Climate Change Fear – Invoking Santa

If there was a fear mongering ‘Hall of Shame’, then the Climate Change Alarmists would hold most of the top ten positions.

Fear mongering is the deliberate use of fear based tactics including exaggeration and continuous repetition to alter the perception of the public in order to achieve a desired outcome.
– Wikipedia –

Right at the top of the list would be the most despicable example of fear mongering that I’ve seen recently – a ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’ Christmas Story that targets little children. Author Ian Irvine has released a book called ‘The Last Christmas‘ – what would it be like for Santa Claus, the elves and the reindeer if the North Pole was melting? The author says his book is “…targeted for five to ten-year-olds, helps break down information on climate change that can sometimes be too difficult for children in primary school to understand.”

Climate Change fear – I know what effect that has had on many intelligent, rational adults who are extremely fearful that we are on the fast track to a catastrophic future. They feel helpless and anxious. But, is the fear of Climate Change really something they want to teach to their little children?

… why are adults so keen to focus on children? Why concentrate on the weakest, least influential members of society and ask them to act? …Climate change makes most adults working on it feel powerless. We compare the actions we are capable of with the scale of the problem and feel weak. We look at the extent of our influence and feel helpless. We struggle to combat our contrary desires to consume and feel shame. We feel like children. Children – who are actually socially and politically powerless – are an ideal receptacle for the projection of these uncomfortable and unacceptable feelings.
By focusing on the weakest members of society and influencing them, the not-very-powerful adults make themselves feel better at the expense of the absolutely-not-powerful children.
– Rosemary Randall, Environmentalist and Psychotherapist –

In 2011, “Help Santa find a new home” was the Christmas-time plea of the biologist and environmentalist David Suzuki. Supporters of the cause were invited to save Santa from climate change by buying whimsically named contributions to support his foundation. Reaction to this fear mongering was mixed, with supporters saying it was all just humourous fun. There were many who weren’t amused and some news outlets questioned the ethics of manipulating childhood images to sell a corporate message.

How about we agree to leave Santa (and Frosty and all storybook characters) to the kids so the grown-ups can deal with real world issues, like adults?
– Stephen Ewart, Calgary Herald, November 29, 2011 –

 

What would you say to a tearful 6 year old child who was worried that Santa’s home at the North Pole was going to sink into the ocean?

Post 523

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Climate Change Fear – Invoking Santa

  1. Hitler’s well documented and very successful indoctrination of youth is not lost on the leftists who use fear mongering as way to achieve and keep power. You have to admit, between this and keeping people dependent on the government, they have a pretty effective one-two punch. Tell it like it really is people like Donald Trump are their worst nightmare.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fear is defined as a fight or flight response to an immediate threatening stimuli. It causes a change in brain and organ function, as well as in behavior. Fear – and quick response to – danger can be a good thing.
      Fear of a future that no one can reliably predict? I don’t think that is a good thing.

      Like

        • If we look back at the IPCC predictions from 1990 (it is generally agreed that Climate Change is measured in decades, not years), the most telling statement they made was: “Although we can say that some climate change is unavoidable, much uncertainty exists in the prediction of global climate properties such as the temperature and rainfall. Even greater uncertainty exists in predictions of regional climate change, and the subsequent consequences for sea level and ecosystems.”

          Where do you suppose we would be today if people had actually read the IPCC report in 1990 and agreed that everyone was going to work together to remove the uncertainty? That didn’t seem to happen, and today we have climate change supporters who point to the predictions in that report that were reasonably accurate. We have skeptics that point to the predictions that weren’t.

          The IPCC report of 2013 stated: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” Where do you suppose we would be today if supporters and skeptics agreed that ‘more than half’ was a statement that they both actually understood and probably agreed on? What if the whole thing had been about science, and not about politics?

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Climate change is a real threat. However, we need to focus on the positive things people (including children) can do to halt the decline – and we don’t need fear mongering to do it. So sad that we’ve sunk to this new low.

