It feels like its more commonly “Climate Change Isn’t Coming”, with big factions in the O&G financed conservative movements arguing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change was itself a plot by far-left radicals to undermine the United States.
Case in point:
The role of science in society is deeply tied up with values, norms, and policy. I think it’s always good to have a healthy dose of critical self reflection, so we can engage better on the level of humanized reasoning, rather than on the level of regurgitated propaganda.
I’ve heard it said that the best propaganda is simply the truth from a very rarified viewpoint.
It is, after all, pretty easy to find left-wing activists - even left-wing extremists - warning against the threat of climate change and arguing for big socio-economic changes on the grounds that they are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change. It has even fallen into vogue to assert that capitalism creates climate change through negative externalities resulting from the profit motive.
Climate Denialists can and do fixate on this rhetoric to argue that climate change is itself a tool of propaganda to scare people into abandoning our modern military industrial complex. And with an overlapping interest between climate denialists and conservative activists, we routinely get an earful about how everything from relatively moderate carbon emissions cap-and-trade to more socially radical Green New Deal economics are nefarious plots by communists to Seize The Means of Production for themselves.
All good points. Sorry I’m coming from a non US perspective where climate change denialism is present, but less fervent. I like your definition of “truth from a rarified point of view”, though I might also considered non-rarified or pervasive, and factually well substantiated truths can be used as propaganda as well. The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.
My post was more aiming at acknowledging propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality (political groups) that exists in parallel with the the establishment of facts of reality. Some representations will adhere more or less with the factual arguments.
The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.
Sure. I’d say the critical distinction of propaganda isn’t the factualness but the industrial scale of distribution.
propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality
In modern Western media, due to a combination of privatized ownership and lingering Cold War hysteria, it’s been my experience that the industrial scale persuasive efforts are decidedly pro-capitalist.
Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement: Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement
It feels like its more commonly “Climate Change Isn’t Coming”, with big factions in the O&G financed conservative movements arguing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change was itself a plot by far-left radicals to undermine the United States.
Case in point:
I’ve heard it said that the best propaganda is simply the truth from a very rarified viewpoint.
It is, after all, pretty easy to find left-wing activists - even left-wing extremists - warning against the threat of climate change and arguing for big socio-economic changes on the grounds that they are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change. It has even fallen into vogue to assert that capitalism creates climate change through negative externalities resulting from the profit motive.
Climate Denialists can and do fixate on this rhetoric to argue that climate change is itself a tool of propaganda to scare people into abandoning our modern military industrial complex. And with an overlapping interest between climate denialists and conservative activists, we routinely get an earful about how everything from relatively moderate carbon emissions cap-and-trade to more socially radical Green New Deal economics are nefarious plots by communists to Seize The Means of Production for themselves.
How much money per year do you think is going into convincing people that climate is an existential threat?
Surprisingly little, so long as you’re the highest bidder.
All good points. Sorry I’m coming from a non US perspective where climate change denialism is present, but less fervent. I like your definition of “truth from a rarified point of view”, though I might also considered non-rarified or pervasive, and factually well substantiated truths can be used as propaganda as well. The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.
My post was more aiming at acknowledging propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality (political groups) that exists in parallel with the the establishment of facts of reality. Some representations will adhere more or less with the factual arguments.
Sure. I’d say the critical distinction of propaganda isn’t the factualness but the industrial scale of distribution.
In modern Western media, due to a combination of privatized ownership and lingering Cold War hysteria, it’s been my experience that the industrial scale persuasive efforts are decidedly pro-capitalist.