Climate Change Propaganda Websites

Camp for Climate Action Scotland Boiling Over gathering poster

Camp for Climate Action Scotland Boiling Over gathering poster

One of the several established themes in anthropogenic warming alarmism is that huge amounts of money flows freely through the arteries of skeptics. This idea has been propounded repeatedly so much so that activists forget that they are the ones floating and bouncing around on climate money.

The second theme is that skeptics somehow have their hand on the pulse of the nation (whatever nation you might choose) and they communicate in devious ways to fry the eco-circuits of its citizens’ brains. Therefore the climate change infrastructure apparently has to try hard to nurture and nourish back to life, the aforesaid green-ethical brain-circuitry.

It was inevitable that someone put two and two together. Why not use the climate money to brainwash the ‘dozing consensus’ into believing that catastrophic  warming is afoot?. Now there are many reasons for how things came to a head in this fashion. But the way anthropogenic warming has decided to put its dollars (pounds and euros) to use is to indulge in propaganda.

Propaganda is a strong word, with many negative connotations. But it is a specific term with a clear meaning too. All we need to do is examine if the anthropogenic consensus is involved in activities that pass the muster for ‘propaganda’.

How does a propaganda website look? Let us examine the evidence first.

Climate Cops

The Climate Project


Climate Counts

The Green Globe Foundation Awards

Aspen Global Change Institute

Climate Communication

Green for All - Black Eyed Peas

Climatex Oxfordshire

Fossil Fools Day

National Wildlife Federation

EPA Kids

NASA Climate for Kids

NASA Climate

NASA Metropolis

Met Office UK

What does the evidence tell us?


The most obvious conclusion which is very, very difficult to refute is – these websites are well-funded! Gorgeous Flash animations, gentle mouseover effects, original high-resolution photographic assets, a minimalist corporate feel – these websites have it all. Swarms of glowing fireflies follow the cursor and circles of doom bloom under the pointer. Compare with any scrawny skeptical website – most of them are free-riding on blog platforms. Even the most visited ones have irritating Google ads and a begging bowl icon up in some corner – which means they are using their websites to make money, not making websites because they had the money. The screen-shots do not do justice to several of these websites – this is climate porn at its best.

Next, the propaganda elements. Stark simple graphical elements are a staple here. Over-sized fonts frame the issues in clear terms. Fear is the undercurrent, emotion plays on the surface. How do we explain looking into the imploring eyes of the kids holding a 350 placard that “horrifying hordes of climate invaders are upon us”? I saw the Imperial Japanese flag-style radiating ‘God’s rays’ design element on more climate-moneyed websites [here, here] than I am showing you here.

In order to understand some of these issues clearly, I am now going to venture into territory forbidden for skeptics –

“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction”

“The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be.”

“It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance”

Who do you think said these things? It was Adolf Hitler – a vain and cruel man no doubt, but not a stupid one apparently. Now some of us may studiously avoid talking about Hitler, even when relevant – which only amounts to a curious form of denial in itself –  hoping this will rid us of the ‘denier’ tag. Clearly quite a few of us are wasting the extra and non-extra time on our hands doing climate stuff. But there are great numbers or atleast smaller numbers with lots of money who take this climate stuff seriously, fanatically and militantly. How do they read the situation?

They say we are in a climate war. They say things like:

“Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light…”


“We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.  And we be many, but you be few.”

Futerra Sell the Sizzle

Why do you find government-funded and green websites in propagandist mode? How come they follow the above instructions to the letter, inadvertently or otherwise? Because we are ‘at war’ – that is why.

The crushing force of directness gives reason enough for anyone to pause and think – if climate science is that simple and straight-forward, what are the debates in science all about?

Expect a greater explosion of message-driven climate art in the future. There are reasons for why the climate debate is headed in this ‘visually oriented’ direction which we shall explore later. Suffice to say here that the folks at Futerra whom we encountered in the Climategate files are still at the same game and they gladly tell us in their own words what their kind intend to do.

Full listing of sites featured:




  1. Cthulhu

    We disagree on this subject in general, but on this subject I agree with you. The skeptics are not simply some mass organized group on the receiving end of a huge amount of money.

    Here’s where we might disagree. The bulk of skeptics are your day-to-day political ideologues who disagree with man-made global warming because it inconveniences their politics. They receive nothing for believing this.

    There are political think-tanks getting involved. And they are funded by industry. These think-tanks are the ones packaging up nice looking PDFs about climategate, etc and are feeding the day-to-day political ideologues with “ideas”. So from a distance it looks like they controlling things. But really they just make stuff glossy, they aren’t driving the skeptic movement. Industry does not control it.

    Even without the funded think-tanks the political ideologues would form (and do form) grass-root groups opposing the science.

    And this is how it is.

    ia shub niggurath

  2. Shub Niggurath

    So we do agree that the bulk of the skeptics are driven by their own ideas, rather than by massive cash inflows. I would add that many of the current skeptical lot are from engineering/medical/physics/stats backgrounds.

