Today we move to the public discussion; in my lecture on Thursday the 14th in Berlin, the cliche-use of the ‘Conspiracy Theory’-meme (‘Verschworungs-Theorie’) was used to discredit my social respectabillity; it means that you are framed as a non-rational nutter. And it is damaging for your reputation to be associated with presenting certain views.
Just like the ‘denier’-meme put on those who criticize climate alarmism, to frame just criticism with those who deny the mass murder on Jews by Himmler’s SS. Or look at the current frame of ‘fake news’, as if incorrect reporting is a new phenomenon caused by New Media. While instead it is as old as journalism itself and government propaganda selling the war in Iraq with ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Media have always been used as weapons of mass deception.
We ‘frame’ each-other continuously if curiousity is not the driver of a discusssion but status anxiety, and the accompanying desire to ‘win’ the argument and aquire power/money.
This debating-strategy of framing (Verschworungs-Theorie, soll’n Sie nicht glauben) confirms the core of my thesis; marketing-techniques, framing also dominates the public sphere, and ‘green’ energy is a key example. The image of ‘green’ energy is not based on ‘fact’ but on ‘framing’. The common denominator is not it’s environmental benefit, but that tax-money is needed to compensate for it’s inadeqacy as energy-source.
The German name should therefore be Steuer-Strom.
A land-owner receives 85 thousand euro’s of subsidies per windturbine erected in a forest or agricultural land. The government (the bootlegger) pays tax-money for destructive behaviour. It therefore needs the baptists (green NGO’s) and subsidises these environmentalists to provide a moral higher ground for destructive and irresponsible behaviour.
It is an obvious truism that destroying green and killing animals for energy-industry is not ‘green’.
Nevertheless cutting forests to burn them (biomass) or to erect wind-industry is justified by the ‘green’ movement because they are under a ‘spell’ of marketing. No rationality of ‘science’ is involved there, but psychological manipulation. They claim that 1+1 = 3 and that black is white because The Green Party tells them. Therefore THEY ARE IMMORAL and irresponsible persons, and morality is the level that we debate, also if we believe of ourselves we are not.
One must be aware of this Harry Potter-kind of manipulation-technique to neutralize it. With a limited definition of what ‘facts’ are (pe 1.3 bat per turbine or 2.x bird per y forest) it is unlikely that ‘the spell’ of ‘green’ energy is broken.
Showing that the ‘greens’ are power hungry and public money-grabbing liars, immoral criminals may sometimes be more to the point and truthfull than claiming that the red kite is under threat with a selection of scientific data. After all, if one shows that the Red Kite may suffer from wind-turbines, one can easily show a graph that demonstrates that the national population has increased from the ’80s
If one believes that ‘the science’ will convince the masses (the electorate) of the moral madness of destroying forest-habitats in the name of ‘green’ energy, one may find himself trapped in a world-view that is not in accordance with reality. If one believes ‘the facts’ should convince, one is not factual but defending a MORAL, idealist position and thus debate on an other level than one claims. In an ideal world we SHOULD base decisions on facts.
The obvious fact is that this does not happen with energy-industry framed as ‘green’ after 25 years of marketing by ngo’s funded with billions of euro’s of tax-payers money. (the content of my lecture) Facts alone will not break the spell, before the damage done is being FELT and anger arises.
Framing- techniques (positive and negative) are so omnipresent in our production society that people do not even notice them. On the individual level, technical facts may convince.
But it is doubtfull, that on group-level the same applies. More than ‘evidence’ it is ‘social authority’ and personal energy that makes views accepted in groups (On individual level, people can be more rational, see Gustave le Bon). Evidence, logic and facts play minor roles in convincing people. (which- ofcourse- is NOT to say that THUS you don’t need them)
So being less trained in the art of persuasion was a problem (together with being not a native speaker), not the fact that I have my facts right. A speaker in public is the pack leader for 30 minutes. And if members of the pack sense a weakness or distaste, they will rebel in the discussion attacking your 30 minute legitimacy as pack leader.
With controversial and unfamiliar content, this is to be expected; you do not immediately convince 100%, more like 50/50.
To my (idealistic) view, we would focus more on the historical facts summed up that (i tried to) paint into a coherent picture; Environmentalism, a globalist worldview has been advanced by a relatively small elite of ‘big philantropy’ through international conventions (United Nations, World Economic Forum, Business Elites and their think tanks), through the use of NGO-marketing and mass-media.
These conventions and regulations are forced unto nation-states through dictates like ‘The Paris Accord’, and enforced by unelected bureaucrats; from the ’90s onwards one can more and more say that EU-countries evolved from national democracies to globalist bureaucracies. Here un-elected bureaucrats, government- and billionaire sponsored academics and NGO’s dictate the direction of national policies.
The current populist revolt of pe the yellow vests is against this globalism, that under the name of ‘climate’ is now allowing the destruction of natural areas, with a taboo on any cost-benefit analysis. So more than the analysis itself, the TABOO is the most interesting part. How do you create this social tipping point?
