Disney Rejected Obama Proposal To Use ‘Frozen’ Characters To Push Climate Agenda

in Culture/News/Politics by
   

Next to the government takeover of healthcare, one of the biggest objectives of former President Barack Obama was tackling climate change. It’s a common rallying point for the left. Liberal and progressive activists like to speak of how humanity is bringing the planet down with endless fear-mongering. The result of the human shaming is bigger government and less freedom, all in the name of saving us from ourselves.

Climate change alarmists like to utilize a wide array of propaganda to sell their extremist ideas. One of these propaganda concepts was a proposal by the Obama Administration to utilize the characters from Frozen. Frozen is an animated children’s movie about two royal sisters, one of which has magical powers. It was a huge hit for Disney, so the marketing appeal would have made sense for the Obama Administration.

The problem is that Disney wasn’t biting, according to e-mails discovered by The Hill.

The State Department and Disney had discussions in 2014 regarding the issue, but no deal was struck. Disney had felt the issue, which was apparently discussed more than once, was closed. The Obama Administration felt otherwise, when State Department official Robert Papp spoke about the possibility of using the characters for propaganda purposes.

Multiple employees for Disney wrote to the State Department expressing their frustration that Papp misrepresented the discussions and continued to suggest a partnership might happen. The State Department stated that Papp had been put on the spot and had difficulty addressing the topic.

It appeared that the State Department was lying to avoid acknowledging that not even Disney wanted to work with them. This isn’t an unusual development for the State Department under the Obama Administration in general.

Disney didn’t want their characters used for negative advertising and telling sad stories. Papp was told Disney prefers to use their stories for optimism, which is a point reinforced by most of their children’s films. Their commitment is legitimate, considering Disney CEO Bob Iger cares about climate change and the company still wouldn’t budge.



Climate change messaging is hardly positive and calling it a sad story understates the propaganda. Alarmists have a tendency to discuss the issue like the apocalypse is imminent. Recall the picture painted by former vice president Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for example. We’ve been told for years that the ice caps are melting and the sea levels will rise. In more extreme examples, the ozone layer will be destroyed and Earth will essentially wilt away.

Could anyone picture friendly Disney characters telling us about how we’re all going to die because of extremist propaganda? Disney made the right corporate decision not to get in bed with big daddy government.

The State Department was heavily motivated under the Obama Administration to tackle climate change. The motivation now appears even stronger. Attempting to use children’s characters to sell the propaganda of climate change alarmism is a brand new low. In the eyes of the previous Democratic administration, friendly cartoon characters for children aren’t even sacred.

One could say that Disney just wanted the Obama Administration to let it go.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.

  • Even in frozen, the sudden climate change was artificial.

  • Who else loves Constitution ?

  • Denis Ables

    Obama had his opportunity to provide evidence to the public. Presumably he used the best information available from his hand-picked climtologists. The result: no so good, infact fraudulent

    Obama visited Alaska and pointed out to receding glaciers, claiming these were evidence of “climate change” (aka “human activity being the principal cause of global warming”).

    But, the fawning major news media failed to point out that there were also growing glaciers, both in Alaska and elsewhere, so his claim of evidence was bogus. Furthermore, one of the two glaciers he referred to, “Exit” by name, has been receding since 1730, a century before co2 level began increasing. Finally, if there were no receding glaciers, wouldn’t we would likely be entering our next ice age.

    The alarmists also DENY (ironic !) that the Medieval Warming Period was also a global event and was as warm, likely warmer than it is now. Alarmists reluctantly admit that the MWP was experienced in Europe because they had no choice. Europeans are generally aware that the MWP was indeed experienced by their ancestors. However, the receding Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest still in its original position. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. Alaska is distant from Europe. Google the peer-reviewed Greenland Temperature study (gisp2). This study shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. That’s already enough data that any credible scientist should interested in finding out what really happened. In fact, Phil Jones, one of the primary alarmist/warmist players, stated publicly that if the MWP was global “then that’s a new ballgame”. Other than that, what did he do about it?

    There is also temperature data available from 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe which conclusively show that the MWP trend was global. Boreholes are not constrained to the limited locals providing ice core data.

    Finally, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. Most of these MWP studies have been cataloged by co2science.org. A subset of the studies directly address temperature. Readers should select (say) a half dozen regions distant from Europe, Greenland, and Alaska. Pick (say) at least one temperature study (if any are available) from each selected region. You will find, in each case, that site was warmer then than it is now. This validates the borehole data and vice versa.

    The evidence discussed above represents numerous independent researchers, and their findings are consistent with raw borehole data and with observations (Mendenhall exposure). There is other observed information, such as antique vineyards found where grapes cannot be grown even today. Burial sites below the perma frost have apparently also been found.

    This evidence does not imply that our current warming is not partially influenced by human activity. However it does thoroughly rebut the DENIALs by alarmists, and no “scientist” still insisting on DENYing that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now has not a shred of credibility remaining.

    But there’s more. The greenhouse gas theory, when applied to the open atmosphere, carries with it a NECESSARY (but not sufficient) condition. There MUST be a warmer region about 10k above the tropics. However, decades of radiosondes have not found that supposed “hot spot”.
    Therefore the validity of the GHG theory in this scenario is in question. There is other conflicting information as well. Satellites detect heat escaping to space but in a greenhouse heat cannot escape. The lack of validity ruins the alarmist computer model projected temperatures because these models all ASSUME that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on by co2 increase. Their ASSUMPTION cannot be justified. Nobody really knows whether the net water vapor feedback is even positive or negative. It will take a long time for co2 increase to bring the earth’s temperature to a dangerous level. Physics further clarifies the situation. co2 supposed impact on global temperature diminishes rapidly as co2 level increases. co2 has already doubled 8 times, so has likely already shot its wad.

    The difference in computer model temperature projections and actual temperatures continues to widen. This is consistent with the evidence above. However, it is unlikely that during our lifetime we will be able to project temperatures 100 years out. After all, the system the computer models is attempting to represent is nonlinear, multi-dimensional, and includes both known and (probably) unknown chaotic events.

  • ScienceABC123

    Nothing purports global warming like a Disney “Frozen” character. Idiots.

  • BMF

    Nothing says global warming like an 18 year pause while CO2 emissions increase.
    BTW, computer model predictions are not science since they rely on human assumptions (think wild guesses) as inputs. Computer model predictions evolve into science once the predicted results have been confirmed by observations (note: not to include modified data by the same people making the predictions).