- SIGs aim to take control of the "debate"
- They do this by not just reporting facts, but rather creating a narrative''

Tricks they use to Frame the debate.
- appeal to emotion
- photos - ugly smokestacks and nice polar bears.
- Certainty with no sense of doubt to get you to take it at face value
- Simplicity (complexity denial) : in reality for complex issues there are a broad spectrum of views, but one way to get people to your point of view is first convince them it's a 2 sided argument then convince them the other side is evil.

- Create a False dichotomy i.e. "The Good" (us) & the evil. Then name calling gives others a negative label, then we can say "Look they are evil .. You can't be with them ... so support us"
- The Claim the Middle-Ground Trick : In many normal situations there are a broad spectrum of views from zany right wing to zany leftwing, but after a false dichotomy is created that perception of "middle ground" disappears. Opinions which would formerly have looked extremist somehow look mainstream ... maybe there due to element of "well they are on my side so that must be true" Just like in anything the psychological manipulation technique of Anchoring may happen accidentally or by manipulation to fix your perception of what is "normal".

- Claim ownership of words so they used for what you want them to be not just what they normally used to mean. These become weasel words which are then used in to create False dichotomy & label anyone who disagrees with you as "evil".
e.g. "Denier" : Not just a different opinion on a spectrum but a "denier" paradoxically denying people the right to call themselves the more honourable word "skeptic"
- This trick is "monstering" ..just like when you need to sell a product, but have a weak case you focus on an evil opposition e.g. bleach & germs more on monstering

- Note how "Green" & "natural" vs "chemical" are used in a similar way ...(In reality all things are chemical & food which are called natural ..say butter involve a lot of processing by man)
- "Nuclear" was turned into a dirty word as well - "NMRI was simply renamed MRI dropping the "Nuclear"

- Also note how name calling first disarms others from pointing out you are guilty of the same crime you accuse. So saying "it's all very simple" is complexity denial and saying the science is settled" is denying people the right to debate.

Now having successfully claimed "denier". They are attempting to claim the word "Science" itself for themselves. They've come up with the word "anti-science" as a smear as part if their false dichotomy game : But surely in reality the world is a spectrum not a black/white - Science does not mean only 1 lifestyle solution. & anyway you might aswell label them as "Acti-Science" for Activism Science - More on these word tricks

Activism Tricks continued :
Delete/ prevent skeptical comments on blogs/websites
- I note that while skeptical websites don't seem to delete most warmist posters, Green Activist blogs/websites almost always don't allow comment or delete any skeptical comments and that includes the environment sections of the Guardian & BBC etc.

- Defend your argument by attacking first. Note how all this aggression puts people disagreeing with their view of "catastrophe is certain" on the backfoot. The debate should not be about Heartland's science, but rather whether IPCC models work now that warming is marginal and nothing like what the IPCC models predicted. That is what we should be talking about.

- Sums it up you are allowed to go into a school & say "There is a strong possibility that by the end of the century the sea level will have risen by 100m" as an Australian broadcaster often does, but you are not allowed to put a contrary view.

- Can You Trust me ? Or am I attempting to manipulate you by claiming that there is a false dichotomy, when in fact it's a Yes or No answer?