Global warming propaganda

[profpr]

This is hilarious:

Propaganda = few ideas + many people
Agitation = many ideas + few people
I have been fortunate to participate in developing the idea from agitation in 1980s to mass media propaganda now.

Another funny thing: the spellchecker on this site suggested to replace "shockwave" with "Chechov".

Comments

[alpheratz.livejournal.com]

Should it really be called propaganda if the core idea is a fact?

[profpr.livejournal.com]

Ok, you are asking me about several topics. First, is “global warming” (you know I do prefer “climate change”) a fact? Here we can discuss relative truth vs. absolute truth. I hate it when somebody tells be that it is a fact. The data demonstrate that there is such phenomenon. And there is an acute risk that the impact of this phenomenon will bear high costs for the society in the future. We should act because of this perceived risk, and not because of some “fact”. Second question is about propaganda. You see, if any kind of relative truth is given to masses as an absolute truth – this is propaganda. People should not believe in “global warming” – like they believe in afterlife, or heaven. They should learn the risks and impact. And propaganda replaces knowledge with beliefs. But this is of course just my thoughts and another subjective truth.

[profpr.livejournal.com]

An example. I am going to the gym to prevent health problems in the future. I don’t like doing that, I hate paying my club fees, and I don’t care much about my body, letting those who have no other accomplishments to at least be proud of their great bodies. Why do I go to the gym then? Is it a fact that if I stop going to the gym I will get sick? Probably not. But I know that there are risks of getting sick and I am going to the gym because of that risks. And I usually feel myself better after a workout, which supports my conclusions.

[alpheratz.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with that. However, it appears to me that when we talk about global warming, or climate change, we conflate several different ideas. There is the fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average temperature have been steadily rising. It is not propaganda to point it out because it is true. Then there is the matter of tying this fact to CO2 emission in industrialised nations. I'm not sure how rock-solid this link is, but as I understand it, it's pretty well-established. (Am I correct?) Then, as you say, there is the fact of the acute risk of the planet and our civilization suffering grave consequences if we don't do enough to reduce CO2 emissions. So when people (i.e. laypeople, which is what most of us are, including myself) say "global warming is a fact" they don't actually mean that sea levels will inevitably rise, that Europe will inevitably be plunged into an ice age, and that all polar bears will die -- they mean that it's a fact that there is a great *risk* these things will happen. Or they mean it literally -- i.e., average temperatures are rising.

Now, of course, there's the difference between a *fact* and what you say: "the data demonstrate this." There's a big difference, after all, between the statements "If you step off a cliff, you will fall" and "the research shows a steady increase in average global temperature since the Industrial revolution." I'm perfectly willing to treat the findings of the study, especially if there have been many such studies conducted by scientists and agencies with different goals and interests, as fact. I think perhaps this is where the disagreement between people who "believe" in global warming (yes, I hate that word too, sorry) and those who argue against it comes from, though -- they question the scientific method itself.

But anyway, I think we agree. Treating the absolute truth as an absolute truth is not propaganda. Anything that is empirically verifiable is not propaganda. Treating a relative truth as absolute -- I'm not sure. I think for the most part, especially when the government does it, propaganda is the pushing of untruths, or truths taken out of context, to further an agenda. For example, what the Bush Administration does, censoring the EPA over the past six years and editing newspaper articles before they are printed in the interest of increasing their companies' profits, comes much closer to propaganda than anything even the most unscrupulous environmental activist could say or do, not least because they have enough power to control the discourse. Most people won't even listen to the activist. But I'm bitter.

And similarly, according to your own argument, what *you* do isn't propaganda. You don't misrepresent the facts. (And as far as I know, you've never engaged in agitation for any cause, either. Unless that was too long ago for me to remember.)

Sorry, this is insufferably long. I just wanted to express myself better, since you read so much into my original flippant comment. Of course, now you'll probably find more to nitpick. :)

[profpr.livejournal.com]

Well, I will not be picking. Communicating an absolute truth (snow is normally white) isn’t propaganda. Communicating verifiable subjective truth isn’t propaganda, too (we will not discuss what it means – to verify the data). But what about communicating only part of the story? Is it propaganda?
An example. Ok, CO2 release to the atmosphere above say the level of natural sink is wrong. There are technologies right now that are able to reduce this source dramatically at cost of 1-2% GDP in developed nations (Sterns report). Hence it is possible right now to start stabilizing the CO2 level – but it will be impossible without of cooperation from the developing nations. Hence, “Save the Earth – stop Global Warming” effectively translates into “stop the developing nations” and “reduce your paycheck”. Again, telling only one side of the story – is it a propaganda?
And yes, you are right, I never did any agitation or propaganda. Even though sometimes I was getting a bit agitated when talking to my children