This propaganda is spun out of six key terms that dominate the language of climate politics: alarmist, cost, growth, “India and China,” innovation, and resilience. Together these terms weave a narrative that goes something like this: “Yes, climate change is real, but calling it an existential threat is just alarmist. And, anyway, phasing out coal, oil, and gas would cost us too much. Human flourishing relies on the economic growth enabled by fossil fuels, so we need to keep using them and deal with climate change by fostering technological innovation and increasing our resilience.
The New Climate Denial Is Based on These Six Terms (msn.com)
Who knew? If you question costs, return on investment, whether we make lives worse rather than better, and you promote innovation as a solution, you are a climate denier.
She goes on to say that governments regulate speech to prohibit skeptical questioning (see below).
Only official, approved comments from approved authorities (note the Appeal to Authority argument) will be permitted: “As the Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes showed in Merchants of Doubt, fossil fuel partisans created doubt about the reality of climate change by talking incessantly about scientific “uncertainty” in their public statements about global heating.”
There is no uncertainty. We know exactly what is happening and why. There are no other factors and to suggest such is to commit a thought crime.
It’s Just Science.
The author of the opinion column has a BA in English Literature and a Ph.D. in renaissance literature and “writes about the language of climate change”. She is a self-described climate activist so we know she has no bias. She believes in controlling the speech around climate:
She is guided by the conviction that our language for the climate crisis is largely inaccurate and misleading, and that fixing this problem requires us not just to reframe talking points, but to recognize how our speech itself—what we say and what we don’t say about climate change—reproduces fossil-fuel ideologies.
The biggest climate bandits are the rich, she writes- the solution, probably, is wealth taxes and global communism, bans on flying, all travel, and so on. Those with less produce lower carbon emissions therefore more poverty is better. Rich countries must be heavily taxed to support the poor countries.
Non-experts are not to question the “experts”. We must do as we are told even if we cannot make sense of their facts and logic.
This is the message from many enlightened academics who know truth, and they alone should control the speech of others. Dissenting perspectives will not be tolerated.
