“‘Power of ridicule’ – New weapon against climate deniers”
They shamed you with a racism that wasn’t yours but that nevertheless belonged to “your heritage”, so why shouldn’t they believe they can shame you into following the faux-scientific, global wealth redistribution plan cooked up by transnational progressivists and “enforced” but zealous, ill-informed true believers, liberal status seekers, and other various and sundry useful idiots?
As President Obama readies his program to curb greenhouse gases, climate change action advocates are rolling out a new strategy for controlling verbal emissions by climate change deniers — turning allies of Big Oil and Big Coal into national laughingstocks.
“The power of ridicule should be deployed here,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. “You have to get to the point where a major candidate for public office is disqualified when he or she denies climate science.” Schatz was speaking to the annual Netroots Nation conference of progressive bloggers.
Jon Carson, head of Organizing for Action — the group formed as an issue-based successor to the Obama presidential campaign — put it this way: “When a Republican or a Democrat says something crazy on climate, we should be ready to hold them accountable as progressives did on human biology.”
The “War on Women” became a great 2012 selling point for Obama and the Democrats, helped in no part by Republican politicians’ intemperate remarks about rape.
Yes, it did. And why? Because Republicans tripped over each other in a mad rush to publicly distance themselves from the way they knew the Left and their media arm would portray certain comments — rather than laughing at what was clearly a cynical attempt to paint certain candidates as somehow “anti- women” by taking their comments either out of context or without allowing for elaboration, as if an utterance is fixed forever in the context they decide to grant it.
And now here you go. You reap what you sow, textualists, in the form of what to the left is now a proven strategy: separate out those who wish to be seen as the good ones, the intelligent ones, the nuanced ones, the reasonable ones by demonizing and ridiculing the rest. After all, who wants to be called anti-science?
Time after time we’ve had our chances to stand up to this tactic. And time after time we buckle and take counsel that suggests we monitor our words more solicitously, take care with our phrases, remain “realistic” about how the left will use our utterances and try to speak in the broadest, least controversial terms possible, speak only in bites that cannot possibly be misconstrued — almost always intentionally so.
Since this site’s inception I’ve preached the dangers of such a willingness to cede the moral / logical / political ground on language. For my troubles, I’m on the fringes these, while those who agreed to cede ground — it’s the pragmatic, realistic thing to do, you see — run our messaging and collect our awards and tributes.
How’s that working out for us?
But I digress:
Obama is likely to unveil a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, concentrating on cutting carbon emissions from power plants. Coal-burning power plants are America’s largest source of greenhouse gas releases into the atmosphere. The President will use his executive authority under the Clean Air Act.
“The President doesn’t just have the authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, he is required to,” said Sen. Schatz.
Still, opposition from the carbon economy and its defenders — e.g. the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — is expected to be intense. Climate change deniers have borrowed a page from Big Tobacco’s protracted, four-decade battle against the 1964 Surgeon General’s report that smoking causes cancer.
The tobacco companies pursued a three-pronged strategy: a) They created and and laundered money through groups with impressive names; b) The front groups were used to create doubt about evidence of a cancer-smoking link; c) Scientists, nicknamed “biostitutes,” were hired to make the industry’s arguments.
“Some of the very same scientists who are denying the human causes of climate change were denying health impacts of tobacco years ago,” said Dr. Michael Mann, who heads the Earth System Climate Center at Penn State University. Mann notes that R.J. Reynolds spent $70 million to create a cancer-questioning institute.
Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and longtime defender of the Clean Air Act — and longtime advocate of curbs on tobacco advertising — has witnessed effectiveness of the climate deniers’ campaign.
“I’ve never seen such a disconnect in Congress between science and needed public policy,” Waxman said. “My colleagues argue things we used to hear in the tobacco debate, that the science is unclear. They are science deniers who are denying the opportunity to educate themselves.”
So, strategists and advocates for Obama’s climate program will be rolling out such gems as Sarah Palin’s declaration: “Those global warming studies are a bunch of snake oil science.” Or this from House Science Committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall: “I’m really more fearful of freezing.”
Progressives have seen several of their movements “go viral” in the past year, same-sex marriage and the need for immigration reform as prime examples. It hasn’t happened — yet — with climate . . . despite global heat waves, “superstorms,” melting glaciers and shrinking snow packs, the shrinking Arctic ice pack, dying forests, and “drunken trees.”
“We have a congressional leadership in the House that denies climate exchange even exists,” said Mann.
Perhaps it will pay public dividends to humor them. Their attitudes are no laughing matter.
First, I can’t tell: is this supposed to be a news piece?
Secondly, and here’s the easy answer to this risible attempt to connect global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, I don’t deny climate. That’s like denying air. Or gravity. Or progressive malfeasance. It’s nonsensical.
What I deny is that human exhalation is a carcinogen. Because the end point of that argument is that humans are the cause of cancer, that plants that produce oxygen from our CO2 exhalation are complicit in an attempt to keep us breathing so that we can produce the very carcinogen that will destroy the earth and its inhabitants.
That is, the whole of evolution, the biosphere, etc. is on a suicide mission, and only Obama and a bunch of progressives can save it from itself.
That’s what needs to be ridiculed.
And here’s how I propose doing it: answer every attempt at “ridicule” over your status as a “climate denier” with the following curt response: “If Obama really wants to put an end to global warming, maybe he should sic the IRS and the NSA on it.”
A “oh, and by the way, go fuck yourself with redwood stump, Commie” is entirely optional.
Because tell me: do you see the GOP standing up to this kind of organized pressure?
Yeah, me neither.