How tropical storm Sandy became a Frankenstorm …

Infowar uses propaganda, which is directed at a population to give them a worldview which accords with your own political beliefs. There are a lot of propaganda techniques; disinformation, censorship, misrepresentation, character assassination, lies, intimidation and the rewriting of history, to name but a few. Used properly and pervasively enough, it easily controls the general population and cowers any resistance.

Any piece of propaganda is either directed to promote something or against something.

Where it’s directed against a portion of the population, it’s usually done for one of two reasons. The first and more usual one is to isolate that portion of the population, who are resistant to indoctrination. The second reason is to use a particular segment of the population as a hate object. By blaming them for any or all ills effecting the general population, it unites all the rest against a simple visible foe. Within the context of the global warming question, the alarmists blame the skeptics for the plunge of belief in it. As Henry Louis Mencken observed “For every complex problem, there is a story which is simple, neat and wrong.”

The trend this year has not only been to continue with the holocaust denier smear by association into academic papers, but has escalated to questioning our basic sanity, as well as to whether there’s a connection between climate skepticism and paedophilia. New depths, last visited by the likes of Julius Streicher, are being plumbed and as I’ve said before, it’s probably going to get even more vile. At this stage in the death of their belief system, there isn’t a lot of thinking going on, just venting.

While calling a group of people, who don’t share your viewpoint in a discussion, deniers, insane or child molesters might make you feel good, what’s actually happening is the more extreme you become, the more you’re losing any support you might have had with the unaligned majority in the middle ground. In other words, the net effect of the policy, is to become an intellectual pariah amongst the educated classes following the debate, in this case and most especially what might be termed the scientific establishment. You might be winning the screaming match, but you’re losing the war.

That unaligned majority will reach a point where they’ll be forced to speak out against what looks increasingly like unjustifiable alarmism dressed up as science. That trend has become more visible this year, with for example the Nature editorial warning that the days of it being used as a launchpad for alarmism based on questionable science papers were over, and even the Mann et al (2012) paper, being pulled apart by people in his own field. When you read a phrase like “speculation this bald could give dendrochronologists a bad name” from a fellow dendrochronologist, you know the times they are achanging.

When you read of Sandy, which was actually categorised as a tropical storm by the time it came ashore, being progressively labelled a hurricane, then a perfect storm, then a mega or monster storm and finally a Frankenstorm by the mainstream media, you know you’re dealing with propaganda to promote the idea that it was somehow an unprecedented event and even more importantly, it was directly caused by global warming.

The reality is that not only are extreme weather events like Sandy well within the normal parameters of weather patterns, but also, we’ve had unusually few of them over the last decade. There’s also not one shred of scientific justification to causally link extreme weather events with any putative global warming.

What’s interesting about the spin on the reporting of Sandy, is how little support it attracted from the science establishment. Once you discount the habitual alarmists, the notion that it was all caused by global warming received absolutely no scientific support, because there simply is no science backing up any such assertion.

Sandy was actually a pure propaganda offensive, based entirely on lies. It had to be, because there’s nothing else left to use. The alarmists have been so thoroughly elbowed off the science football, they no longer have that authoritive card to use.

We’ll be seeing a lot more propaganda events like Sandy, and they’ll all be based on lies.


Related articles by Pointman:

The death of the AGW belief system.

An assessment of current alarmist propaganda.

Some thoughts on fanatics and how to fight them.

The Nigger Word.

The real bastards.

Click for a list of other articles.

17 Responses to “How tropical storm Sandy became a Frankenstorm …”
  1. Retired Dave says:

    Well Pointman – another spot on read.

    I have been saying for a while now that the Alarmists are beginning to give rise to a slow but discernible change amongst proper scientists who have been, for whatever reason, sympathetic to the AGW argument.

    Once you tell too many demonstrable lies – notice starts getting taken amongst those with a brain. The CAGW foot soldiers who appear on many blogs, often show the thinking of sheep, or at the very least, think that lies are justifiable in the “Cause” and the propaganda war.

    For whatever reason more research teams feel emboldened to publish stuff which effectively says there is no consensus, but it gets little MSM coverage – BUT I believe that even this will change in the coming few years, especially if the big ball in the sky continues to be quiet.

    Governments are slowly realising that they have been sold a pup, but will keep to the AGW scam, because where are they going to get the revenue that they collect as green taxes now! BUT even amongst governments more realism is apparent.

    One religious AGW believer shouted at me recently – “don’t you believe the IPCC ?”

    I said “even the IPCC doesn’t believe the IPCC”


  2. Retired Dave says:

    Sorry that was “Don’t You believe the IPCC ?”


  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    Spot on. I assume the paedophile abuse was based on Lewandowsky’s recent rant on the ABC, aided and abetted by Robin Williams their long time Science Editor. I gave up listening to him at least 25 years ago when the relentless “we humans are to blame for everything” got too much.
    Obviously he has since discovered “Global Warming” and will believe in it until he dies.

    Yet there are signs of recovery in some of the media, although not the ABC. The national daily The Australian has always published some anti-AGW stuff. Indeed a previous Environment Editor attracted much wrath and soon went elsewhere, but his replacement has now taken to writing common sense articles questioning quite a lot. It seems that he may have done some investigation and this led to him questioning common beliefs.

