Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!
“De Omnibus Dubitandum”
The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the manufacture of consensus
National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009
Jean Goodwin firstname.lastname@example.org,Iowa State University
It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed "doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske).
In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's shift from statements like this:
"We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
67% Oppose Upcoming ‘Ban’ on Traditional Light Bulbs
One-in-five Americans (20%) say they or someone they know has bought large quantities of traditional light bulbs to use when those bulbs disappear off store shelves next year under new federal light bulb regulations. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Adults aren’t doing that themselves or don’t know anyone who is, but another 10% are not sure.
My Take - I have read those who claim this was an attempt to “eliminate good energy policy and sound conservation standards” and another claims this is “Marxist socialism at its apex”; and that the old bulbs were “rejected by the market place”. Amazing! Marxism doesn’t give choices…and this is what this bill attempted to do...isn't it? It allows the people to choose what bulbs they wish to use and it allows businesses the choice to make them or not….as they CHOOSE. That is the strangest definition of Marxism I have ever read. Imagine ….free choice is now Marxism!
I am really happy to get this new understanding! Up until this point my view of Marxism was that it was all about central planning. At least that is what every socialist regime practiced in the past. Apparently I was under the impression that Congress’s actions in originally ordering (actually forcing) the country to unwillingly abandon the bulbs they liked for bulbs that are more expensive, and clearly far more dangerous than the old bulbs, was a clear act of central planning. Central planning is certainly a pattern of actions known as Marxism….isn’t it?
Now I know better. Free choice is Marxism and central planning is……well……..democracy and capitalism?????
Of course, this whole central planning scheme about light bulbs was based on the idea that we were running out of energy. We now absolutely know that is FALSE! It was also claimed that as a result the increased energy being used required increased energy production that was causing Anthropogenic Global Warming. Also FALSE! So how was this “good energy policy and sound conservation standards”, since it was based on lies; which has been another aspect of socialist/Marxist regimes? True, all the others lie too, but in capitalistic democratic republics they can and are exposed. In Marxist regimes those who attempt to expose the central planners incompetence are killed. Hmmmmmm......Perhaps we should recap.
Well…traditionally Socialist/Marxism policies are based central planning. Central planning killed the old light bulbs. Democracy and capitalism decisions are based on market place performances and free choice. And it was democratic capitalism that attempted to return choice to society.
Is it possible this was an attempt of the "Newspeak" George Orwell disucssed in 1984?