Tuesday, January 15, 2013
A River Of Denial
Now that reader PT has joined the rational community on economic policy, the above may not be necessary. Perhaps his credulous claim about lack of climate change in the last sixteen years has succumbed to whatever clearing of the fog occurred, allowing his monetary awakening.
I saw the video in this article, worth reading in full, which has much more to say about climate change denialism. I will, too, in an upcoming newspaper column which, among other things, puzzles over the fact that denialism is exclusively a Republican thing. I'm starting to think they're a different species, at least when it comes to brain function. I guess maybe shoot-first-damn-the-facters were necessary back in the days when we rode dinosaurs to get away from aliens. But nowadays, they're just getting in the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular posts
-
Nothing can be said about last week’s presidential debate (debacle, more like) that hasn’t already been. So I will. Trump lied with every ... -
The assassination attempt and reactions to it are deeply depressing, foretelling a grim future. The most disgusting responses from politic... -
I’m trying to measure this feeling of hope and enthusiasm against the reality that it’s an uphill battle for a woman to become president; ... -
Well, that was disappointing. Since I’ve been wrong about the essential goodness of the American people, I can only hope I’m also wrong ab... -
I t’s over. No thinking person will vote for Trump now. The catastrophe is out of the bagman. How? At a gathering of oil executives at Mar-a...
A quick observation concerning the work of Frank Luntz.
ReplyDeleteFrank Luntz, for those who aren't already familiar, is the Grover Norquist of the politically charged language invariably employed by Public-Cons. He convincingly demonstrates that connotative language very much matters in the emotions that are instilled as the result of the selection of very specific and well spun terms used to refer to a variety of politically useful topics.
For example, it was Frank Luntz who insisted that Public-Cons MUST consistently adhere to the term, “Death Tax” in lieu of “inheritance tax” whenever that subject arises. Other examples of his successful work abound. One of the most obvious is his insistence on the term, “FETAL Stem Cell Research”, in place of the simpler, “Stem Cell Research”. Through focus groups and other means, he has determined that the addition of this single word makes ALL the difference in how people feel about this research. Its inclusion convinces - especially the gullible - to envision the ripping, limb from limb, of “unborn babies” in order to conduct this research, when nothing could be further from the truth. We might also consider other examples such as the Public-Con use of such terms as “Right to Life”, and “Pro-Abortion” when describing the advocates of “Compulsory Birth”, or “Pro-Choice”, etc. Luntz has been so successful that even many Dim-O-Crats frequently elect to use his language.
I mention this because of your apparent adoption of Frank Luntz’s term, “Climate Change”, which he has dictated as the only acceptable Public-Con alternative to use in lieu of the more honestly descriptive, “Global Warming.” And I do so with the hope that you would reexamine (and reverse) your embracing of ANY of his terms of obfuscation.
Rick
Hi Syd,
ReplyDeleteHere's a new video - good companion to the one you've embedded...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KQW0O2gtevo#!
Really good to see you posting on the environment.
Jacob Horner
I think you're wrong, Rick. Whether or not Frank Luntz, about whom we're in complete agreement, uses (or even coined) the term, the fact is that many, maybe most, prefer the term "climate change," because it includes a broader range of the results of warming.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Fox "news" like to yuck it up whenever there's an unusual cold snap; but that's not at all inconsistent with warming. And "climate change" includes hurricanes and floods and tornados, all of which follow from warming.
Here's a link that agrees with me, from that teabagger bastion, NPR. And here's another.
I make a lot of mistakes, but this ain't one of them.
Okay, I made one mistake: I meant to say "most climate scientists" prefer the term, not just "most," as I wrote.
ReplyDelete