    Odd snip-pits are appearing on the commercial TV here. The local warm dry spring has been dismissed as driest for 4 years, and warmest for 3. The local paper is now looking into the cost of electricity, and shortly I expect the connection between the highest adoption of wind turbines and the highest electricity costs in Australia will be front page news.

    Given the abrupt winter cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since 2007, and the switch here to cooler wetter weather in Australia, it is not surprising that the AGW crowd are losing. It will be a long hard fight, but we will win.


  4. NZPete says:

    Well put Pointman. Your insight is spot on and and your writing incisive! Always a good, sound read.
    May I commend you and your readers to check out the WUWT item “Al Gore’s ‘Reality Drop’ is a bomb – so let’s give him a ‘hockey stick’” at and to complete the Reality Drop survey honestly? I did, but I don’t think Al G will like my opinion.


  5. zbcustom says:

    Just finished listening to a BBC World Service broadcast. Sandy is still being presented as a precursor of diabolical things to come if something is not done.
    I don’t share your optimism about winning the war. In Australia the major political parties are tripping over each other to endorse anything that comes out of the UNFCCC. Electricity prices skyrocket while we merrily go to an economic hell in a handbasket.


  6. Matt says:

    Absolutly splendid article as always. Your thoughts are just not to be missed.
    (But I think you got mixed up with effecting and affecting maybe.)


  7. Matt says:

    Oh dear. I’ve just found this “e” lying on the floor. Pesky thing.


    • Pointman says:

      Hi Matt, I go old school on the “e” versus “a” with effect, effecting etc. It’s always an “e” unless you mean affected, in the sense of artificial, insincere, feigning ignorance or putting on airs and graces. The difference has blurred nowadays but I like to be consistent LOL.



  8. Blackswan says:


    With the Doha huddle evidently scoring no anticipated goals, the propagandists are in overdrive…

    ”One leading climate scientist said that the difference between 2 degrees of warming and 4 degrees is simple: “human civilisation”. As well as increasing risks of severe events, there are deeper problems. For example, the United Nations food agency has warned that it will be less and less likely that we can feed the human population if climate change continues on its present trajectory.”

    The really good news is this …

    ”FORGET trees. The biggest concern for the next generation is finding a job to support their families.
    The economy has overtaken the environment as the most pressing concern for the young, according to a survey of 15,000 people aged 15 to 19.”–and-its-not-the-environment-20121204-2atc5.html

    ”When people are losing their jobs or finding it hard to get a job, the environment takes a back seat. The reality of needing to earn a living overrides the environment.”

    While some young people are still faithful to the cause, it’s reassuring to know that there are people emerging from our education system who can actually see the realities of Life and what they need to be successful. Ultimately a roof over their heads and food on the table will trump the fantasies promoted by the wealth-redistribution of the Alarmists.

    Miranda Devine of the Sydney Telegraph sums Doha up nicely …

    The low turnout at Doha doesn’t stop authoritarian demagoguery at the UN, whose climate chief Christiana Figures this week declared the talks were about “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world”.

    Last week our Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery declared that we will soon have 100% solar/wind energy and likened the advance of such power generation to the rapid development of mobile phone technology. He insists our entire coal energy and export industries be closed down completely.

    Our one hope is that our corrupt Labor Government will be consigned to the political wilderness in next year’s Federal election and parasitic grubs like the Flim Flam Man will be sent packing to their inconsequential lives in the halls of academia where they will find tenure is not such a ‘sure thing’ when the Climate Gravy Train is finally rerailed.


  9. Pointman says:

    A two-pipe essay on the nature of science, but well worth a read.



      • Blackswan says:

        Interesting link Jack – it’s exactly the rationale used to impose this tax in Oz.

        Thing is, while some sections of industry pleaded for an end to the uncertainty of will-they/won’t-they have a tax, others say it has sounded the death knell for them. Was Obama’s reticence to impose such a tax before or after the election? Our Prime Minister was adamant pre-election that “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”, but she reneged and imposed it anyway saying we had no right to complain because we were well ‘compensated’. For pensioners that amounted to about $5 a week, while the price of EVERYthing has increased, especially energy and fuel bills. To add insult to financial injury they impose a Goods & Services Tax on top of the Carbon Tax but deny double-dipping into the honeypot.

        Industry has been told they could reap huge rewards with the buy/sell of Carbon Credits on the European Carbon Market, but failed to tell them that the EU price was about a third of what they determined the price to be here – $23 a tonne, indexed to increase annually. The absurdity of that soon became apparent, so they’ve decided to link our carbon price to the EU but not until 2015.

        It remains to be seen whether the Opposition will rescind this tax as promised when they win government. The reality is that our sovereign debt is now so massive under the free-spending Socialists that huge revenues will be needed to pay down debt.

        Maybe they’ll simply call the tax something else – a classic pea & shell game. A rose by any other name still has thorns.


    • Blackswan says:

      Only had time to read the first bit so far, but this stood out for me ….

      Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them.

      It seems to me that modern “climate scientists” now consider themselves to not only be philosophers but social engineers and economists as well, whoring their education and degrees for tenure and the bottomless bonanza of taxpayer funding.


      • Pointman says:

        Hiya Swanny, it’s definitely a type of two meat and one veg essay to digest at a few sittings. In a different way, it comes at what the skeptics have been saying for some time. I particulary like the way he asks who’re scientists to usurp being judges of not only philosophical questions, but also morality.



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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: