How to brainwash a so-called 'science-denier'

Scientific American Magazine was at one time an informative and objective publication.  But in recent times, it has begun turning into a leftist rag, part of the trend toward politicizing science.  Here is the latest example.

In a remarkable article, published online, a professor at Ohio State University has spilled the beans on how you can be brainwashed—so as to, as he puts it, "update" your "beliefs."  Updating means to agree with his position on such so-called facts as global climate change.  You see, if you disagree with him, then you must be a "science denier."

While Professor Tsipursky no doubt believes that his method of gentle persuasion is clever, and far more effective than simply presenting the facts, the technique is quite well known to propagandists, interrogators, and detectives.  One begins by feigning sympathy with the object of the brainwashing, discovering his fears, and then using his weaknesses to present legitimate facts – but in a false light, until the science denier finally gives up his emotional beliefs and accepts the propagandist's (oh, so reasonable) point of view.

It is important to understand how these KGB tactics, in concert with political pressure and the threat of lawsuits, are being used against you.  If you are a meteorologist, a certified weather scientist, then you are probably already aware that your very livelihood has been threatened, by means of revoking your license, unless you toe the party line concerning climate change socialism.  You see, according to the true believers, even a scientist can be a science denier.

Nor is the coercion limited to scientists.  Non-scientists can be subjected to ridicule, ostracism, and even lawsuits.

One of the standard tools of socialist liberals is to show you how foolish your beliefs are by showing you how foolish someone else's beliefs are and then equating their actual errors with your factual analysis.  The article cited above begins with the assumption that climate change doctrine is indeed science, that there can be no legitimate scientific analysis that contradicts it, and that whoever does so is either ignorant or evil.  This closes off the mind of the propagandist to "updating" his own beliefs.  There is never going to be a mutual, two-way discussion with him.  He will tell you that "the debate is over."

One should understand that the term "science-denier" is not innocuous.  It is a slander, by subtle association with the term "Holocaust-denier."  In other words, if you use scientific data to contradict the claims of climate socialists, then you are in the same category as Nazi sympathizers.  The use of that term, "denier," in the title of Tsipursky's article is accusatory, and it reveals the arrogance and judgmental character of the left that prohibit fair debate.

The fact is that many of us who challenge climate change orthodoxy do not deny science.  We do not deny that climate change has been occurring.  We do not even deny that human activity has an effect on the climate.  We simply challenge the claim that socialism is the solution to the problem.

As an aside, what once began as "global cooling" and then flip-flopped into "global warming" has finally been transformed into the equivocal term "climate change," just to prevent further embarrassment when the data (as they will) contradict the socialists.

Matters would be different if the climate sociologists stated objective facts and then included among their suggested remedies free-market innovation, more individual liberties, and greater respect for opposing opinions.  Instead, they advocate for bigger government, more onerous regulation, and threats against those who disagree with them.

As in Tsipursky's article, many socialists kindly suggest that dislocated workers seek careers in so-called "green energy" industries, thus papering over their innate hostility to free markets.  Of course, we agree that green energy industries should be allowed to compete in the free market.  But socialists despise both competition and the free market.  They want green industries to be funded by your tax dollars, to be given artificial advantages over businesses that can compete, even those using clean coal and natural gas.  This idea was expressly given voice by Barack Obama, who vowed to bankrupt the coal industry and to make energy bills skyrocket.

One important thing to know about socialists is that they never, ever give up.  They are always on the lookout for the next big movement to subvert to their own goals.  Climate change is just the latest fad until the next one comes along.  The methodology remains the same, whatever the topic.  They will proffer the rose while brandishing the cudgel.  They are expert practitioners of deception.

Tsipursky's article is aimed at his fellow socialists who masquerade as science-minded do-gooders.  For the rest of us, it unconsciously reveals a condescending mindset, one that regards you as unable to deal with unvarnished, actual facts.  Your stubbornness can be overcome by their appeals to your fears and anxieties.

Don't take my word for it.  Do your own research, and draw your own conclusions.  I doubt you'll hear those words sincerely spoken by any climate socialist, because by "your own conclusions," the socialists mean theirs.