"The 'facts' need to be treated as so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken."


Is this PDF the blueprint for eliminating global warming debate?
Remember when I was talking about the need for global warming apologists to suppress dissent?

Well, you might want to read this (link is a PDF). Specifically page 8.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

The disparity of scale between the enormity of climate change and small individual actions should be dealt with by actually harnessing this disparity. Myth (which can reconcile seemingly irreconcilable cultural truths) can be used to inject the discourse with the energy it currently lacks.

Opposing the enormous forces of climate change requires an effort that is superhuman or heroic. The cultural norms (what we normally expect to be true) are that heroes – the ones who act, are powerful and carry out great deeds – are extraordinary, while ordinary mortals either do nothing or do bad things. The mythical position – the one that occupies the seemingly impossible space – is that of ‘ordinary hero’. The ‘ordinary heroism’ myth is potentially powerful because it feels rooted in British culture – from the Dunkirk spirit to Live Aid.

Get that? The debate is over because they said so. The 'facts' can not be questioned.

Yes, the word facts is in quotes in the original document.

Yes, they are talking about invoking myths to sell global warming.

And who are these people?

The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) is the UK’s leading progressive think tank and was established in 1988. Its role is to bridge the political divide between the social democratic and liberal traditions, the intellectual divide between academia and the policy making establishment and the cultural divide between government and civil society. It is first and foremost a research institute, aiming to provide innovative and credible policy solutions. Its work, the questions its research poses, and the methods it uses are driven by the belief that the journey to a good society is one that places social justice, democratic participation, economic and environmental sustainability at its core.

Notice that bit about "social justice." The authors aren't environmental scientists. The entire paper is an example of semiotics, sort of applied linguistics grafted to symbol manipulation with a healthy dose of social psychology.

If I were more callous, I'd say that this is less of a resource and more of a PR plan. It's going to be interesting to see how this document shapes the global warming debate.

Hat tip Greenie Watch


— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - August 15, 2006 at 04:44 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved