mpkdavies wrote:-
Quote:
|
Does the detail actually have some facts in it, or just meaningless propaganda like this link?
|
To me it’s thoroughly fact-based, although many of the suggestions of what should be done are based on a much more ‘extreme’ viewpoint (i.e. the situation is actually very much worse than many people are aware of). I don’t necessarily agree with some of these.
But to a person who can’t accept, for what ever reason, that GW is real and is largely caused by mankind’s activities, it would be interpreted as ‘meaningless propaganda’. (
They would say that, wouldn't they). In other words, those people who think it’s ‘ meaningless propaganda’ are in psychological ‘denial’
Unionist wrote:-
Quote:
|
but I find the use of the term denial offensive…. & at the very least suggesting irrationality.
|
Well, I didn’t coin the word ‘denial’, or deniers, or denial-ers or doubters or sceptics or any other word used in the context of the GW debate, or to describe those people who don’t subscribe to the comprehensive majority world view on other topics. In this case it is being used in a classic psychological context. People can be in ‘denial’ of many situations. As you’ve suggested like Holocaust deniers (are you one of those? If not do you worry about calling one of them that?) – what about alcohol / drug abusers, smokers, Diana’s death, in fact pretty much any conspiracy theorist, etc etc.
I understand that the first step in recognising that one has a problem is to confront the ‘denial’. As for ‘irrational’ well that’s a 2 edged sword – used by both sides in every debate to describe the opposition viewpoint.
I could say that mpkdavies’ use of the words ‘gullable sheeple’ is an insult to, again, the vast majority of people who don’t share his viewpoint, and are very likely a damn sight more intelligent and better informed than him, on this and many other subjects.
If these terms make you uncomfortable I’m sure people of the other view could use much more offensive terms
In the same magazine, is another article:-
http://www.theecologist.co.uk/archiv...content_id=684
deriding the governments response to the Stern report. Of course you may not agree with the doomsday scenario suggested therein but there’s ammunition for you to vent your spleens at Blair/Brown. Also, well down in the article is:-
Quote:
|
Sweden, without a whimper, has set a course to become oil-free by 2020, with attendant costs to society. Germany, without a whimper, is changing its power supply to wind-generation. These are adult countries, where the electorate is kept aware of the pressing issues of peak oil and energy security alongside climate change. Stern’s review has highlighted the fact that in the UK, as a society we have over the past two decades been rendered politically illiterate by successive governments that have found it convenient to infantilise us.
|
Why can’t we do things like that in the UK?