Slandering Science
It’s easy to see how propaganda works. Say you want to turn an entire population against Jews, so you publish every (real) crime that any Jew commits, insinuating that all Jews are criminals. You use words like “infestation” rather that “immigration,” communicating the idea that the people entering the country are carrying disease, like rats.
Using deception to manipulate public opinion, I’m sure, dates back to the beginnings of human civilization.
But today’s propaganda is aimed at accomplishing something that was completely unachievable as recently as a few years ago. Now, we’re casting science itself in a bad light.
That seems improbable, doesn’t it? You take a body of peer-reviewed knowledge that explains and predicts observable phenomena, and you try to make it disappear? Won’t people laugh at you? Apparently not.
State governments have banned the use of the term “climate change,” e.g., Florida Department of Environmental Protection, whose officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
EPA has put science on the sidelines. According to Scientific American: Web pages explaining climate science disappeared. (Before resigning amid more than a dozen separate scandals, EPA administrator Scott) Pruitt contradicted scientists by claiming that humans aren’t the primary drivers of climate change. Researchers on EPA science advisory boards who received agency grants were deemed to have conflicts of interest, while industry researchers were framed as independent. A rule was proposed that would restrict which science could be used in regulations.
Like humor, effective propaganda must be based on at least a germ of truth. Jokes that aren’t based on a kernel of truth aren’t funny, and propaganda that suggests something completely unbelievable is immediately rejected. That’s what makes this so bizarre: scientists don’t rise to the top of their fields without spotless academic and intellectual integrity. University professors don’t act like used car salesmen (or politicians).
I would have said that slandering science was impossible. I would have been wrong.
Craig,
You appear to be confusing “science” and “religion”. Scientists are not superior mortals, nor are university professors deified or high priest, whose utterances are ‘beyond the ken’ of mere ordinary folk !
It’s not “slandering science” to disagree or dissent from any “scientific pronouncements” ( or at least those of which you support).
Scientists, even professors, are not infallible and time (and colleges) often reveal errors and mistakes in the most accepted scientific theories.
Elevating “scientists” and “university professors” to the level of unchallenged Prophets, is just plain silly !
“University professors don’t act like used car salesmen (or politicians ” ! Obviously, you’re not too familiar with the ferociously competitive world of Academic institutions.
That’s terrible! How could they just throw dirt on Science like that! obviously, climate change is real since every year we are hitting new records for the highest temperature!
Susan,
Yes, climate change is occurring and certainly industrial pollution is a contributing factor, but the hysteria tends to become overly exaggerated and the extreme claims are not helpful.
” Records being broken” looks very alarming when splashed sensationally across the headlines, and some advocate or pundit is quoted as saying authoritatively that we are entering the last days, doom and Armageddon is upon us all!
But how accurate or true are those claims? What records and what methodology is used ? In most cases the “record” turns out to be either a tiny fraction, with other more plausible alternate contradictory conclusions, or simply bad science where the authors devise a theory and set out to fit in those facts to confirm the theory.
This is then seized upon by journalist seeking a headline and repeated and repeated so often it become and “accepted truth’ because no one can remember how the origins of the story began.
Thus one “study” builds on a previous “study” each with and assumed set of facts and the origins of the myth get lost in time.
That becomes one of the biggest problem of any debate about the effects of climate change. Any questioning of methodology or skeptical examination of claims is met with a cacophony of emotive abuse.
Favorite terms include “climate denier” “troll” ” Evil oil company stooge” etc.
Such activism is not the hallmark of “scientific” thought process which encourages and respects debate, but more like religious fanatics.
A great example of this type of widely held misconception is my favourite :
“97% of scientists have reached a consensus on global warming” !
This was never true ! It’s a complete fabrication. It was always a lie. However, once the lie became established, it’s now impossible to contradict.