Sunday, July 21, 2019

On denialism

Others have already pointed out the substantive recklessness of Brian Pallister's refusal to accept federal funding for climate projects in the education system. But Pallister's choice of wording - that of a "hoax" - may be even more significant than the money involved.

After all, the "hoax" terminology is entirely familiar within discourse about climate change. From Donald Trump to Ezra Levant, Breitbart to the Friends of Science, merchants of doubt about settled climate science have regularly used the word to attack the reality of climate change.

And in case one wanted to pretend there's some difference in context, the word is no more accurate when advanced by Pallister than in the regular spewing of outright climate denialism.

The federal government is in fact collecting revenue; it is in fact making money available for education systems; Pallister is in fact rejecting it. There's no hoax here by any rational definition of the term - raising the question as to why Pallister is choosing to use such a loaded word in the context of his government's position on the climate crisis.

While there are a few possible explanations for Pallister's choice to echo the preferred wording of the climate death cult, it's hard to see how any would be anything but a gross condemnation of his leadership.

Is he deliberately targeting his message toward the prejudices and misinformation of climate change denialists? Or is the information he's currently choosing to hear on climate issues so grossly slanted that he can't begin to discuss climate policy without turning into Anthony Watts on stilts?

Either way, Pallister looks to be going further than ever before in rejecting even his own government's recognition of facts to reinforce the message of Canada's gang of climate vandals. And Manitoba voters should take note of his extremism before allowing him to keep turning away funding for community priorities in the name of climate destruction.

1 comment:

  1. These guys recognize anthropogenic global warming; they just won't do what is necessary to deal with it. I think we have to redefine denial from refusing to recognize global warming to refusing to recognize the urgency.