![]() For more ‘professional’-looking groups, I’ve so far just called them “think-tanks”, but maybe I’ll start calling them “noise merchants”. Personally, I use the term “inactivists” to describe those who argue religiously against climate regulation - including your climate crank next door. They’re also illusionists, trying their best to conjure up an apparition of large-scale opposition to ‘warmist science’ from the public / scientific community / industry etc. How can we sum up these organizations in two or three words, without denouncing conservatism or insulting the more responsible organizations that would fall into the same category? Any ideas?Ĭalling them “front groups” may be troublesome, because front groups are supposed to front for, well, some other person or group of people, and the evidence that the groups are fronting for someone else is often either murky or hard to explain.īut there’s no doubt that groups like HI and CEI are noise merchants, blaring out their talking points through their metaphorical megaphones at every opportunity. ![]() An audience of high school students wouldn’t grasp the character of Heartland et al simply by hearing that phrase. I find that somewhat hilarious, but it requires a little back story. Martin Vermeer suggested “dark Satanic mills”. ![]() They’re very pro-selective-science, such as science from the 1700s when a link between CO2 and temperature hadn’t been established, or discredited science like the initial satellite readings. Additionally, these groups are not completely anti-science. The former is simply a consequence of the latter, and is not present in all of their objectives, eg health care. Their ultimate purpose is not to deny science, but to advance a certain political agenda. A similar problem is present with the term “free-market fundamentalists”.Ī friend of mine suggested “anti-science advocacy groups”. It only becomes a problem when it leads to the denial of science. There’s nothing wrong with being conservative. It better describes their purpose, but it seems to imply that since these conservative think tanks are so despicable, there’s something wrong with conservatism in the first place. I’m also unsure about the term “conservative think tanks”. It’s an insult to PR firms to label Heartland et al as PR firms. But they don’t even use PR responsibly, as Jim Hoggan explains in his new book, Climate Cover-Up (review coming soon). ![]() No, their purpose isn’t research, but PR. It’s an insult to classical think tanks, like the Center for a New American Security, to label Heartland et al as think tanks. These as-yet-unnamed organizations do provide some research about climate change, but it’s full of the most elementary mistakes, obviously designed to mislead the reader. But they don’t really fulfill the purposes of think tanks, which are supposed to provide independent research to advise the government on policy issues. What can we call organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Fraser Institute, and so many others? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |