By Jo Nova
They must have been disappointed
Psychologists have finally run a massive test of climate communication strategies, — and they all fail.
A new megastudy of more than 13,000 Americans tested the ten most cited climate-messaging strategies drawn from 157 previous papers. Twenty-four co-authors from five countries were involved. They wanted to find the paragraph — the killer framing — that would change beliefs, shift behaviour, or, ideally, persuade people to part with some cash. They didn’t find it.
Probably the most newsworthy finding is that there is a vast pool of grant money available to study rehashed minutiae of how to sell weather-changing sorcery to the jaded public. It’s a full time Blob Psy-Op machine to “nudge” the voters. If only they spent some of this money checking the science before they fine tuned the fear campaign?
This is a Psy-Op machine in search of a slogan
They call this research “science” but it’s more like corporate message-testing in advertising. And it’s done for free at universities to help the industry. The goal here is not to understand the human condition, it’s to sell a carbon tax or a solar panel.
The study would not have been cheap — They not only surveyed thousands of people, but they did it before a ‘treatment’ and again afterwards. The ‘treatment’ they offered people was to read a few short paragraphs of what the researchers thought was a persuasive message — but in reality was just a rehash of themes they have been beating us over the head with for years.
They were hoping to find a useful phrase that reached Democrats or Republicans and pulled out some cash, or shifted behaviour. But they did not hit paydirt. The results were so bad, they even had to admit they barely moved the dial. Despite the massive numbers taking the survey, they could barely reach statistical significance on anything. It was a wash…
PhysOrg: In a study involving more than 13,000 participants in the U.S., several messaging strategies were shown to move the needle—albeit slightly—in attempts to strengthen pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors regarding climate change. None, however, was effective in spurring people to put their money where their mouth is.
Basically a few people seemed more convinced about climate change after their ‘treatment’ (for the next five minutes) but almost none of them cared enough to donate money to stop it.
The paper almost never gives answers as solid percentages, probably because the absolute numbers were so pathetic. One percentage they supplied was that “treatment conditions increased belief in climate change by 1.16 percentage points….” And remember, this is the result a few minutes after being exposed to the key paragraph. A week later it will be nearer to 0%.
They were also surprised at what they didn’t find– political division: “And, perhaps most surprisingly, messages’ persuasiveness varied little between Democrats and Republicans.”
So after years of politicization and polarization the researchers were surprised to find that that Democrats and Republicans were both human? If they could have found some difference, it would have been the headline — Democrats, open to persuasion! Republicans, sticks-in-the-mud!
The ten themes are explained at the bottom: Essentially the Republicans were slightly more moved by the patriotic maintenance of the “purity of American land”. Democrats were slightly more moved by being nice to people and touchy feely stuff.
When reading these graphs (they have about 45), the dots on the right of the zero line, were theoretically “positive” and therefore changed opinions (if we ignore most of the error bars).
Ironically, the only dot below with any statistical significance is the one that suggests that making claims of economic or jobs gains to Republicans will reduce donations. Obviously, Republicans just don’t believe that stuff anymore.
Consensus is still the only winner (for them)
The main argument for believers is still the profoundly anti-science line that truth is what the annointed Gods of Science say.
But every time anyone mentions the Petition Project, we win
When it came to changing beliefs, the “consensus of experts” was the most reliable argument to influence people. New readers may not be aware the Petition Project was an extraordinary survey of scientists in the US which proved that there was no consensus. Nearly twenty years ago, 31,000 scientists including 9,000 PhD’s were willing to sign a strong statement of dissent. Naturally, the legacy media didn’t mention it, even though it was a larger, longer list than any the believers ever arranged. So most people have never heard of it.
Bizarrely, in their theme called Scientific consensus 1 — the researchers talked about the “expert consensus” but also tried to also ‘innoculate’ readers against the Petition Project. And they may have done more harm than good. In trying to debunk the Petition Project they inadvertently opened the average persons eyes to news that there was a scientific debate and it has been surpressed. In contrast Scientific consensus 2 (which didn’t mention the Petition Project) was received as more persuasive in almost every situation. The only time Consensus type 1 was a winner (for believers), was when it worked on Democrats to elict a few more donations. In that case talking to climate activists about “the battle” reminds them of which side they are on in this tribal war. They may feel like the victims battling a big machine (31,000 evil denier scientists!).
The only thing we really learn in the MegaStudy is just how much money The Blob has thrown at polishing its communication memes in order to squeeze a tiny bit more compliance with climate grift and graft.
PS: One of the 24 authors was the infamous Stephan Lewandowsky, well known for studying skeptics by placing surveys on sites that hate and mock them. This is the man who once surveyed a 32,000 year old respondent. He’s still around.
_________________________________________
APPENDIX: The ten top favourite climate-messaging treatments:
- Binding framing — Argues that mitigating climate change aligns with patriotic, family, and religious values.
- Scientific consensus 1 –Emphasises scientific agreement on human-caused climate change and explicitly inoculates against sceptical narratives, including the Petition Project.
- Scientific consensus 2 –Emphasises scientific agreement on human-caused climate change and inoculates against a vague “fake debate” strategy, without naming specific dissenting groups.
- Dire but solvable framing –-Stresses that climate change consequences are severe, but solutions exist.
- Compatible solution framing –Argues climate mitigation can be achieved while remaining consistent with free-market principles.
- Gains framing –Highlights benefits and positive outcomes from mitigating climate change.
- High social distance framing — Focuses on climate harms affecting a socially distant group (e.g., Chinese farmers).
- Purity framing — Frames mitigation as protecting the purity and cleanliness of American land.
- System preservation framing — Argues that climate mitigation helps preserve the traditional American way of life.
- Warmth framing — Appeals to caring for fellow citizens and social compassion.
REFERENCE
Voelkel, J.G., Ashokkumar, A., Abeles, A.T. et al. A registered report megastudy on the persuasiveness of the most-cited climate messages. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02536-2
The inability to change the mind of decent, rational people voluntarily is why the Left always have to force their totalitarian ideas upon others. If the Left had rational and scientifically plausible ideas there would be no need to force good people to adopt them.
500
I seriously miss the days when liberal ‘Blue Dogs’ ran the Democratic party rather than demented leftists. I was a libertarian leaning ‘Reagan/Clinton Democrat’ from the 1980s to the early 2000s, and still am for the most part. Both parties made sense to me back then, and which way I leaned depended on the quality of the candidate. Then Obama came along and changed the Democrats from the working class party to a professional class and racial/gender grievance party and began to purge all the Blue Dogs. Within 10 years, the party became unrecognizable and I’ve become a straight-ticket Republican simply because it’s the only way to be somewhat certain that the person I’m voting for isn’t a depraved lunatic.
500
More laughable lunacy and yet we’re living in the safest period in Human history, just look up the evidence from OWI Data.
Death rates from extreme weather events have dropped by 98% over the last 100 + years, while the population at risk has increased by over 6 billion people.
We only need to look up the data for ourselves and it only takes about 5 minutes online.
Of course the delusional leftie extremists would rather waste trillions more $ on their CC BS and nonsense.
320
Which of course is no laughing matter.
180
More academic rubbish which makes science a political judgement rather than an observational reality. Is there anything published by universities and academics that can be trusted to be completely unbiased and politically agnostic? No longer. It will take science a generation, at least, to regain its public trust. You would think that when scientists are considered paid political activists that the good guys would be in the streets demanding truth and decrying the government approved propaganda.
230
” It will take science a generation, at least, to regain its public trust.”
Nope, that generation are realising degrees cost more than they are worth and you’re better off not going into debt for meaningless nonsense from lecturers.
Hopefully it will only take two generations to clean the system of social science and get back to the top 10% doing engineering and science.
240
It’d be interesting to know more about how they measured this “opening of wallets”. The Nature abstract (didn’t cough up the €30) says that “No message increased pro-environmental donations”.
There’s a question of definition: what’s an environmental donation? A donation to Greenpeace? To the Democratic Party?
And there’s also a question of method. I guess there was a control group, who didn’t get evangelised; and treatment groups who got the various sermons. Was this followed-up by some sort of post-mortem on their charitable contributions?
Good to be sceptical, and this *is* the work of psychologists after all.
.
[Thanks for the plural note Robert. Both forms are acceptable. – Raquel]
120
Farmerbraun wonders whether a lifetime devoted to the care and nurturing of a particular eco-niche , such as a farm ,would be acceptable as an “ environmental donation”.
170
Do you think a career of research in that area might also qualify?
50
That’s a curly one.
There is conceivably some pure research unexplored that might lead in directions that could be further elucidated and applied to agriculture.
Here in Godzone the ag. Research which has attracted taxpayer funding is related to Climate ChangeTM, and is a complete waste of tens -possibly hundreds of $millions chasing loopy emissions reductions strategies.
