst in’s sponsors … LOL
Does it not count if the oil company sponsor is South American?
http://www.pacific.energy/en/investors
LikeLike
While Travis’ research spans a diverse set of topics in political science, his most recent work applies advances in text-mining and natural language processing to examine the relationship between climate change scepticism, public opinion, and environmental policy. Travis’ methodological interests include the study of causal inference with experimental and observational data, text analysis, and Bayesian statistics. His work has appeared in International Studies Quarterly, International Interactions, and Political Psychology, among others.
LikeLike
Today I posted comments on three of Climate Home’s articles….one on Paris Conference, one on the Catholic Church, and one on the same article you mentioned about the childrens’ lawsuit….not one of my posts became public…they were all blocked. Apparently they do not believe in our 1st Amendment, the freedom of speech.
LikeLike
David – Climate Home is not In the USA, nor based in the USA nor funded by USA, nor has anybody on its staff from the USA.. 1st Amendment does not apply!!!
additionally, even in USA, if they deleted your comments, the are not denying you free speech – you are perfectly entitled to set up your own website, blog, whatever and write what you like.. it is their website they can invite, or disinvite, or apply what ever the hell rules they want to it. nobody is forced to read it.
Intellectually dishonest, yes, and many other things.. but your free speech argument is just silly
LikeLike
Barry, thanks, though maybe a bit harsh!
David, I think sometimes they sit on comments for a while and then publish them after a day or two.
They have another article about Kiribati disappearing beneath the waves. Though research suggests that 80% of the islands are stable or growing.
LikeLike
Barry…according to what I have read on there own site, Climate Home does receive funding from our government….also they have somehow infiltrated NASA and are involved in climate investigations there. Also, I do not think it is wrong to stand for our “Bill of Rights”, especially if they receive US tax payers dollars and have contracts with our space agency.
LikeLike
I can’t see any public funding here?
http://www.rtcc.org/sponsors/
If they do, then complain, as I did to the funders of Talking Climate, when comments never appeared
LikeLike
I just looked at their ‘climate denial’ piece again, and my comments are now there. They must have waited at least a week, more like 2 weeks, before posting them.
So maybe if you check again in a couple of weeks time David, your comments will appear!
LikeLike
Barry….I sent you a couple of articles in seperate e-mails
Dave J
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab® 3 Lite
LikeLike
Paul….thats for the tip, I’ll be watching for it….thing is though, when I comment on a news item, I feel time is sensitive….it should be done right away and waiting 2 weeks might lose context.
By the way I sent Barry some info.
Dave J
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab® 3 Lite
LikeLike