    In other words they are capable of understanding what is being said and then try to hold opposing opinions, rather than simply clinging to fixed viewpoints which an ideologue would. There are straight-up political opponents to AGW too.

    The propaganda push is obviously not directed at the skeptics but the general public at large.

    Regards, or should I say Cthulhu fhtagn

  3. Corrinne Novak

    I have been a skeptic since day one and I would agree with your statement

    “So we do agree that the bulk of the skeptics are driven by their own ideas, rather than by massive cash inflows. I would add that many of the current skeptical lot are from engineering/medical/physics/stats backgrounds.”

    I and my husband are scientists of no particular political ideologue or perhaps I should say none of the available organized political parties fit our beliefs.

    I read some of your statements on WUWT. It is nice to see someone else has looked behind the curtain and seen the monster. Unfortunately those with a hidden agenda have done a very good job with their propaganda of “lets you and he fight” They have almost finished their goal of leading us into the next round of “Feudalism and Dark Ages”

    I can also attest to the fact that “skepticism” was never well “funded” I trace it back to Petr Beckmann’s Publication “Access to Energy”. Beckmann fled Prague, Czechoslovakia to escape the Nazis, so he had first hand knowledge of how propaganda is used to brainwash people into slavery. Robinson continued the publication of “Access to Energy” and was responsible for the early Anti-Global Warming Petition.

    The entire premise of the newsletter is access to cheap energy and technology fuels freedom, curtailing access leads to poverty and tyranny. Or as Kissinger put it.

    “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

    Once Cap and trade or another energy control measure is in effect their plans will be complete. With the World Trade Organizations “Agreement on Agriculture” the globalist gained control over the world food supply, even though US farmers are still fighting. see

    We lost control of our money 100 years ago when a PRIVATE central bank was formed. Obama just made it official by signing off on International control over US financial institutions and turning that control over to the Financial Stability Board. see:

    The Clinton Administration established the President’s Council on Sustainability. It divides the USA up into ten regions and is gradually transferring the power of the individual states over to UN through the UNs “official” NGO’s. The idea is to implement Agenda 21. see

    The UN rates the USA progress in achieving the Agenda 21 goals as very good.

    Isn’t it nice to know we have been electing traitors to the US Congress or White House whether they call themselves Democrat or Republican?

  4. Shub Niggurath

    The present-day conservatives/libertarians have a bit to learn from those who fled socialist countries – at the least in terms of recognizing the forms and shapes propaganda can take. It thrives in our midst, but these people refuse to see it.


  5. Pingback: Tweets that mention Climate Change Propaganda Websites « Shub-Niggurath Climate --
  6. Prashant

    Excellent work on joining the dots to give the big picture.

    This is precisely the kind of selfless hard work which will protect the truth from being buried.

    Good luck and well done Shub!

  7. bubbagyro

    What a great presentation. How can honest scientists compete against this cartel of juggernauts?


  8. Tamra Parents

    what a great site and informative posts, I will bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!

  9. wes george

    Shub, I don’t know who you are, but I am in great awe and fear of you.

  10. BT

    Here’s another shocker:

    “Climate Change for Kids” from

    What these people are doing is absolutely disgusting. When I was a child we were all frightened of nuclear war; but at least we weren’t told that the possible Armageddon was our fault. Whether you are an AGW believer or not, blighting a child’s life with enormous unaddressable fears is unforgivable.

  11. Todd

    I am an Operations Researcher (BS in statistics, MS in Industrial Engineering – Decision Science/Operations Research). I also took a host of metorology classes in college as well. I focus on Simulation Modeling, Statistical Analysis, and Forecasting. As such I am exactly the engineering skeptic that you refer.

    The primary problem with climate modeling is that they are all based off a false A Priori of understanding, the false belief that a model which accurately describes a current situation will accurately describe a future event.

    Look at forecasting. Given enough information one can construct a forecast model which will perfectly model the past, those that do not understand statistics will falsely believe that such a model will accurately predict the future, however anyone that understands forecasting will know that such a model is a terrible predictor of future events because of overfitting. Overfitting is statistically fitting the random noise in a complex model, of which climate models are. I call it a quatum mechanics paradox. The so called scientists of climate modeling would lead you to believe that they can both accurately measure the current state and the direction without even a hint of hypocrisy. To make things worse they can’t even accurately model the current state and have to fudge to make the current models work! And they expect them to accurately predict the future?

    This plays directly into simulation modeling. One thing I have learned over the years is that the best models are the most simple models. The more complex the model the more likely small errors will be multiplied resulting in large errors in the results. The simple climate models are the best, unfortunately for the climate modelers they produce results with confidence intervals which do not provide a statistical inference for future warming, so they produce complex models to reduce the error bounds but which are ultimately worthless because of their complex nature.

    Is there global warming? Perhaps, but the existing models are surely unable to accurately say with any conviction that they are right. The fact that they are continually updating them shows just how bad they are. I don’t know which is worse, that the majority of these scientists have been so blinded by their own ideology that they purposely ignore their own errors, or that they have convinced so many others to believe that they are infallible.

  12. Pingback: This segment was brought to you by the Rockefellers – Shub Niggurath Climate