A while ago I attended a focus group for a public utility which is seeking to fine-tune its next business-plan. This was interesting for three things which I had expected and one thing which I had not expected, and was delighted by. the event was a fine example of the manipulation of consent and of the use of Warmism as a tool for this.
1) The purpose of the event became clear in the final session: each of the eleven groups (each composed of ten + facilitator) was asked to choose one out of four strategies. In fact only one of the options was – on the information presented – remotely viable: two of the ‘options’ actually disqualified themselves because they would have not met the legal obligations of the firm. Every group, of course, chose the preferred option – giving excellent reasons for doing so, based on the ‘information’ provided by the firm. This was a fine example of the process of generating a manipulated agreement.
2) In discussion about subsidising the poorest consumers it became clear just how deeply the thatcherist sensibility has sunk into ‘common-sense’. The discourse about scroungers and the importance of individual responsibility (one person explained how important it was to stop kids dropping litter) melded seamlessly with that discourse which manages to present itself both as ‘alternative’ and as the new state religion: the anthrogenic theory of alleged global warming.
3) The documentation for the focus group made much of ‘climate change’. What this term denoted was, of course, ‘Global Warming’. As the Warmists become aware that their thesis has more holes than Saturn has rings, so they have shifted their key trope to ‘climate change’. By this means they use a banality (climate changes, that is what it does) to gain assent for a contested hypothesis (global warming is occuring and is due to human action). The political use of this dogma is to micro-manage individual behaviour, using the rhetoric of individual responsibility (turn off the tap when tooth-brushing and save the planet).
When I took the opportunity at question time to ask why so much was made of something for which the evidence is so slim, the reply from the firm’s executive was that ‘we live in a society which accepts Climate Change, it is accepted by all the main political parties’. In a way, of course, he was correct. This was why I was so cheered by:
4) In my group I argued for thermoscepticism and asked for a show of hands on who accepted the Warmist claim. A vote was taken, despite the attempt of the facilitator to block this with the predictable bullshit that ‘it doesn’t matter what caused it, we need to do something about it’. Three accepted that global warming is occurring, three did not, and the rest were undecided. I was astonished and delighted by this.
Only three people out of ten accepted the Warmist claim !! This … even though it now has the status of a secular religion. Its agenda is promoted by all wings of the Propaganda Apparatus. It is endorsed by an endless parade of media whores. It is a major part of the indoctrination of children. The alternistas are at one with the Daily Mail in sliding from apocalypticism to calling for a ban on plastic bags. Anyone who questions Warmism is demonised as the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Al Gore’s science-fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth is raved over by the alternistas. The illusion that there is a scientific consensus is maintained by massively biasing media time against the dissenters.
So, despite the relentless and ruthless propaganda for Warmism, there is at least some reason to think that there is major scepticism. Warmism is now promoted by all the procap parties – some may worry that this signals a further disaffection from the ‘political process’. It is especially bad news for the Green Party, of which the only serioius question is not whether it is procap, but to what extent it is proto-nazi.
Some of us will regard this as the best news for some while.