In "An Inconvenient Truth" Mr Gore alluded to the contemptible
incipient switch among the denial industry to jump from you haven't
proven that anything needs to be done" to "you haven't proven that it
isn't already too late" without passing through any position that
something must be done.
Denialism does not have as its purpose a denial of warming. It is the
denial of necessity for a policy.
Its weapon is diversion. It diverts the conversation to minutia of the
science. Its objective is to divert the scientist from summarizing the
situation effectively, to divert the casual reader from making the
effort to understand, and to leave the casual reader with the
impression of a subtle controversy even where the facts are entirely
clear and rather straightforward.
Among its tactics is a reliance on the good nature of the scientist,
who loves to make every effort to explain and explore scientific
knowledge, and in many cases believes himself or herself obligated to
do so.
These tactics can smoothly be shifted from the "no proven need" to "no
proof that it isn't too late". What is being denied isn't the science.
It's the need for a policy. Poking scientists is just a tactic.
The fossil interests have little choice in this matter; they will act
this way to defend their interests. It will be very hard to prove in
court that their intent was malicious. Seen this way, they are
protecting shareholder value. It would be good if we lived in a world
where power centers limited their tactics by making moral judgements,
but we are so far from that point that it seems a forlorn hope.
In the real world, unless we can come up with a policy that protects
the interests of the fossil fuel entities, they will continue to
actively confuse the public discussion. I think the "clean coal"
alternative is something that needs to be actively pursued and even
subsidized. It is a failure of policy when a significant constituency
is motivated to lie to the public.
Meanwhile, anyone with any sense of decency should eschew this sort of
propaganda work. A soup kitchen line has more dignity.
Of course it's always hard to prove whether any individual is
dishonest or merely misguided. A scientist always wants to give the
benefit of the doubt to the misguided. It's important, though, to
notice that this kindness of disposition toward the misguided is
consistently abused by the malicious.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