There was no ‘democracy’ involved, but govermental officials, academics, green NGO’s and billions of euro’s of public and private money to ‘buy’ public opinion with ‘greens’ acting as controlled opposition for an internationalist-agenda (globalism, of pe World Economic Forum, co-founded by the same person who founded the UNEP and was Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit; Maurice Strong )
The Pavlov-reaction of those who base their world views on mass media and the most popular/familiar views confirms the main point of my lecture; for convincing the masses through mass media, facts, reason and evidence (is it 2,3 birds per turbine or 3,1 bats per park) do not matter; though ideally they SHOULD.
Also those combating windfarm development in nature are firstly motivated on an other level, one that makes them human.
Facts have never mattered in the non-debate on ‘renewables’, nor have cost-benefit-analyses been made on renewables. It has been sold succesfully with a century old marketing-technique from the ’70s onwards.(appeal to authority, and appeal to emotion)
The trick known from mass psychology; People – and especially journalists/politicians- judge ‘truth’ not by reason and (historical) evidence, but by appeal to social authority and social respectability.
If politicians like Tony Blair can sell wars to the public based on lies that were parroted by all mass media (weapons of mass destruction), and this has been done since the Creel Commission (1917) selling the First World War to Americans… then, is it logic to believe that ‘the science’ has convinced the massmedia and their politicians, or that multi-billion euro’s of marketing-money and known marketing-strategy did the trick?
When ‘conspiracy theory’ is framed as ‘quality journalism’
If pe Jane Mayor writes a book (Dark Money) claiming that ‘The Koch Brothers’ have shaped ‘the neo-liberal’ agenda through their money, and buy ‘dissent’ on climate change, than her shallow thinking is welcomed as ‘quality journalism’ by The New York Times. The same applies to the ‘Merchants of Doubt’-theorem advocated by ‘historian’ Naomi Oreskes. Journalist-interviews do rarely uncover evidence, but reveal how people want to think about themselves, or how other people want to think of others.
Truth is then arrived at by appeal to authority and appeal to majority. Here ‘the majority’ is the authority, the dictatorship of the masses. (might is right) Everybody wants to believe ‘I am good’, connected to the authority;
This is why the Baptists are sponsored by the Bootleggers.
To make them feel morally good about themselves, and to greenwash their business model of ‘private profit from public spending’ (sustainable development). Their mutual support is better explained by game theory than by an idealistic notion of ‘democracy’, let alone the (absent) quality of mainstream-journalism. The profession of journalism as a source of reliable information to inform correct decisions is grossly over-estimated.
Ofcourse journalists believe they and their media cannot be missed for a society to function.
What people (want to) believe of themselves is not evidence.
My approach is that I use game theory, knowledge of various ideologies and the Follow the Money-trail. I also apply basic knowledge of human behaviour. Every thinking person who saw ‘the world’ and survived 40 years living among Homo sapiens has earned his phd in ‘social science’. (a branch of human biology)
By looking as a natural scientist to people, their own convictions/ vocalisations matter less than the outcomes of these convictions: Who benefits…. Being unfamiliar with layers of evidence, is also not proof of the absence of it’s influence on popular convictions. (the ‘Verschworungs-theory’-meme, serves to discourage independent thinking by fear of social exclusion; since I do not care any longer that people do not want to like me, i do not care.)
Avoiding misunderstanding in heated debates; 4-level-approach
My appeal would be to look at the evidence as it is, have an open mind, instead of being afraid of your opponents, how they will frame you. If people decided they do not want to like you and frame you, no rational discussion will change their views anyway.
Next to technical calculations, one ALSO uses a more historical approach tot the way Globalist Environmentalism has established itself. My approach DOES NOT EXCLUDE other approaches to the environmental debate. Thus people with other approaches need not fear that I invade their territory (area of expertise and thus social authority) and take their social respectability from them on which their livelihood is based (pe academics living on government funding, needing popular support for public spending ).
Views are open for falsification and if facts presented are incorrect; show it! Calling some-one a nutter may not be convincing to change views based on 10 years of (international) research and study. Try harder!
As I have explained, one must realise that discussion on environmental topics is always layered in 4 levels:
- The Technical/scientific debate (how much is it, what is measured, what is the evidence)
- The Economic Debate, how much good can be done per euro (the Lomborg-approach)
- The Ideological Debate, what do people desire for themselves and the world (the starting point of all marketing)
- The Political Debate, should measures be taken topdown (political, collectivist) or bottom up (market, individualist)
Pe, if we debate public expenses of ‘green’ energy and it’s ecological damage, (level 2; cost-benefit) this does not say ANYTHING about the credibility of the IPCC (Working Group 1). Though one may start at level 2, to question the weight of evidence supporting Climate Alarmism (level 1) that is used to sell the ‘policy at all cost’-approach (level 2)
If we do not recognise on what level we are debating, we end up in mutual mis-understanding and mix technical questions with ideological ones, and personal desires under the cloak of ‘the science’. If the strategy of some is ‘attacking the science’ of Climatology, they should also realise they are in the business of ‘attacking it’s social authority’. (Level 3)
And that their opponents realise this technique immediately; here the ’97 % of all scientists’-meme is more effective than debating the accuracy of claims about tenths of degrees of a quantity that is a statistical artefact (Average Global Temperature)
Then they not only operate on level 1, but also level 3; they believe the social authority of the science should be lowered by questioning the evidence.