Regenerative agriculture is the current baby to attract Nanny state’s attention – so far it has produced nothing that was not already known in the fifties. Well managed permanent or long- rotation pastures inevitably build the depth of carbonaceous topsoil.
There may be biological accelerants that could be researched, but more useful would be to research the things that are current practice, that are inhibiting this process of humification.
Keeping in mind that agriculture means , or used to mean the culture of fields, or field management for optimal long term production. I.e. EROEI.
Perhaps Bayer and the like might want to cough up – who knows.
Noting of course that donate means to give – freely.
And then there’s the problem of the “environment” – that is pretty much the Universe , wouldn’t you say?
40
Long story short- depends on if it’s a donation , or not.
What is being “coughed up” , so to speak.
40
Dr Nordhaus and Dr Tol have already told us how much wealthier the average person will be by 2100.
Wasting trillions of $ will be a disaster and produce ZERO returns on the lousy investment.
It’s best to adapt and forget about the idiocy of net zero and they’ll still be 4.34 to 4.40 times richer in 2100.
Dr Nordhaus won the Nobel prize and Dr Toll agrees with his basic numbers.
Climate change spending costs more than would ever be recovered.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-climate-spending-costs-more-than-climate-change
120
Again, here’s the massive reduction in global extreme weather death rates since the 1960s.
So why can’t they check the data for themselves?
Or are they really that stupid?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?country=Flood~Extreme+weather~Wildfire~Drought~Extreme+temperature
110
Students of Machaiavelli might wonder whether there was a parallel study of phrases which must be suppressed because they diminish support for the cause.
The odds are that there was such a study but although the results will be used, they will be suppressed.
110
There is another program underway to stop anyone undermining the story of man made CO2 driven rapid catastrophic Global Warming. Delete the people. Remove their voice and all their work.
The Oregon Petitions were buried. Despite being signed by such luminaries as Edward Teller. 32,000 scientist graduates with name and address and signature. Including a few clowns insert by the left.
Then the Petition project was buried. Now I have been buried.
This was soon after the conversion of Bill Gates from rich true believer to skeptic. Which was made public a week after I received a serious question from an interested Bill Gates who wanted to know more.
So I just had to go. The hard science evidence against the Climate fantasy was just too clear and devastating.
This was the email received as every comment I had made over years was instantly deleted.
1. Quora Moderation banned you from Quora for this reason:
Your account has been banned because it has been linked to multiple violations of Quora’s spam policies. To learn more about our spam policies, please click here.
If you think this ban was made in error, you can appeal this decision here.
2. Of course I objected. A week later I received this waffle after ‘review’.
Thank you for your patience.
Quora believes that all members of the community should make an effort to contribute helpful content to the community and, ultimately, make the site a better resource for all.
After reviewing your activity on Quora, we have determined that your account was in violation of our Platform Policies, specifically due to Coordinated inauthentic activity, such as vote manipulation and/or being linked to suspicious activity.
Please note that this decision is final and not subject to appeal. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. We are committed to maintaining a safe and positive environment for all of our users, and we appreciate your understanding in this matter.
Sincerely,
Cee
User Support
Quora
All my comments graphs, facts, insights, thousands of detailed comments have been removed in an instant.
Allegedly I am part of an unnamed, shadow group effort to manipulate votes or linked to suspicious activity.
So no evidence of anything at all. Just cancelled, deleted, banned. Unwelcome.
Quora is allegedly a system run by moderators who are also habitual commentators. And it shows what happens when you dare to disagree and even win the argument. Especially if you are referenced as an expert by a major cash contributor to the lunacy of carbon craziness, a hatred of the evil sixth element of the Periodic table.
Still I made my points. They just cannot afford to have convincing arguments in plain sight where minors could read them and be influenced.
I expect the e-Commissioner will soon start to cancel anyone who speaks out. Especially those pesky Youtubers who have exposed the endless Somali Child Care centres across America with no actual children. But these scams are nothing compared to the Chinese hoax which is CO2 driven Climate Change.
410
Sorry to hear Quora unpersoned you TdeF, especially as you no doubt spent vast amounts of time presenting your arguments. And they didn’t even give you the courtesy of leaving your writings there, they disappeared them. Quora is another example of a once-useful platform that’s been taken over and destroyed by the Left, like Wikipedia.
The Left can’t tolerate alternative opinions that’s why they rely on censorship such as Australia’s e Safety Kommissar or beyond that violence.
