Climate Denier? Climate Change Denier? Uh, no, and no. My point is that the actual topic is Anthropogenic Global Warming, a term buried so far back in media coverage that no one actually remembers that its the one and only bone of contention: Is the warming that so many claim is extreme now (getting harder and harder to justify the claim) caused to any significant degree by human activity? The reason they keep burying the original topic in misleading nonsense like Climate denial or Climate change denial is that they want it to sound ridiculous that you would even consider disagreeing with the premise. And the reason they are desperate to keep it confusing is the same is the Jonathan Gruber explanation of deception leading up to the ACAs passage: lack of clarity is a terrific political advantage. He is clearly a student of George Orwell, but not in the way intended. He digested Orwells points and used them as a playbook, just like the dufuses who digested Micheal Douglass words from Wall Street (Greed is good) and used that as their role model. In the climate arena, because it is the goal to pass legislation related to it, it is essential to introduce the maximum possible lack of clarity and call opponents deniers of climate change, or deniers of climate. The goal is to pass legislation that gives control to an unaccountable government that no sane person would actually consent to. If you let people know how thin your premise is, or you let them see what you truly intend to do, your revolution is shot to hell. Clarity of language (a key form of transparency) is so far the best tool I know of, maybe the only tool of lasting value. Long live the Underground Grammarian!! americacanbebetter/grammarian/newslettersv01/1.1.htm
Posted on: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:37:38 +0000