In doing so, their world view can be sold to more convincingly to a public that is largely ignorant of scientific practice, also within modern academia.
Science or Scientism?
This ignorance of science is however not a ‘problem’. But also an invitation, to not let us be intimidated by the social authority that the academic establishment has clothed itself in. This authority is employed, to justify billion’s of euro’s of public spending for questionable public outcomes in many, if not most fields (Mention one invention of ecology in the last 50 years with public benefits?)
The belief that ‘the science’ is the only real way to ‘truth’ is not science, but a religious faith dating from ‘Enlightenment’-radicals; Scientism. That is also LEVEL3; believing that ‘The Better World’ wil come if ‘the experts’ decide topdown (level 4) what direction humans should go. Here you confuse The Tool that science is, with the intent with which it is used.
Ordinary people (Level 4 bottom up) do not rely on academia to find out what is Beauty, Truth. They not need to know what is the ‘endorfine-content’ in their blood-vessels to know what are the Human Values they want to defend, who their loved ones are. They do not want to be reduced to ‘optimised systems’ and ‘human resources’. It is also this LEVEL3-part that the environmentalists have based their political might on with their multi-billion-euro marketing
- ; What do you desire for this world?
If those critical of the Green Establishment do not find an inspiring alternative to the story woven around environmentalism (‘caring for future generations, our children, the poor, oppressed species); they fight the losing battle with reason and facts on their side. For you cannot steal a world view from political groups – their motivating energy and instincts- and offer an ideological vacuum in return.
Les us be honest to ourselves
Therefore, our Ecomodernism-group wrote it’s book to offer an alternative approach celebrating human ingenuity, an approach that Michael Miersch has also taken in his books. However, this approach (level 1 and 2) does not answer where we as humanity want to go or where to return to, the meaning of our lives.
Neither can you deny the elefant in the room, that you operate on level 3 posed as ‘scientific objectivity’, if you claim only ‘science’ should decide what is ‘right’. Do you mean logic, trial&error and evidence? Or ‘use the authority of science to intimidate non-academics’? People are not stupid and see through that by instinct.
It is a political trick to reduce democratic debate on human values to the realm of ‘the experts’. The tool of science is neutral like a hammer or shaving apparatus. But the intent with which it is used, it’s social authority in debates or it’s findings are accepted is not…
Conclusion; Recognise the starting point that you debate from
From an arrogant view (scientists are the arbiters of truth, with ‘unscientific’ as the equivalent of the ‘sinner’) springs the conviction that ‘emotions’ are somehow a testimony of non-professionalism, as opposed to ‘scientific infallibility’.
Why is it wrong to show – guided by reason and awareness– that you are a living human being, not a robot? Confusing the (obvious) need for professional capabilities with the need for a detached view on reality and human values- IN ALL AREAS- is not ‘neutral’, but rooted in a world view shared by Environmentalism.
Technocracy and scientism. The belief that a detached and technical view alone will lead to The Better World. Classical Utopianism.
In it’s extremes, this detached world view posing as ‘science’ leads to the anti-social behaviour seen in secular totalitarian systems of the 20th century, slaughter in the name of historical empiricism (international socialism) or social darwinism (national socialism).
Science is a tool, not a goal in itself. As soon as tools become The Goal, than humans are degraded to tools.
Science is only handled well by those who have a DESIRE to know the truth. (level 3) We defend raptors and wildlife for our LOVE of the natural world (level 3). And for the delight it brings to our lives filled with ills, death, taxation, bureaucracy, and misery in general. Fortunately, we can drink beer together and enjoy our shared fate. Laugh at ourselves, instead of hating others who confirm our hidden notion of personal infirmity in the light of eternity..
Those posing as ‘the science’ might even find themselves trapped in the same ideological world view as their opponents (scientism, idealism). But then with less adherents and money. Thus the 4-level-approach may offer outcomes that safe our countries from the cultural revolution that the green ideology is creating; thus if ‘listening to the public’ is ‘populism’, why be afraid of the P-word.
Is populism more dangerous than ‘the market’-philosophy based on the same idea; that the collectivity of individuals create better worlds by rational self interest? (Level 4) Or has ‘Populism’ suffered from more negative marketing in the globalist Mass Media, while ‘the market’ gained more academic stature through (globalist) economists?