410
Posted in yesterdays item, but relevant here.
This is what G-AI reports on Jo’s blog (my bold)…
Sorry, but I would guess that all posters here are not “climate change deniers” – CO2 is just one of a multitude of drivers.
Let’s hope the E-Commissioner doesn’t rely on AI to make decisions.
250
According to Topher Field, Immam Grant maybe headed for scrutiny by the US congress once she retires from her current tax payer funded bludge. youtube
100
I have never visited Quora, so I’ve missed your work there.
I did, just now, find it was started by former Facebook employees.
80
TdeF — if you have any copies of what you wrote that was banned on Quora, I’d be happy to publish them here.
180
Thanks. I have covered much the same ground. Quora though is question driven rather than news or topic driven. What was good about Quora was the ability to cut and paste graphics, so almost all comments showed graphs, not just text. So many answers would not easily transfer.
It was fun to show how pushers of the carbon dioxide hoax fiddle graphs, all rules broken allowing fraudulent fake visual correlations. Unfortunately or fortunately the comments would have to be rewritten and I have covered much the same ground with text and links to graphics and videos. It’s harder to show my own graphs though. And some graphs which I have had to redraw to show how a scientist would view the data.
Elaborate Graphics are commonly used by proponents of ‘The’ Science. I wince when I read THE Science. THE science is synonymous with Climate Science. Neither THE Science nor Climate Science existed before 1988 when invented by tobacco heir and footballer Al Gore.
The control of the narrative by the press has been absolute. And cancellation is standard practice. On the other hand they promote absurd claims like 97% of scientists believe, when few scientists at all believe such nonsense.
Climate Science was not a science discovery. It remains a purely political invention, skirting the realm of science, borrowing bits. Closer to Climate Scientology.
160
The other good thing about Quora as a concept was that it exposed ordinary people to real science. The Nova blog is more focussed on science by scientists and engineers. And it is intriguing how to explain science concepts to non scientists. There is real fun in teaching. A lot of people have problems with graphs and science concepts like continuous equilibrium, pressure and even chemical formulae. But they are smart nonetheless and can understand what they see. Like Ripley’s Believe it or Not.
For example the idea that huge amounts of CO2 can easily be absorbed by water. Most people know about water pressure for scuba divers and have experienced CO2 under pressure in water in their own lives, like a soda fountain. So a favorite video is the menthos one. CO2 in just 2.5 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to a mere 15 metres under the water. People can see for themselves that a 1.5 litre bottle of lemonade can contain six litres of CO2.
The idea that a special sort of CO2 builds up in the atmosphere is just silly but few people know that 98% of CO2 is in the ocean and it all swaps out every five years.
There are also packs of abusive trolls on Quora. Often a small gang and they jump on anyone who dares to question the religion. I find them the wrong sort of experts, like a PhD in Computer Science acting as a Google scientists. They cannot understand what they read, but they throw it up anyway. And delight in allegedly outwitting people or belittling them which they call debunking. Their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance.
I cannot say I ran into any real physical scientists. Except a few dubious and compromised ones who appear to be failures otherwise, like the Climate Council. People who went in to Climate Change for a job. For them it’s a living. Not like the CO2 Coalition of retired successful engineers and scientists donating their time.
And if all I achieved was to get Bill Gates to change his mind, it was worth it. All he needed was unbiased facts, simply explained. Very embarrassing though when you have written a book on the subject of man made CO2 driven climate change. Allegedly and understandably, he is now hot on misinformation. But such a campaign can also be dangerous.
If we cannot embed graphics, what would be nice is a way to reference graphics easily rather than through reference to articles which contain the graphics. Perhaps a dedicated parallel picture library.
140
As someone who doesn’t have a scientific background but employs critical thinking, your posts are invaluable. Even if I don’t fully comprehend the facts in a given post, it’s still pushing me to expand my knowledge.
I haven’t really used Quora, I’ll wait to hear if it’s worthwhile.
80
Why have you described the CO2 hoax as Chinese?
10
It wasn’t their hoax originally. It was invented by Al Gore when he first ran for President in 1988. In conjunction with the UN and WMO(World Meteorological Organization). They created the IPCC, a socialist UN organization in charge of the world’s weather. The idea that politicians control the weather was born.
However the UN promoted hoax has been used extensively by China to maximize profits and shut down Western Democracies, crippling their power supplies voluntarily.
