It has been suggested, by one of the many commentators that you don't get to know about if you stick to mainstream media, that the CSIRO is "slipping dangerously out of its lane, crossing the line from applied science to active propaganda”.

They are dabbling in behavioural science in the name of Net Zero by imbedding climate messages into “reality” TV shows.

An example used is the behavioural scientist the organisation has hired to develop narratives for Channel 9’s ‘Renovate or Rebuild’ program.

If you watch that, you might recognise what is claimed.

I have noticed something similar with fiction authors I have been reading for years suddenly inserting their personal politics into plots - without adding anything to the story.

It’s a sort of ‘subliminal’ advertising (or brainwashing). We used to regularly hear about subliminal advertising in big shopping centres. Not so much now. Because it’s working well, maybe?

The CSIRO’s behavioural scientist would call it ‘social normative messaging’. The messengers being ordinary people uttering scripted lines about their batteries, solar panels etc, just as they would to mates over a cuppa.

And, no surprise, the behavioural scientist advises that viewers are more likely to buy the ‘planet saving’ goodies than non-viewers of the program are.

She also said, “We can leverage this for ‘good’ ….. (with) these people engaging in behaviours we’d like the viewership to adopt”.

How the elites want people to behave.

They can’t win the argument without playing mind games with the unsuspecting.

My source (subscription only) compares these ‘nudge tactics’ with those used during the bullying of the Covid period, with so much of the ‘science’ now proven to be totally wrong.

CSIRO has strayed from “transforming nature for human benefit” to “reshaping humans” to fit a constrained view of nature.

I believe that more money is spent by private companies promoting net zero for their own gain than is spent on campaigning by all the political parties.

Net zero is a total con and rife with graft and corruption. Thank goodness for the many honest and decent Australians like Dr Ridd exposing the dishonesty.

Fester,

That could be true. But is it their money, or ours, in the form of subsidies handed to them by the government from our taxes? We are the mugs having our money used on crazy schemes to get even more money off us.

No, it’s expanding its lane, ttbn.

//CSIRO is slipping dangerously out of its lane, crossing the line from applied science to active propaganda.//

Behavioural science is part of applied science - used in everything from road safety to anti-smoking to energy efficiency. CSIRO’s work on Renovate or Rebuild is public, documented, and well within the scope of science aimed at solving collective-action problems.

//They are dabbling in behavioural science in the name of Net Zero by embedding climate messages into reality TV shows.//

Correct - and openly.

CSIRO partnered with producers to design a show that promotes sustainable housing. The goal? Help consumers make better-informed, low-emission choices. It’s called "applied behavioural insights," not "embedding" in the sinister sense implied here.

//It’s a sort of subliminal advertising (or brainwashing).//

Hardly.

Subliminal messaging is hidden. This was overt. The show uses everyday characters modelling behaviours like "installing solar" or "insulating properly." That’s no different than how health campaigns promote quitting smoking or wearing seatbelts.

//We can leverage this for ‘good’… (with) people engaging in behaviours we’d like the viewership to adopt.//

Yes - and?

This is literally how all public-good campaigns function. If you disagree with the goal (i.e. reducing emissions), say so. But influencing behaviour isn’t inherently sinister - it’s normal practice in public health, road safety, and energy conservation.

//They can’t win the argument without playing mind games with the unsuspecting.//

Or perhaps the facts are clear, and using emotionally engaging media helps convey them. Besides, the show was voluntary viewing, clearly sponsored, and backed by both public and private funds. Nothing was hidden.

//CSIRO has strayed from transforming nature for human benefit to reshaping humans to fit a constrained view of nature.//

That’s a false dichotomy.

Sustainability requires us to reshape human systems to avoid damaging the environment that sustains us. "Transforming nature" without regard for limits is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess.

An all-round fail, I'm afraid. Ten points for effort, though.

Well John Daysh made an excellent valid point:

"Besides, the show was voluntary viewing"

Once again, thank God I do not have a television!

However, all those big propaganda screens on roads are designed to be forced on innocent drivers without consent, who only try to get from A to B. They hurt and are also a distracting hazard: Why does government allow them?