    Like

    • I think it is important that people have discussions that start with a mutual agreement on definitions.

      “Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years).” Climate change is said to be caused by many natural processes, with the relatively recent contribution believed to be from human activities.

      The climate change that people view as a threat is ‘global warming’. It isn’t, however, a threat to the entire world, since many countries, like Canada, Greenland, Russia, Scandinavia, and large sections of the United States may see a net benefit from a warmer world.

      I agree that there are many things people can do to make our earth a cleaner, greener place. I agree that fear mongering does nothing to help the people of the world adapt to the ‘fear of change’ that is consuming so many people today.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. While climate change is used indiscriminately to include other forms of pollution and environmental devastation…. I would tend to agree that there are serious threats in rising waters, dirtier air which….Beijing proved horribly for the Summer Olympics of temporarily altering weather so it wasn’t as polluted.

    But because Alberta is heartland of oil and gas industry the insiders plus many folks won’t hear it.

    I guess living in British Columbia for 8 yrs. and before that in southern Ontario, I do see Alberta very, very resistant to beliefs they are above destroying altering their environment and even the weather patterns.

    We shall see…our rising water shortage …here in Alberta over the next few years.

    Like

    • Interesting how people can be so critical of the fossil fuel industry. Coal halted and then reversed the deforestation of Europe and North America. Oil halted the slaughter of the world’s whales and seals for their blubber. Fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce food, thus feeding a growing population while sparing land for nature.

      While new sources of clean fuel is a good thing, we need to balance the construction of low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, against providing the poor with access to a better life through the benefits provided by fossil fuels.

      Liked by 1 person

        • I found that site a few days ago. Interesting how the trend line gets you thinking one thing, but the detail shows how great the swings can be from year to year.

          Fossil fuels – like any other product, the market is determined by supply and demand – and it is a world wide market, not a local one. The rate at which companies can extract product is driven by price to produce vs price they can sell their product for.

          Who is getting ‘rich’? Many people don’t seem to understand that most of the fossil fuel companies are either state owned or publicly owned. Saudi Aramco and Petrochina are two of the biggest energy companies in the world – both state owned. Russia is also a large producer and it has a number of state owned companies. ‘Big Oil’ in the USA – 2.9 percent of the industry shares are owned by corporate management. The rest are owned by millions of individual shareholders and pension funds.

          Like

          • Sorry, the CEOs and senior management get their biggest share of all: they are bonuses and set salary ranges when they get hired.. That’s even better than owning their own company shares. And no market risk like us individual-peons.

            I speak as someone who worked for a private global consulting and financial services firm (2 of the big 4 global firms) for several years at Canada’s national head office in Toronto. I worked in tax research and managed the dept. Make not mistake: all big companies (including oil and gas firms) hire tax lawyers to find legitimate ways to reduce their corporate tax. Layperson doesn’t really know because Canadian tax law is so complex to understand/fight it. You have to be an accountant + tax lawyer for the big corporate savings/tax avoidance.

            Sorry for being off-topic. My partner knew of the salary structures and add-on bonuses in his oil firm. Hasn’t changed since I have a friend who knows a Calgary-based VP (recently retired) for an oil/energy gas firm, who earned so much money he didn’t know what to do with it all.

            As for pension funds that hold oil /energy stocks, don’t count it. Pension managers are smart..and there are some huge ones…in Ontario. PUblic sector: Ontario Teachers’, Ontario Municipal Employees Pension. Alberta’s pension fund for Albert govn’t workers…is actually dull in financial returns, compared to these 2 Ontario biggies. (Alberta should never scoff at Ontario. The heart of Canada’s financial industry expertise exist in Ontario (Toronto). Not Alberta.)

            Oil: There is no longer any conventional oil in Alberta (drilling) left to extract. It’s known within the industry. Tar sands oil extraction is an incredibly expensive process with negative environmental impact. Fracking is also not helpful/healthy for the water table. It’s worse that just conventional drilling.

            Too bad oil was not extracted at a slower pace that is more sustainable and less harmful. But it is outright greed: do the work as quickly as possible iwthin regulatory compliance, take your money ….and leave. As for the big pension funds with oil /energy stocks, the pension managers are probably slowly dumping abit.

            I’m not convinced Alberta’s oil economy will swing back as high in the near future, as it was before . We now have the Chinese corporate companies just waiting patiently on the sidelines for some of our Alberta Canadian oil and gas firms to fall financially on their faces. Already there was an acquisition last year by mainland China… for Calgary’s Nexen.

            Did you know Imperial Oil is well over 70% owned by the U.S. Exxon for the past 2 decades? My partner witnessed how Imperial Oil slid under the control of the US……management structure/power, etc.

            My advice for anyone with several decades of a career ahead of them in Alberta: look for work elsewhere in Canada/globally. Above all, don’t specialize in oil and gas sector exclusively.

            Note: I work for govn’t. We’ve hired several full-time employees in our dept., from oil firms within the last 6 months. 1 guy took a salary cut to join us: already 1,000 employees were laid off in the last 12 months.

            Like

            • I don’t envy and I’m not critical of people in senior management who make a lot of money. Their contribution to their company can and does affect the livelihoods of many employees and shareholders. Their responsibilities go above and beyond what most of us are capable of doing or are willing to sacrifice.

              The Oil and Gas Industry always has been volatile. Only the strong, smart, and agile survive. Imperial Oil is one of the survivors. Their history with Exxon goes back much further than you seem to realize. In 1898, Imperial acquired Standard Oil’s (now Exxon Mobil) Sarnia refinery in exchange for a majority share in the company. Exxon has maintained that majority, and currently holds a consistent 69.9% of Imperial’s stock.

              Your comments and advice, while interesting, do not seem to be based on an extensive knowledge and understanding of this industry, it’s history in Alberta, and Alberta’s role on the world stage.

              Like

    • My grandchildren worry about things that they are too young to understand, let alone do anything about. They aren’t learning this from their parents, and certainly not from their ‘grandmother of perpetual non-seriousness.’
      It should be a crime to rob children of their childhood.

      Like

  4. I hadn’t heard about The Last Christmas, Margie. Now that I have heard about it, I feel very angry. Not surprised, tho. Climate change true believers seem to have no interest in facts, history, or compromise. Targeting kids who aren’t mature enough to recognize propaganda is morally repugnant. And since public schools and teachers unions seem aligned with the liberal agenda, I can easily envision the book in school libraries, and teachers reading the story to kids with enthusiasm. It’s maddening.

    Thanks for the heads-up, and hats off for your informed, measured, courteous, and very well-reasoned arguments. Great post!

    Like

    • Thanks Mark. They say ‘Climate Change’ has become a belief system that is much like religion.

      Rajendra Pachauri, head of the the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, wrote, when he resigned: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

      Larry Bell, at Forbes Magazine explained the difference that should exist between religion and science by saying: “Whether or not we subscribe to a particular orthodoxy, religion plays a vital, if not central role in most of our lives, guiding us to believe we are all part of something much larger than ourselves. It provides age-old lessons that teach us the importance of taking responsibility for our actions, constantly motivating us to do better. Faith in those universal principles binds us together as stable, functioning societies.

      Science also has a vital, but very different role. When purported “scientific experts” emulate spiritual prophets they overstep their bounds, and we can no longer trust them.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Excellent, Margie, excellent. You’ve summed it up beautifully. I’ve heard that, too (i.e., climate change belief and radical commitment to same = religion), and I think the same thing’s true for secularism in general. I’ve also heard it said that everyone NEEDS a religion. People who think trees have spirits and who shun “organized religion” don’t see the irony. They reject “religion,” but manufacture a substitute. I think for many secularists, secularism functions as a religion (belief system), whether they want to admit it or not. Good to be aware of that, because it DOES seem to explain a lot. Great post, great comment responses, great job!

        Liked by 1 person

There, I'm finished. Now it is your turn:

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s