Most of the windmills are Chinese, originally in partnership with German engineering companies. And most of the solar panels. Over time they have copied and undercut everyone else. Now most of the electric cars, surpassing Tesla. And China itself is opening two new Coal fired power stations a week and refuses to reduce CO2 output until they are ready in 2030 or whenever they decide. China now produces nearly half of the world’s CO2 and half of the world’s Steel. So while $20Tn a year is spend on preventing Al Gore’s ridiculous man made Climate Change, all the cash is flowing directly or indirectly to China.
So they are the greatest proponents and massive profiteers of the 38 year old hoax and through their proxies in Australia, UK and other democracies and especially the Green parties who care more about Jews and Venezeula than the weather anywhere. It’s all very obvious. So Trump calls it China’s hoax as they are the ones pushing it and the money flows to them. Like the Wuhan Flu and pharmaceuticals. Like rare earths which China now controls. Like the ozone layer pushing up refrigerant costs for everyone else. And of course the Chinese electric cars which we are ordered to buy by the Australian government, whether we like it or not.
121
It has been my understanding that China signed up to the Climate Change TM agenda on the understanding that China was free to build coal-fired power stations without restriction until 2030 (from memory) , at which point they would stabilise their emissions.
Without this cutout for the Chinese increasing their emissions , there was no possibility of a united front pushing the agenda. It was explicit that China had an exemption from the energy rationing being imposed on the Western world.
The idea of CO2 controlling climate was around in the 1970s , when “The Survival of Civilisation” by Hamaker and Weaver, was published.
China agreed to collaborate in return for the financial benefits of supplying the equipment needed for the “renewables” boondoggle.
60
Don’t forget, China is one of those many developing third-world countries! However, few of them have functioning space programmes!
00
So China’s taking advantage of the various hoaxes proposed by the West, makes China the hoaxer in chief?
That sounds like a very bad case of China Derangement Syndrome.
21
One is reminded of the old saw- “A fool and his money are soon parted”.
Clearly China finds this idea very attractive.
Who can blame it?
30
I am disgusted by what Quora have done to you TdeF. My husband and I have really valued your immense input onto Jo’s blog and thankyou for it.
100
People are subjected to a barrage of advertising in the media and on-line. Probably 1/3 of screen time they are dealing with ads. They quickly sense what is information vs. advertising.
People are also bombarded with how much cheaper green tech is but as it is deployed more broadly, the cost of livings rises at an exorbitant rate. They connect those dots in their energy bills. In the US where this study is done, the automotive companies are losing money hand over fist on the electric vehicles they produce while still remaining profitable overall. It doesn’t take a genius to realize those costs are in the ICE vehicles they buy.
Why would someone want to part with the little money they have left to save the climate when it’s pretty clear they’re already paying for it and getting little in return. Imagine how angry they might be when the learn that the people promising to fix the climate can’t even get global emissions to go down after 30 years of trying. They know they are being played for fools.
220
Aaahhh..the search for the “magical marketing phrase” goes on.
Marketers would be ecstatic if it existed!
Just like the grand unifying theory of physics.
One formula that explains all, or a phrase that convinces all.
If only reality was that simple.
Sorry, it’s back to the “repeat a lie often enough” mantra.
/unless you brainwash ’em young enough, before the age of reason, like religions. Ssshhh…
100
“Aaahhh..the search for the “magical marketing phrase” goes on.”
And it one was found it would be a fair bet that the finder would be keeping it dark from the competition as long as possible
50
Sorta difficult once used and its value is highly questionable once everyone uses it. 😁
But if you want a juicy secret, try the disclosure fraternity.
An interesting statement recently, paraphrased.
“The government isn’t afraid of the people learning about the existence of alien life, they’re afraid of the disclosure of the true nature of reality”.
10
There is a parallel here in Australia.
This from the IPA June 2nd 2025
I would have thought that these younger Ozzies would be happy to chip in because my understanding is that the majority of this age group vote for the Labor/Green parties.
Or perhaps it’s another case of NIMBYism?
170
As it happens farmerbraun has been selected for an interview in this very program, or agenda , if it is permitted to call it by its name, in the near future.
The interviewer hails from the cradle of the “rules based global order” and the exercise may well yield a PhD or some such for said interviewer.
FB will be well prepared, knowing the bias behind the loaded questions.
Should be fun.
200
That ought to be an interesting report!
80
? Which “programme” is that FB ?
…And what happened to Tuesday and Wednesday threads ?
..is everyone at the Cricket ?
