Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 01:22:04 PM EST
The article of V. Klaus about dangerous enviromentalism as some sort of dangerous communism threatening our freedoms has generated a heated debate about how to beat back this kind of discourse which floods our public discourse.
As jerome points out, they are relentless, they know their stuff and they know how to put narratives and histories behind...we also know how to do it.. but we just do not have the media.
But beside screeaming again "buy Media for Xsakes" I would like to address here the scientific implications of this kind of articles... please follow me below and provide inputs for my answer to Klaus article
I think the narrative I want to push in this diary (aimed to scientists initially but to all the "rational people" at the end) is encapsualted in the question I present here. I will put it in the FT after all is set and done It is tough to make a narrative in a question.. but with some "tales tricks" I manage to get that...
My question would be the following: how can I convince my fellow scientists (yeah I am one of those nasty hippie-communist scientists poised to destroy your freedoms... or whatever) that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that the second law of thermodynamics should not exist, that HIV has no virus origin and that global warming is either a hoax or, at most, would produce minor problems, are not just fringe lunatics but also very powerful people interested in a pre-Enlightenment world?
It is very difficult to convince them that some people in your group are not lunatic but have a clear agenda to discredit science and enlightenment values. A world where facts do not exist (it is just "scientific consensus"), evidence is irrelevant (because, oh my Lord... scientific ideas depend on a "minority who speaks louder") and where words like "freedom" and "liberty" are twisted to favour one's particular religion (in the case of the author a particular deluded version of economic and human reality) when confronting any bothersome fact, are the common talking points of people pushing the narrative you present in the article.
But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientifically handicapped person. What can I do to convince them that you are really serious about what you are saying? How can I convince them that you really mean it, that you really want to explain to the world that those pesky facts are nothing to worry about, that taking preventive action to prevent highly likely catastrophes is dangerous enviromentalism, that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time we should not politicize science?
By the way, next time you should also check the internal coherence of the whole article, it really looks like "Science I do not like=politicized science"; "science I like=not politicized science"
I would like, well NEED, input on the substance and on the form...