For those of you living in Rio Linda, or Port St Lucie, or you are part of the mainstream media, this means accusing someone of doing exactly what you are doing. I’m certainly not the only person using those words lately to to describe an increasingly troublesome problem with the far-left. They’re being widely used in political analysis, as more of the general public discovers the way people in the far-left political spectrum hurl dubious accusations concerning a variety of controversial social issues. FNC’s Tucker Carlson frequently speaks of it (here, here, etc); a very recent Washington Post headline embodied the ongoing post-2016 election sentiment to comical proportions; a news outlet president essentially states what his own channel does, according to an insider whistle blower; a prominent news anchor essentially telegraphed what his own news program reports as gospel truth. Who is routinely caught uttering apparently coordinated talking points, though?? Oops. Twice. Three times. …. this could go on for hours regarding controversial social issues.
Then there’s the specific global warming issue, where I can add a bit more setup before hammering my point home ….
An enviro-activist created a smartphone gamer app which included a part on how to identify “fake experts” from the skeptic side of the issue who have no science expertise. Oops. Basically a giant arrow pointing where the most prominent ‘experts’ with no science expertise are actually found.
Meanwhile, from President Obama’s science czar John Holdren,
… Another problem is that a denier can tell a lie in a single sentence that takes a scientist three paragraphs to rebut, but the scientist never gets the three paragraphs in the sound bite culture that our media represent. And so, the denialists, even though they are small in number, they have no credible arguments, very few of them have any scientific credentials, get attention out of all proportion to their credentials ….
Problem there is, the collective side of the notion of ‘man-caused catastrophic global warming’ can be distilled into a single sentence of “the science is settled, fossil fuel industry executives colluded with skeptic climate scientist ‘shills’ to spread lies about it being unsettled, thus reporters aren’t obligated to give fair media balance to skeptics because of those first two points.” But with regard to that first point, how many paragraphs have people on Holdren’s side been given at places like the PBS NewsHour, compared to to skeptic scientists?
And while the bit within this ABC News Nightline program dates all the way back to 1994, concerning a scientist who subsequently got free rein to speak without opposition about the issue at the NewsHour ….
…. simply reversing a couple of his words there illustrates what the eco-left really means, and what they’ve been trying to accomplish this entire time:
What they’ve done, is try to take political opinion and try to put it on the same level as scientific understanding. After all, if political opinion is the same as scientific understanding, then everybody’s opinion is equally valid.
Meaning, the collective far-left’s overgeneralized opinion that “human activity = harm to the environment” is tantamount to being scientific fact that mandates immediate action to stop this harm. This kind of reasoning is actually both anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, arguably an ‘alternative universe’ kind of rationale.
Now, regarding the ‘rationale’ of arguments …
… we have lots of evidence of funding driving non-science fake front groups and blogging dissemination using a wide variety of rhetoric and logical fallacy driven talking points.
… read some of the comments by deniers right here on this article. Several of them appear to have some serious mental issues. .. It’s as if their minds are in some alternative universe sometimes.
That latter comment coming from a fellow who never could provide evidence at his blog proving skeptics are paid to misinform the public, who additionally veered into an alternate universe notion that my elemental challenges (plural) to provide such basic evidence were threats of lawsuit action against him.
Finally, 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden only compounds this overall psychological projection problem when he suggests jail time for fossil fuel executives, oblivious to the direction his accusation points. Then there’s this one, regarding accusations about funding climate science disinformation,
The fossil fuel industry has always been the biggest obstacle for change. We need to do everything that we can to break their political and financial grip on our system.
Of all the psychological projection out there, that’s an arrow the size of Texas pointing out which side of the issue actually needs to be investigated and quite possibly prosecuted. The clique of influential enviro-activists who’ve been promulgating character assassination disinformation, possibly committing epic libel/slander in the process, have arguably hindered informed decision-making about environmental policy for the last twenty years, abetted by politically slanted journalistic malfeasance from the mainstream media.
Hold someone accountable for global warming disinformation? Enviro-activists are basically pointing right back at themselves.
Considering how increasingly abundantly obvious that the far-left’s psychological projection regards what they do, we should embrace their demand about accountability.