60
As I understand it, the programme is to discover what makes it impossible for rational people to believe in Climate Change TM. And therefore what would be needed to dissuade them from their position.
Alternatively , what is that prevents (otherwise[LOL]) rational people from believing in Climate Change TM?
30
I wish the grifters would just be up front like the fictional band Spinal Tap. Don’t beat around the bush- just tell us what you want…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXy2MJlg6s8
30
Dire Straits… Money for nothing-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0&list=RDwTP2RUD_cL0&start_radio=1
30
The musical taste of “The Climate Scientists” –
Heavily into dire straits
50
Gains Framing : Albanese & Bowen’s: Promise to cut power bills by $275.
Dire but solvable framing : Coal fired power is in dire straits and must be demolished to make way for renewable green energy.
Outcome for Australians: We’ve been framed and taken to the cleaners by Albanese and Bowen.
120
The dopes at the Guardian spout predictable kerrapp
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/05/mps-underestimate-support-green-policies-study
60
Pffft. The “silent majority” is made up those who are indifferent to or apathetic about climate change initiatives. Failing to engage with an issue does not mean you endorse it.
120
“when a group of the politicians were told the true level of polling support for some policies, this improved their estimates of support for other green policies.”
Propaganda working in all directions! In reality, the whole study was just green-washing to get grant money, they never asked people how much they would be willing to spend each week to support their view. If 60% want graduated taxes on frequent flyers, were they told much much that would put up the cost of the food they bought, or do they think first class is reserved for tourists and business execs don’t fly?
40
It’s gobbledygook passed off as journalism. The biggest worry is that there are people reading this whilst sipping tea, munching on toast and nodding their head in agreement as they read each paragraph. On the other hand, the “silent majority” will be going to work, solving crossword puzzles or scrolling through social media oblivious to so called climate catastrophes.
Big Wind Bowen was basically placed in a cupboard during the 2025 federal election campaign, hardly sighted. Dutton then impaled the Liberals on their own half-assed energy alternative policy that changed from day to day and utterly lacked conviction.
Post-election, Bowen was removed from the cupboard and addressed the media to say that the election result was an overwhelming endorsement of Labor’s renewables policies. MSM agreed, therefore it’s all true.
40
Of course, once “minds” are swayed, there will be a”mandate” to open the “wallets”. “Democracy” in action.
See also:
Rearranging the political and social landscape to make such new realities “unavoidable”.
If you survive, take note of the recipients of the “spillage”.
And a “jolly” New Year to all the REAL PEOPLE still out there.
80
Actually, I forgot to mention, obviously since it’s such hard work to get people to pay voluntarily for climate sorcery, instead they make it mandatory via the law and hide the real cost we all pay.
220
Ultimately they’ll all run out of everyone else’s money and the show will end. Badly. For most.
30
The Oregon Petition Project had an issue that partially negated its promise. It did not have the best of methods, in part because Arthur Robinson was not a computer geek. Using today’s vernacular, it was hacked. The Wikipedia page speaks to this. Still, even if there were 5% fakes, that leaves almost 30,000 legitimate signers. My wife and I both signed. [As I recall, I screwed up schools or degrees, but both are serviceable.]
80
My understanding is that it was done twice and the small number of fake names was removed.
What is extraordinary is that 24 professors think that story is still relevant 20 years later. I guess it’s not radiative physics, so it’s a story they understand. That says something about their intellectual heft, and it isn’t good.
110
The Framing scare has nothing to do with the science, something sceptics have given up on, being unable to provide peer reviewed evidence .
04
Evidence of what?
50
That everyone else is wrong
04
The many failed climate predictions by the “experts”, and the constantly-failing climate models that cannot accurately predict what is happening with the climate, don’t need any peer review to confirm that they were wrong, and continue to be wrong.
50
Rational inquisitive informed people are more scared of the climate messengers and their motives than the alleged prospect of climate doom. They should analyse that.
40
Funny how they worry about what we think while controlling what we talk about.
Like most research, it’s fake.
Intended to provide ‘science’ justification for predetermined politics, like “look! … we are all about open discussion and squirrels”.
Now, I will see if my squirrel can leave its’ nest.
Made of leaves.
And it’s a no.
70
I too have benefited from TdeF posts here. His or her contributions is one reason why I have long adopted the “read the comments” policy here.
Since TdeF rejects recycling Quora Comments here, how about recycling JoNova posts here? For comprehension and discussion?
00