Friends,
I've found this whole discussion to be very educational. Thanks to
all of you who sent in material for our consideration, and who shared
your concerns about the issues. From our discussion, and from that
material, I've noticed that people tend to fall into one of three
camps as regards global warming.
First there is the 'consensus camp', those who believe that global
warming is the single greatest problem faced by humanity, that
reducing carbon emissions is the solution, and that it can be
achieved without changing the system as a whole. Members of this camp
tend to be angered by anyone who questions this position, and
outraged at contrary pieces in the media.
Second there is the 'skeptics camp', which includes a number of
sub-factions. There are those who are in denial, being attached to
their SUV lifestyles. There are those who are skeptical of all the
hype, and who notice a herding effect in the published science. And
there are those on the right who see global-warming hysteria as being
yet another liberal conspiracy. Members of this camp see themselves
as 'campaigners for truth', and victims of media hegemony.
Finally there is the 'big picture' camp, those who see global warming
itself as a secondary issue, and who are paying attention to the
political context, the propaganda messages, and the camp-formation
process. Members of this camp see themselves as lonely voices in the
wilderness, with no established camp to seek comfort in.
Throughout this discussion, I've been intrigued by the anger element
of the consensus camp. Despite being in the majority, being well
represented in the mainstream media, and finding support from
government leaders, there is still this intolerance for dissenting
views. Why not simply a smug chuckle at 'the uninformed minority'?
Why anger? And why do people who profess to believe in reason and
science want to squash dissent? These are sure signs of
defensiveness, which is itself a sure sign of some kind of denial.
But denial of what?
To begin with, I see a denial of elitism. Those who are angered by
dissenting material are not themselves swayed by the material, but
fear the 'uninformed masses' will be swayed. This camp wants to make
its consensus universal by suppressing differing views. But being in
denial of its elitism, it wants to see its complaints as informed
critique, rather than as suppression. In fact their style of critique
is typically characterized by ad hominem attacks, and the anger
reveals that the real message to the questioners is, "Shut up, the
masses are listening!" --"Don't argue in front of the children!".
But why is the consensus camp so worried about what the masses might
think? Why must the consensus view be unquestioned? What I see here
is more denial -- a denial of powerlessness. This camp wants to
believe that public opinion matters, that elites respond to it in
productive ways, that 'the system works', and that progress is real.
If there is a split in public opinion, that sends a mixed message to
elites, so a split must be avoided. It is of course psychically
stressful to maintain this denial of powerlessness, particularly in
this era of emerging naked fascism and unending warfare. This stress
compounds the anger.
There are not many of us in the big-picture camp, but among those who
share its insights are the strategic thinkers of the elite community,
and the managers of public opinion. With their focus groups and their
Madison Avenue techniques, they are well aware of the various camps,
their psychological subtleties, and their attitudes toward one
another. This is the managers stock-in-trade, their means of control.
Let us examine how they are creating a context that enables them to
pursue their own agendas. This too is something I've been learning
from the material we've looked at, accompanied by our discussions.
The context they are creating is a new one, whose launch was marked
by the release of Gore's documentary. Up until that point, the
context was 'denial from above', enabling business as usual, and
costing only a bit more disdain toward lightning-rod Bush. With
Gore's PR campaign for carbon consciousness, the consensus camp is
presented with an offer they can't refuse. Not only are they given
hope that 'something will be done' about global warming, but they are
reassured in their fantasy of elite responsiveness. This is a broad
offer that the camp wants to hold onto, and they fear anything that
threatens it. But knowing deep down that the offer must be tainted,
they exhibit defensiveness.
Gore's offer of hope and reassurance to the consensus camp is only
part of the new context. Another part is the presentation of the
opposite message to the skeptical camp, particularly to those on the
right. There was for example the Channel 4 documentary (The Great
Global Warming Swindle), that started off this whole discussion, and
which appealed to a large audience. Here are two more such media
items that I posted to newslog:
15 Apr - Richard S. Lindzen: "Global Warming Fears Overblown" (Newsweek)
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2394&lists=newslog
16 Apr - Global warming: what the right is listening to (about
a denial film)
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2400&lists=newslog
The second one above is particularly interesting. The fellow taking
his film to conservative audiences, he's identifying 'liberals' as
'the enemy', and he's equating them with the anti-carbon movement. It
appears that 'they' are setting up a framework where being
'conservatively correct' will include being a global-warming skeptic,
along with being a creationist, anti-gay, anti-liberal,
anti-abortion, etc.
They run a very disciplined ship over there in the right-wing world,
the world of true believers. They have a very efficient top-down
propaganda system, with end-user distribution via pulpits, radio, and
Internet. They create a world view that interprets events in certain
ways -- a vaccination against the truth. We watch a documentary and
feel we've learned something about climate change. Those on the right
watch the same documentary and see a liberal conspiracy, particularly
because the narrator always sounds like a liberal. Thus the same
propaganda / message can fulfill different missions with different
audiences at the same time. It's a subtle game. If you don't believe
this is the level they play at, you're either naive or in denial.
It is important that the skeptic camp be nurtured even as the
official agenda claims to be moving in the consensus direction. This
keeps those in the consensus camp fearful, and willing to accept
whatever 'gains' they can get. They will spend their energy being
angry at the skeptics rather than on pushing the government to do
something real. Divide and rule. It's down to a science. In this way
our rulers will be able to do whatever they want, do it under the
banner of fighting global warming, and achieve the acquiescence of
the consensus camp, the majority camp.
In the mail today I received a brochure from the Irish government,
called "National Climate Change Strategy". The goal is not to move
away from carbon dependence, but to limit carbon emission to a
certain amount, a high amount, an amount that will keep the world
heating up. And of course they're pushing bio-fuels, that produces
just as much co2, and that take land out of food production, leading
directly to famines 'down there', 'out of sight' in the third world...
11 Apr - Murray Dobbin: Ethanol Will Not Be Our Clean, Green Savior!
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2387&lists=newslog
And they're definitely gearing up for a resurgence of nuclear power.
They're starting by ensuring a supply of uranium:
16 Apr - Australia and uranium: the 'three mines' debate
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2403&lists=newslog
Now consider this article:
16 Apr - Global Warming Hysteria to Further North American Union?
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2399&lists=newslog
This talks about a tax of $1/gallon that is being proposed as a
'penance tax' that will go to help create a union of Canada, the US,
and Mexico. This is something we should take seriously and get angry
about. But I fear the divide-and-rule strategy will succeed in
causing most of the consensus camp to reject such an article, as it
challenges the validity of the 'offer we can't refuse'. It spoils the
flavor of the 'we're getting somewhere' bandwagon. It undermines the
denial of powerlessness.
Just as the skeptic camp is being programmed to see climate-change
information as a 'liberal conspiracy', so the consensus camp is being
programmed to see any challenge to the offered 'solutions' as being
either an 'industry conspiracy', or a 'right wing conspiracy theory'.
c'est la vie,
rkm
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Subscribe cyberjournal list: •••@••.•••
(send blank message)
Posting archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Moderator: •••@••.•••
(comments welcome)
Share: